Bridgette J McNamara1, Emily Banks2,3, Lina Gubhaju1, Grace Joshy3, Anna Williamson2, Beverley Raphael4, Sandra Eades1. 1. Aboriginal Health, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Victoria. 2. The Sax Institute, New South Wales. 3. National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Australian Capital Territory. 4. Psychological and Addiction Medicine, The Australian National University, Australian Capital Territory.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore factors associated with high psychological distress among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians and their contribution to the elevated distress prevalence among Aboriginal people. METHODS: Questionnaire data from 1,631 Aboriginal and 233,405 non-Aboriginal 45 and Up Study (NSW, Australia) participants aged ≥45 years were used to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios for high psychological distress (Kessler-10 score ≥22) for socio-demographic, health and disability-related factors, and to quantify contributions to differences in distress prevalence. RESULTS: While high-distress prevalence was increased around three-fold in Aboriginal versus non-Aboriginal participants, distress-related risk factors were similar. Morbidity and physical disability had the strongest associations; high distress affected 43.8% of Aboriginal and 20.9% of non-Aboriginal participants with severe physical limitations and 9.5% and 3.9% of those without limitations, respectively. Differences in distress prevalence between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants were essentially attributable to differences in SES, morbidity, disability/functional limitations and social support (fully-adjusted PR 1.19 [95% 1.08, 1.30]); physical morbidity and disability explained the bulk. CONCLUSIONS: The markedly elevated prevalence of high distress among older Aboriginal Australians appears largely attributable to greater physical morbidity and disability. Implications for public health: Addressing upstream determinants of physical morbidity and improved integration of social and emotional wellbeing care into primary care and chronic disease management are essential.
OBJECTIVE: To explore factors associated with high psychological distress among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians and their contribution to the elevated distress prevalence among Aboriginal people. METHODS: Questionnaire data from 1,631 Aboriginal and 233,405 non-Aboriginal 45 and Up Study (NSW, Australia) participants aged ≥45 years were used to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios for high psychological distress (Kessler-10 score ≥22) for socio-demographic, health and disability-related factors, and to quantify contributions to differences in distress prevalence. RESULTS: While high-distress prevalence was increased around three-fold in Aboriginal versus non-Aboriginal participants, distress-related risk factors were similar. Morbidity and physical disability had the strongest associations; high distress affected 43.8% of Aboriginal and 20.9% of non-Aboriginal participants with severe physical limitations and 9.5% and 3.9% of those without limitations, respectively. Differences in distress prevalence between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants were essentially attributable to differences in SES, morbidity, disability/functional limitations and social support (fully-adjusted PR 1.19 [95% 1.08, 1.30]); physical morbidity and disability explained the bulk. CONCLUSIONS: The markedly elevated prevalence of high distress among older Aboriginal Australians appears largely attributable to greater physical morbidity and disability. Implications for public health: Addressing upstream determinants of physical morbidity and improved integration of social and emotional wellbeing care into primary care and chronic disease management are essential.
Authors: Simon O Ichumar; Emma E Dahlberg; Ellen B Paynter; Fiona M C Lucey; Miranda R Chester; Lennelle Papertalk; Sandra C Thompson Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-03-17 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Russell Roberts; Caroline Johnson; Malcolm Hopwood; Joseph Firth; Kate Jackson; Grant Sara; John Allan; Rosemary Calder; Sam Manger Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-17 Impact factor: 4.614