| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE |
At the time of this study, Dale Bramley, Paul Hebert, Leah Tuzzio, and Mark Chassin were with the Department of Health Policy, Mount Sinai Medical School, NY.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Dale Bramley, Waitemata District Health Board, DHB Board Office, Level 1, 15 Shea Terrace, Private Bag 93-503, Takapuna, Auckland Department of Health Policy, Auckland, New Zealand (e-mail: dale.bramley{at}waitematadhb.govt.nz).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Objectives. We compared the health statuses of the indigenous populations of New Zealand and the United States with those of the numerically dominant populations of these countries.
Methods. Health indicators compared included health outcome measures, preventive care measures, modifiable risk factor prevalence, and treatment measures.
Results. In the case of nearly every health status indicator assessed, disparities (both absolute and relative) were more pronounced for Maoris than for American Indians/Alaska Natives. Both indigenous populations suffered from disparities across a range of health indicators. However, no disparities were observed for American Indians/Alaska Natives in regard to immunization coverage.
Conclusions. Ethnic health disparities appear to be more pronounced in New Zealand than in the United States. These disparities are not necessarily intractable. Although differences in national health sector responses exist, New Zealand may be well placed in the future to evaluate the effectiveness of new strategies to reduce these disparities given the extent and quality of Maori-specific health information available.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
In New Zealand, the national health strategy aims to reduce inequalities in health status and to ensure accessible and appropriate services for Maoris, Pacific peoples, and those of low socioeconomic status.3 In the United States, Healthy People 2010 is the federal government’s blueprint for building a healthier nation.4 It is designed to achieve 2 major overarching goals: increasing Americans’ quality of life and years of healthy life and ending racial/ethnic disparities in disease burden.
Our study’s aims were to compare the health status of the indigenous populations of New Zealand and the United States with that of the majority (European/White) populations of these countries over a range of health-related indicators, including health outcomes (i.e., life expectancy, infant mortality, mortality risk ratios), preventive services (i.e., immunization, cervical cancer and breast cancer screening coverage), modifiable risk factors (i.e., smoking, obesity, diabetes), and treatment services (i.e., access to coronary artery bypass grafting, coronary angioplasty, renal transplantation). We discuss gaps in the current availability of health indicator data.
The 2 countries differ in regard to the approaches they are taking to reduce the large disparities in the health status of indigenous populations. There are a number of reasons for these different approaches, including differences in historical understandings of the nature of health disparities, the way in which the health sector is organized, legislative and funding incentives associated with reducing disparities, and the availability of indigenous data to monitor disparities.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
We selected health indicators on the basis of availability of data, impact on health status, meaningfulness, and susceptibility to influence by the health system.5 We used the most recent, representative, and comparable data available. Although these data are not always directly comparable between the 2 countries, they do fairly assess the differences that exist within countries in terms of the racial/ethnic groups examined. (Details on the data sources used are available from the first author.)
Health Outcome Measures
New Zealand data on life expectancy at birth and infant mortality were obtained from the country’s Ministry of Health.6,7 US data for these measures were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and the Indian Health Service (IHS), an agency housed within the US Department of Health and Human Services.8–10
The mortality measures we used in our comparisons were those accounting for the leading causes of death in the 2 countries,11,12 including lung, bowel, cervical, breast, and prostate cancers; ischemic heart disease; cerebrovascular disease; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; suicide; diabetes; HIV; and homicide. Mortality data for New Zealand are compiled by the New Zealand Health Information Service,11 and causes of death are defined according to International Classification of Diseases (ICD; 9th revision) codes. Mortality data for the United States are compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics,13 which uses codes from the ICD, 10th revision, to identify causes of death. (Details on the ICD codes used in the present analyses are available from the first author.)
In the case of both countries, we used crude data to calculate 1999 mortality rates for the indigenous and majority populations by primary cause of death. In addition, we calculated age-adjusted mortality rates using direct standardization14 and weights based on the 1999 New Zealand population. We also conducted analyses using US-based weights and Segi population-based weights,11 and these analyses produced results similar to those presented here. In our study, mortality risk ratios refer to the age-adjusted mortality rate in the indigenous population divided by the age-adjusted rate in the majority population.
Preventive Care Measures
Measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, polio, and hepatitis B immunization data were collected. New Zealand data were derived from the 1996 North Health Survey (the country’s most recent immunization survey)15; US data were derived from the country’s 2001 National Immunization Survey.16
Screening coverage data for New Zealand (for 2002 and 2003) were obtained from the Ministry of Health.17 Breast screening data are presented for women aged 50 to 64 years who had undergone a mammography in the preceding 2 years as part of the country’s national breast cancer screening program. Papanicolaou test data are presented for women aged 20 to 69 years who had undergone testing in the preceding 3 years as part of the national cervical cancer screening program.
Self-reported data on use of screening services in the United States were obtained from the 1998 National Health Interview Survey. Breast cancer screening data are presented for women 40 years or older who had undergone a mammography in the preceding 2 years. Cervical cancer screening data are reported for women 18 years or older who had undergone a Papanicolaou test in the preceding 3 years.4
Modifiable Risk Factors
Smoking prevalence data for New Zealand (among individuals 15 years or older) were derived from a 2001 tobacco use survey.18 Smokers were defined as those who smoked either readymade or "roll-your-own" cigarettes.18 US smoking data (among individuals 18 years or older) were obtained from the 2001 National Health Interview Survey.19 Smokers were defined as those who had smoked 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and who now smoked every day or some days.20
Obesity prevalence data for New Zealand (among those 15 years or older) were obtained from the 2002–2003 New Zealand Health Survey. Adult obesity levels were defined as measured body mass indexes (BMIs) of 30 or above among the majority population and 32 or above among Maoris. Overweight levels were defined as BMIs between 25 and 29 among the majority population and between 26 and 31 among Maoris.21 In the United States, data for White men and women older than 20 years were obtained from the 1999–2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).22 Obesity was defined as a BMI of 30 or above; overweight was defined as a BMI between 25 and 29. The NHANES sampling design does not include American Indians/Alaska Natives living on reservations. Thus, obesity data for American Indians/Alaska Natives were derived from the Strong Heart Survey (data were available for adults aged 45–74 years).23
New Zealand diabetes prevalence data (among those 15 years or older) were obtained from the 1996–1997 New Zealand Health Survey. Prevalence rates were based on self-reported data.24 US diabetes prevalence data (among those 20 years or older) were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and from the IHS.25,26
Treatment Services
The rates we present here are relative rates according to racial/ethnic group membership. We did not calculate absolute values, because medical practice characteristics and access to procedures may vary between the 2 countries. In the United States, no national databases exist containing information on treatment procedures (making any comparison of such services difficult). However, the Medicare program maintains administrative data on all US residents older than 65 years. Therefore, these data were deemed to be the most consistent with those available from New Zealand. We made no distinctions regarding whether the use of particular procedures is appropriate or degrees of overuse or underuse that may exist.
The New Zealand Ministry of Health supplied treatment service data regarding cardiac procedures.27 Renal transplant data were derived from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry.28 US treatment procedure data were derived from published studies involving the Medicare database.29,30
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
). Maori males had a life expectancy 8.9 years less than that of non-Maori males, whereas Maori females had a life expectancy 9.4 years less than that of non-Maori females. In the United States, American Indian/Alaska Native males had a life expectancy 7.4 years less than that of White males, and American Indian/Alaska Native females had a life expectancy 5.8 years less than that of White females.
|
New Zealand and US mortality rates are shown in Table 2. Mortality rates (among members of all racial/ethnic groups) from cerebrovascular disease were higher in New Zealand than in the United States, and mortality rates from most cancers were slightly higher. Mortality rates from ischemic heart disease and suicide were similar in the 2 countries. Mortality rates from diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV, and homicide were lower in New Zealand.
|
The relationships just described are illustrated in Figure 1; the horizontal axis shows the American Indian/Alaska Native–White risk ratio, and the vertical axis shows the Maori/European risk ratio. The vertical and horizontal lines are drawn at a risk ratio of 1.0 (no racial/ethnic difference in mortality risk); the diagonal line is drawn where the US risk ratio equals that of New Zealand (i.e., no difference in racial/ethnic disparities between the countries). It can be seen that most causes of death are above the diagonal line, indicating greater disparities in New Zealand than in the United States. It also can be seen that causes of death tend to be above the horizontal 1.0 risk-ratio line for New Zealand but to the left of the vertical 1.0 risk-ratio line for the United States.
|
). Almost 33% of American Indians/Alaska Natives were smokers, a rate 36% higher than that among White Americans. The highest prevalence of obesity was found among Americans, with 44% and 57% of male and female American Indians/Alaska Natives, respectively, being obese. The diabetes prevalence was higher in the United States, with American Indians/Alaska Natives exhibiting the highest observed overall prevalence (15.3%). In both countries, the indigenous populations exhibited an almost 3-fold higher diabetes prevalence than the majority populations.
|
). However, in the case of measles/mumps/rubella, the highest coverage rate observed was that among American Indians/Alaska Natives. New Zealand children exhibited lower immunization rates than US children, and Maori children had the lowest rates. Self-reported breast and cervical cancer screening coverage rates were lower in New Zealand, and again Maoris exhibited the lowest levels. In New Zealand, the risk ratio for screening coverage (Maori population vs majority) was 0.67 in the case of both breast and cervical cancer. American Indians/Alaska Natives had lower screening coverage rates than Whites. Racial/ethnic differentials were greater in the United States than in New Zealand for breast cancer screening, but the converse was true for cervical cancer screening.
Treatment Services
In regard to access to coronary angioplasty, Maoris underwent approximately 50% fewer procedures than those of European backgrounds, while American Indians/Alaska Natives underwent 25% fewer procedures than White Americans (Table 3). Coronary artery bypass grafting rates were similar among Maoris and New Zealand Europeans, but American Indians/Alaska Natives underwent 20% fewer such procedures than White Americans. Among all people aged 15 to 59 years undergoing dialysis in New Zealand in 2001, 3.6% of Maoris went on to receive transplants, compared with 15.5% of the majority population. Among Americans 55 years or younger undergoing dialysis for end-stage renal failure in 1995, 12.1% of American Indians/Alaska Natives went on to receive transplants, compared with 22.7% of White Americans.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
For example, life expectancy among Maoris increased 27% between 1950 and 1997, from approximately 55 years to 70 years. Recent analyses show that most of this increase took place prior to the mid- 1980s. However, since that period, life expectancy among non-Maoris has continued to rise, while that among Maoris has been mostly static, thus producing a widening in disparities.1
In the United States, life expectancy for American Indians/Alaska Natives increased by 39% between 1940 and 1995, from 51 years to 71 years. Coinciding with this increase, however, has been a parallel increase in mortality rates associated with chronic diseases.31
To date, relatively few studies have involved comparisons across countries of the health status of indigenous peoples with that of numerically dominant populations.32–38 Many of the studies available have originated from Australia, and few have included comparisons with New Zealand Maoris.32,33,35,36 Furthermore, most have reviewed mortality trends only and have not provided wider overviews of health indicators.32,33,36,37
US Successes in Decreasing Disparities
Concerning our findings, of particular interest is the fact that, in the United States, disparities in rates of childhood immunization and cervical cancer screening coverage have largely been eliminated. In the case of immunization, Strine et al. recently noted some of the probable reasons for this success,39 including comprehensive health services provided through the IHS, integrated primary care services provided in collaboration with tribes (e.g., public health nurse home visits, tracking of immunization status of children, and field clinics held at community centers, schools, and reservations), and free vaccines administered through immunization programs. Community outreach programs also exist to reach remote areas.39 New Zealand health policymakers could benefit from studying this approach. New Zealand’s low immunization coverage levels, compounded by a lack of accurate coverage data,40 have been a major public health concern for many years.
Smoking prevalence disparities are also less pronounced in the United States. Although smoking prevalence is high among American Indians/Alaska Natives (33% of the adult population), it is only 36% higher in relative terms than the prevalence among White Americans, whereas smoking prevalence among Maoris are twice the New Zealand European levels (49% of adult Maoris are current smokers). These findings may partially explain why ischemic heart disease and lung cancer mortality rates among American Indians/Alaska Natives are lower than the corresponding Maori rates.
The IHS is likely to have played a significant role in regard to factors that may have contributed to the health gains experienced by American Indians/Alaska Natives.41 This agency is unique in the United States in delivering health care to a specific ethnic group. Such coordinated mechanisms of health care delivery, if provided adequate resources, could potentially lead to dedicated efforts to reduce health care disparities.
The IHS has an annual operating budget of $2.8 billion, contingent on an annual appropriation from Congress and thus susceptible to change. A work group commissioned by the IHS that compared IHS personal health benefits with federal employee health benefit plans estimated that expenditures on IHS services are 46% less than those on federal employee health benefit plans.42 Despite this apparent underfunding of services, the IHS actively seeks to maximize tribes’ involvement in meeting the health needs of the registered American Indian/Alaska Native population and to maximize the health care gains available.
New Zealand Successes in Decreasing Disparities
New Zealand has had particular success in reducing infant mortality rates. From 1950 to 1998, the overall New Zealand infant mortality rate declined from 28 per 1000 births to 6 per 1000. More striking has been the decline in the Maori rate over this same period, from 70 to 8 per 1000 births. Recent reductions in the Maori rate are largely due to the drop in deaths caused by sudden infant death syndrome.43 Infant mortality rates were one of the few health status indicators in which Maoris exhibited "better" health outcomes than American Indians/Alaska Natives, although relative indigenous–majority disparities were greater for Maoris.
Recent data from the New Zealand Ministry of Health suggest that Maoris’ access to coronary artery bypass grafting has increased. This pattern of improvement is encouraging given that previous studies reported large disparities in access to this procedure.44 However, it should be noted that, in the present study, rates were not adjusted for severity, incidence, or appropriateness of treatment.
The New Zealand Health Services have only recently focused on reducing health care disparities experienced by Maoris. This study demonstrates that disparities are large and that there is considerable room for improvement. However, a number of coordinated strategies are now being put in place, including increasing the number of Maori health care providers and health care workers, increasing funding for regions in which there are high levels of deprivation and large numbers of minority residents, requiring health agencies to produce specific strategies for enhancing the health status of Maoris, and increasing Maoris’ presence in terms of governance of the health sector.3,45–47
Data Availability and Methodological Considerations
According to the IHS, 2.6 million American Indians/Alaska Natives reside in the United States. Approximately 60% of these individuals are eligible for health services provided by the IHS.48 Health information on the 40% of American Indians/Alaska Natives not covered by the IHS is largely unavailable. Furthermore, because American Indians/Alaska Natives represent such a small proportion of the overall American population, health surveys undertaken to gather population prevalence data frequently do not have the statistical power to elicit information related to this group. In New Zealand, such problems have largely been eliminated, in part because Maoris represent a significantly higher proportion of the population and in part because of efforts to increase the size of Maori populations sampled in national health surveys.21
It should also be noted that, according to the US Bureau of the Census, 4.1 million people identify themselves as American Indians/Alaska Natives in contrast to the figure of 2.6 million just mentioned.49 The source of this higher figure is the 2000 census; in that year, for the first time, individuals could indicate membership in multiple racial/ethnic groups. Given these differences, there has not been agreement to date as to which population denominator values to use for the American Indian/Alaska Native population. Any change in such denominator values may affect all national health statistics involving American Indians/Alaska Natives (including those described here).
Collection of race/ethnicity-specific health information in the United States is also hampered by the lack of national health databases. Furthermore, many health care providers do not collect such data. New Zealand, by comparison, does not experience such difficulties owing to the establishment of national health data sets that include information on race/ethnicity. To measure progress toward reductions in health disparities, it is essential that quality indigenous health data exist, and the United States would benefit from improvements in the collection of these data.
In terms of methodological considerations associated with our study, several limitations are inherent in any cross-country comparison of health outcome indicators. Data comparability can be problematic, especially in the case of types of treatment, because guidelines, thresholds for action, and medical practice cultures may vary between countries. However, these potential differences do not have an impact on the relative disparities observed among Maoris and American Indians/Alaska Natives in terms of access to the procedures assessed here.
Concerning comparability of mortality data, important issues to consider include differences in ICD coding practices, accuracy of race/ethnicity data within and between countries, and numerator or denominator under-counting among indigenous peoples. In both New Zealand and the United States, studies have shown that there is considerable under-reporting of indigenous deaths and other indigenous health indicators.50–55 Researchers in New Zealand have recently undertaken work designed to better enumerate the magnitude of such problems.50,51 However, we did not use these data; rather, we used 1999 mortality data, which were outside of the scope of the research just mentioned. Comparable data were also not available for American Indians/Alaska Natives.
Another potential limitation of our study is that some of the data relate to national population data sets and some were derived from population samples. In regard to the time periods and age groups for which results are presented, we have attempted to harmonize these data, but there were minor differences.
In the case of all of the data collected, the varying degrees to which the indigenous health information that exists for the 2 countries is complete and accurate are likely to have influenced the findings presented here. It is not possible to quantify the exact amount of the measurement bias that may exist. The data presented here, however, are the most reliable currently available.
Finally, we have not addressed other factors that may affect the relative size of disparities, particularly differences in socioeconomic status. The importance of socioeconomic variables in influencing health outcomes cannot be underestimated, but it was not our aim to explore such differences. Furthermore, because of the lack of available data and differences between countries in variables such as cost of living, income levels, and definitions of poverty and educational achievement, such a comparison would be methodologically difficult.
Conclusions
In the case of nearly every health indicator examined here, disparities experienced by Maoris in New Zealand (both absolute and relative to the majority population) were more pronounced than those experienced by American Indians/Alaska Natives in the United States. This situation is not necessarily intractable, as evidenced by the success of the United States in eliminating disparities in immunization coverage among American Indians/Alaska Natives. Although national health sector responses differ, New Zealand may be well placed in the future to evaluate the effectiveness of policies to reduce disparities given the high levels of Maori-specific health information available and the new strategies being put in place.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We acknowledge the following people who provided advice on or reviews of the article: Rod Jackson (University of Auckland), Nicole Laurie (RAND, Washington, DC), Robin Osborn (Commonwealth Fund, New York), and Dr Anne Beal (Commonwealth Fund).
Note. The views presented here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Commonwealth Fund.
Human Participant Protection
No protocol approval was needed for this study.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Contributors
D. Bramley originated the study; oversaw all aspects of design, analysis, and interpretation; and led the writing of the article. P. Hebert conducted the mortality analysis and assisted with study design and the writing of the article. L. Tuzzio and M. Chassin assisted with design, interpretation, and the writing of the article.
Accepted for publication May 10, 2004.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
2. Zuckerman S, Haley J, Roubideaux Y, Lillie-Blanton M. Health service access, use and insurance coverage among American Indians/Alaska Natives and Whites: what role does the Indian Health Service play? Am J Public Health. 2004;94: 53–59.
3. King A. The New Zealand Health Strategy. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 2000.
4. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2000.
5. Institute of Medicine. Envisioning the National Quality Report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
6. Stefanogiannis N. Provisional Life Expectancy Data, New Zealand, 2001. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 2004.
7. An Indication of New Zealanders’ Health. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 2002. Occasional report 1.
8. Keppel K, Pearcy J, Wagener D. Trends in Racial and Ethnic-Specific Rates for Health Status Indicators: 1990–1998. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2002:1–16.
9. National Center for Health Statistics. United States life tables, 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2002;51(3).
10. Moore B. Life Expectancy: Data Years 1996–1998. Rockville, Md: Indian Health Service; 2001.
11. New Zealand Health Information Service. Mortality and Demographic Data 1999. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 2003.
12. 1999 United States Mortality File. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1999.
13. Hoyert D, Arias E, Smith B, Murphy S, Kochanek K. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. Hyattsville, Md: National Center for Health Statistics; 2001:1–113.
14. Fleiss J. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1981.
15. Immunisation Coverage in North Health: Comparative Results From North Health’s 1996 Immunisation Coverage Survey. Auckland, New Zealand: North Health; 1997.
16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimated vaccination coverage with individual vaccines and selected vaccination series among children 19–35 months of age by poverty level and race/ethnicity, US National Immunization Survey 2001, 2002. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/coverage/NIS/01/TAB32-pov_race.htm. Accessed February 1, 2005.
17. Bloomfield A. Screening Data Coverage for New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 2003.
18. Tobacco Facts 2002. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 2002.
19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette smoking among adults, United States, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:953–956.[Medline]
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics definitions used for tobacco use. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/nchsdefs/cigarettesmoking.htm. Accessed February 1, 2005.
21. A Snapshot of Health: Provisional Results of the 2002/03 New Zealand Health Survey. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 2003.
22. Health, United States, 2002, With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans. Hyattsville, Md: National Center for Health Statistics; 2002:Table 70.
23. Welty T, Rhoades D, Yeh F, et al. Changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors among American Indians: the Strong Heart Study. Ann Epidemiol. 2002;12: 97–106.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
24. Taking the Pulse: The 1996/1997 New Zealand Health Survey. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 1999.
25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diabetes prevalence among American Indians and Alaska Natives and the overall population—United States, 1994–2002. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003; 52:702–704.[Medline]
26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System—diabetes prevalence grouped by race, 2002. Available at: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/race.asp?cat=DB&yr=2002&qkey=1364&state=US. Accessed February 1, 2005.
27. Lambie L. Standardised Discharge Ratios for Coronary Procedures in New Zealand 2002. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 2003.
28. Chadham S. ANZDATA 25th annual report. Available at: http://www.anzdata.org.au/anzdata/AnzdataReport/download.htm#25th%20Report. Accessed February 1, 2005.
29. Eggers P. Racial differences in access to kidney transplantation. Health Care Financing Rev. 1995;17(2): 89–103.[Medline]
30. Eggers P, Greenberg L. Racial and ethnic differences in hospitalization rates among aged Medicare beneficiaries, 1998. Health Care Financing Rev. 2000; 21(4):91–105.[ISI][Medline]
31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cancer mortality among American Indians and Alaska Natives—United States, 1994–1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:704–707.[Medline]
32. Paradies Y, Cunningham J. Placing aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mortality in an international context. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2002;26:11–16.[Medline]
33. Ring I, Firman D. Reducing indigenous mortality in Australia: lessons from other countries. Med J Aust. 1998;169:528–533.[Medline]
34. Michael J, Michael M. Health status of the Australian aboriginal people and the Native Americans—a summary comparison. Asia Pacific J Public Health. 1994;7:132–136.
35. Kunitz S, Brady M. Health care policy for aboriginal Australians: the relevance of the American Indian experience. Aust J Public Health. 1995;19:549–558.[ISI][Medline]
36. Hogg R. Indigenous mortality: placing Australian aboriginal mortality within a broader context. Soc Sci Med. 1992;35:335–346.
37. Trovato F. Aboriginal mortality in Canada, the United States and New Zealand. J Biosoc Sci. 2001;33:67–86.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
38. Ring I, Brown N. Indigenous health: chronically inadequate responses to damning statistics. Med J Aust. 2002;177:629–631.[Medline]
39. Strine T, Mokdad A, Barker L, et al. Vaccination coverage of American Indian/Alaska Native children aged 19 to 35 months: findings from the National Immunization Survey, 1998–2000. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:2046–2049.
40. Turner N, Baker M, Carr J, Mansoor O. Improving immunisation coverage: what needs to be done? N Z Public Health Rep. 2000;7(3/4):11–13.
41. Katz R. Addressing the health care needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:13–14.
42. Frias H. Should Indian health care be an entitlement? IHS Provider. 2003;60:60–64.
43. Statistics New Zealand. Infant mortality 1950–1998. Available at: http://www.stats.govt.nz/looking-past-20th-century/changes-in-society/infant-mortality.htm. Accessed February 1, 2005.
44. Tukuitonga C, Bindman A. Ethnic and gender differences in the use of coronary artery revascularisation procedures in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2002;115:179–182.[Medline]
45. He Korowai Oranga. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 2001.
46. Reducing Inequalities in Health. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 2002.
47. Whakatataka: Maori Health Action Plan 2002–2005. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 2002.
48. Indian Health Service Fact Sheet. Rockville, Md: Indian Health Service; 2003.
49. US Bureau of the Census. The American Indian and Alaska Native population 2000. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01–15.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2005.
50. Blakely T, Robson B, Atkinson A, Sporle A, Kiro C. Unlocking the numerator-denominator bias I: adjustment ratios by ethnicity for 1991–1994 mortality data. The New Zealand Census Mortality Study. N Z Med J. 2002;115:39–43.[ISI][Medline]
51. Blakely T, Kiro C, Woodward A. Unlocking the numerator-denominator bias II: adjustment to mortality rates by ethnicity and deprivation during 1991–94. The New Zealand Census Mortality Study. N Z Med J. 2002;115:43–48.[ISI][Medline]
52. Stehr-Green P, Bettles J, Robertson L. Effect of racial/ethnic misclassification of American Indians and Alaskan Natives on Washington State death certificates, 1987–1997. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:443–444.
53. Frost F, Tollestrup K, Ross A, Sabotta E, Kimball E. Correctness of racial coding of American Indians and Alaska Natives on Washington State death certificates. Am J Prev Med. 1994;10:290–294.[ISI][Medline]
54. Sugarman J, Holliday M, Ross A, Castorina J, Hui Y. Improving American Indian cancer data in the Washington State cancer registry using linkages with the Indian Health Service and tribal records. Cancer. 1996; 78(suppl 7):1564–1568.[Medline]
55. Sugarman J, Lawson L. The effect of racial misclassification on estimates of end-stage renal disease among American Indians and Alaska Natives in the Pacific Northwest, 1988 through 1990. Am J Kidney Dis. 1993;21:383–386.[ISI][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. A. Bennett Cognitive health in indigenous peoples Neurology, November 4, 2008; 71(19): 1466 - 1467. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. C. Lindley, A. V. Groom, P. M. Wortley, and G. L. Euler Status of Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination Among Older American Indians and Alaska Natives Am J Public Health, May 1, 2008; 98(5): 932 - 938. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. V. Groom, M. L. Washington, P. J. Smith, and R. T. Bryan Underimmunization of American Indian and Alaska Native Children Pediatrics, May 1, 2008; 121(5): 938 - 944. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. A. Jones, J. A. Chilton, R. A. Hajek, N. K. Iammarino, and L. Laufman Between and Within: International Perspectives on Cancer and Health Disparities J. Clin. Oncol., May 10, 2006; 24(14): 2204 - 2208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Baker HOMICIDE AND NATIVE AMERICANS Am J Public Health, January 1, 2006; 96(1): 8 - 8. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
