3.8 Article

How colonisation determines social justice and Indigenous health-a review of the literature

期刊

JOURNAL OF POPULATION RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 9-30

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12546-016-9164-1

关键词

Colonisation; Health; Disparities; Inequalities; Indigenous health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Disparities in health status persist for Indigenous people in Australia. In the bid to reduce the disparity gap, the concept of achieving social justice is central to advancing the services and systems that can challenge inequitable circumstances within a nation. Colonisation is well known as the underlying factor influencing the social injustices that result in inequitable health for Indigenous people. A literature review was conducted identifying how the colonial impact on social justice is described in the relationships with the health of Indigenous Australians. A comprehensive search strategy was developed, including four broad search terms of 'Indigenous people' and 'health status' and 'colonisation' or 'social justice', and applied within five databases. Publications were limited to Australia, dated from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2014. The literature acknowledging the effect that colonisation has on Indigenous Australians includes evidence from oral and political histories, and social determinants frameworks. There was a general consensus that the impact of colonisation on the health of Indigenous people is highly complex and that the legacies are experienced intra-generationally and inter-generationally. There is paucity in the evidence that examines the associations of colonisation and its impact on social injustice. Because social justice is considered central to equitable practices across all sectors in society (health, education, legal etc.), questions are raised about the magnitude of the effect that colonisation has on health disparities and importantly how the desideratum to tackle disparities that have stemmed from colonisation are adequately addressed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据