English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background   Comparisons of birth outcomes between Australian Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations show marked inequalities. These comparisons obscure Indigenous disparities. There is much variation in terms of culture, language, residence, and access to services amongst Australian Indigenous peoples. We examined outcomes by region and remoteness for Indigenous subgroups and explored data for communities to inform health service delivery and interventions.Methods   Our population-based study examined maternal and neonatal outcomes for 7,560 mothers with singleton pregnancies from Australia’s Northern Territory Midwives’ Data Collection (2003–2005) using uni- and multivariate analyses. Groupings were by  Indigenous  status; region ( Top End  ( TE ) /Central Australia  ( CA ));  Remote/Urban  residence; and across two large  TE  communities.Results   Of the sample, 34.1% were Indigenous women, of whom 65.6% were remote-dwelling versus 6.7% of non-Indigenous women. In comparison to  CA Urban  mothers:  TE Remote  (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.47, 95%CI: 1.13, 1.90) and  TE Urban  mothers (aOR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.80) were more likely, but  CA Remote  mothers (aOR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.58) less likely to smoke during pregnancy;  CA Remote  mothers giving birth at >32 weeks gestation were less likely to have attended ≥ five antenatal visits (aOR 0.55; 95%CI: 0.36, 0.86);  TE Remote  (aOR 0.71; 95%CI: 0.53, 0.95) and  CA Remote  women (aOR 0.68; 95%CI: 0.49, 0.95) who experienced labour had lower odds of epidural/spinal/narcotic pain relief; and  TE Remote  (aOR 0.47; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.66),  TE Urban  (aOR 0.67; 95%CI: 0.46, 0.96) and  CA Remote  mothers (aOR 0.52; 95%CI: 0.35, 0.76) all had lower odds of having a ‘normal’ birth. The aOR for preterm birth for  TE Remote  newborns was 2.09 (95%CI: 1.20, 3.64) and they weighed 137 g (95%CI: -216 g, -59 g) less than  CA Urban  babies. There were few significant differences for communities, except for smoking prevalence.Conclusions   This paper is one of few quantifying inequalities between groups of Australian Indigenous women and newborns at a regional level. Indigenous mothers and newborns do worse on some outcomes if they live remotely, especially if they live in the  TE . Smoking prevention and high-quality antenatal care is fundamental to addressing many of the adverse outcomes identified in this paper.

A population-based investigation into inequalities amongst Indigenous mothers and newborns by place of residence in the Northern territory, Australia