International journal of epidemiology · 2025
Isolated clubfoot in the Northern Territory of Australia: birth prevalence and population description.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Paterson Kelly, Barker Ruth, Taylor Sean, Clough Alan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Clubfoot prevalence in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population (hereafter Indigenous population) is reportedly higher than globally. This study enumerates and describes the isolated (also 'idiopathic') clubfoot population in Australia's Northern Territory (NT), where 30% of the population is Indigenous.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, medical records were searched to identify all cases in the NT born in 2009-22 inclusive. Birth prevalence was calculated by using established methods. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing characteristics of Indigenous with non-Indigenous babies with clubfoot.
RESULTS: The birth prevalence of isolated clubfoot (150 cases/53 591 births) was 2.80/1000 (95% CI: 2.35-3.25). For 109 Indigenous babies, the prevalence was five times higher (5.99, 95% CI: 4.87-7.12) than for non-Indigenous babies (1.16, 95% CI: 0.84-1.56) and three times higher in Indigenous males (4.11, 95% CI: 3.35-4.86) than females (1.42, 95% CI: 0.96-1.88). Among babies with clubfoot, Indigenous babies with clubfoot were more likely to be male (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.22-5.90; P = 0.014), from remote or very remote localities (OR = 14.24; CI: 5.98-33.90; P < 0.001), and have younger mothers (OR = 13.88; 95% CI: 3.90-49.39; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of isolated clubfoot in Australia's NT is higher than global estimates and other Australian reports, and disproportionately affects Indigenous babies. An Australian clubfoot register would be invaluable to improve the national understanding of prevalence patterns. Given the disproportionate prevalence in Indigenous babies, culturally responsive service provision, clinical outcomes, and experiences of their families warrant investigation.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, medical records were searched to identify all cases in the NT born in 2009-22 inclusive. Birth prevalence was calculated by using established methods. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing characteristics of Indigenous with non-Indigenous babies with clubfoot.
RESULTS: The birth prevalence of isolated clubfoot (150 cases/53 591 births) was 2.80/1000 (95% CI: 2.35-3.25). For 109 Indigenous babies, the prevalence was five times higher (5.99, 95% CI: 4.87-7.12) than for non-Indigenous babies (1.16, 95% CI: 0.84-1.56) and three times higher in Indigenous males (4.11, 95% CI: 3.35-4.86) than females (1.42, 95% CI: 0.96-1.88). Among babies with clubfoot, Indigenous babies with clubfoot were more likely to be male (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.22-5.90; P = 0.014), from remote or very remote localities (OR = 14.24; CI: 5.98-33.90; P < 0.001), and have younger mothers (OR = 13.88; 95% CI: 3.90-49.39; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of isolated clubfoot in Australia's NT is higher than global estimates and other Australian reports, and disproportionately affects Indigenous babies. An Australian clubfoot register would be invaluable to improve the national understanding of prevalence patterns. Given the disproportionate prevalence in Indigenous babies, culturally responsive service provision, clinical outcomes, and experiences of their families warrant investigation.