Non-Indigenous privilege in health, justice and social services preceding first episode psychosis: A population-based cohort study

5Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: There is evidence of disparities between non-Indigenous and Indigenous incidence of psychotic disorders. Despite these disparities being a clear signpost of the impact of structural racism, there remains a lack of evidence to target institutional factors. We aimed to investigate non-Indigenous and Indigenous differences in government service use prior to first episode diagnosis as a means of identifying points of intervention to improve institutional responses. Methods: We used a previously established national New Zealand cohort of 2385 13 to 25-year-old youth diagnosed with psychosis between 2009 and 2012 and a linked database of individual-level multiple government agency administration data, to investigate the differences in health, education, employment, child protection and criminal-justice service use between non-Indigenous (60%) and Indigenous youth (40%) in the year preceding first episode diagnosis. Further comparisons were made with the general population. Results: A high rate of health service contact did not differ between non-Indigenous and Indigenous youth (adjusted rate ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval [0.9, 1.1]). Non-Indigenous youth had higher rates of educational enrolment (adjusted rate ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval [1.1, 1.3]) and employment (adjusted rate ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval [1.1, 1.3]) and were 40% less likely to have contact with child protection services (adjusted rate ratio 0.6, 95% confidence interval [0.5, 0.8]) and the criminal-justice system (adjusted rate ratio 0.6, 95% confidence interval [0.5, 0.7]). Both first episode cohorts had a higher risk of criminal justice contact compared to the general population, but the difference was greater for non-Indigenous youth (risk ratio 3.0, 95% confidence interval [2.7, 3.4] vs risk ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval [1.8, 2.2]), explained by the lower background risk. Interpretation: The results indicate non-Indigenous privilege in multiple sectors prior to first episode diagnosis. Indigenous-based social disparities prior to first episode psychosis are likely to cause further inequities in recovery and will require a response of health, education, employment, justice and political systems.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Manuel, J., Cunningham, R., Gibb, S., Petrović-van der Deen, F. S., Porter, R. J., Pitama, S., … Lacey, C. (2023). Non-Indigenous privilege in health, justice and social services preceding first episode psychosis: A population-based cohort study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 57(6), 834–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674221119964

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free