Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Wigglepus t1_ix9s80c wrote

Is there research that shows markedly different health outcomes for Aboriginal people living in urban areas vs those living in rural areas? Are these trends markedly different for Aboriginal people than for the general population?

I don't know anything about Australian health care but in most places rural people tend to have worse health outcomes due to limited access to care. So we should expect to see worse outcomes for rural Aboriginal population as well. However, if boarder crossing is a significant issue health outcomes should be disproportionately worse for rural Aboriginal people vs urban Aboriginal people when compared to the overall urban/rural populations. I.e. difference in outcomes for urban Aboriginal Australian and rural Aboriginal Australian is greater than difference in outcomes for urban non-Aboriginal Australian and rural non-Aboriginal Australian.

1

hidden-shadow t1_ixlcnij wrote

Yes, though the remoteness itself is only one factor in the gap. And it is drastically different to the non-Indigenous population. Difference in life expectancy between the two groups is ~8 years but widens in remote to very remote regions to ~14 years. Almost no decrease in non-Indigenous life expectancy across various levels of remoteness.

The 'very remote' indigenous populations tend to 'live on land', in isolated communities separate from the general population. So unlike in urban and regional areas, where facilities are readily available, it often requires even further travel to return to urban hubs for treatment.

So the difference is not a positive indication that crossing cultural borders is a key factor. Whereas historic distrust of government services is well documented.

1