Affiliation:
1. Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health (ARCPOH), Adelaide Dental School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
2. Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Abstract
Introduction: Our ability to address child oral health inequalities would be greatly facilitated by a more nuanced understanding of whether underlying disease experience or treatment opportunities account for a larger share of differences between social groups. This is particularly relevant in the context of population subgroups who are socially marginalized, such as Australia’s Indigenous population. The decayed, missing, and filled (dmf) surfaces index is at once a reflection of dental caries experience (d) and its management (m and f). Objectives: To 1) describe socioeconomic inequalities in dental caries experience and its management among Indigenous and non-Indigenous children and 2) compare these inequalities using absolute and relative measures. Methods: Data were from the Australian National Child Oral Health Study 2012–2014. Absolute and relative income inequalities were assessed for overall dmfs and its individual components (ds, ms, fs) using adjusted means and health disparity indices (Slope Index of Inequality [SII] and Relative Index of Inequality [RII]). Results: Mean dmfs among Indigenous children aged 5 to 10 y was 6.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4–7.4), ranging from 2.3 in the highest to 9.1 in the lowest income group. Mean dmfs among non-Indigenous children was 2.9 (95% CI, 2.8–3.1), ranging from 1.9 in the highest to 4.2 in the lowest income group. Age- and gender-adjusted social gradients for Indigenous children were evident across all dmfs components but were particularly notable for ds (SII = −4.6, RII = −1.7) and fs (SII = −3.2, RII = −1.5). The social gradients for non-Indigenous children were much lower in magnitude: ds (SII = −1.8, RII = −1.6) and fs (SII = −0.7, RII = −0.5). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that socioeconomic disadvantage may translate into both higher disease experience and increased use of dental services for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups, with the social gradients being much more amplified among Indigenous children. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The findings of this study demonstrate the magnitude of disparities in dental caries among children by population groups in Australia. Our results suggest that the relationship between socioeconomic disadvantage and poor oral health is more deleterious among Indigenous than non-Indigenous children. Tackling upstream determinants of health might not only affect population patterns of health and disease but also mitigate the overwhelming racial inequalities in oral health between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
coordenação de aperfeiçoamento de pessoal de nível superior
Reference20 articles.
1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2013. Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey, 2013. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2016. Oral health and dental care in Australia: key facts and figures 2015. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2019. Indigenous income and finance. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
4. Racial Inequalities in Oral Health
5. Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: Challenges and the potential to advance health equity
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献