Objective: To identify how Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities are defined in epidemiological research in Australia and provide a definition of CALD status that aids the consistency and interpretability of epidemiological studies. Methods: Peer-reviewed literature from January 2015 to May 2020 was searched via four databases (Ovid Medline combined with PubMed, Embase, Emcare, and CINAHL) to identify quantitative studies of CALD people in Australia. Results: A total of 108 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Country of birth was the most commonly used CALD definition (n = 33, 30.6%), with combinations of two or more components also frequently used (n = 31, 28.7%). No studies used all the components suggested as core to defining CALD status. including country of birth, languages other than English spoken at home, English proficiency, and indigenous status. Conclusions: There was considerable inconsistency in how CALD status was defined. The review suggests that CALD status would best be defined as people born in non-English speaking countries, and/or who do not speak English at home. Additionally, indigenous peoples should be considered separately. This recommended definition will support the better identification of potential health disparity and needs in CALD and indigenous communities.

No abstract

Purpose: To examine the rates and profiles of intentional self-harm hospital admissions among people from culturally and linguistically diverse and non-culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 29,213 hospital admissions for self-harm among people aged 15 years or older in Victoria, Australia, was conducted using data from the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset between 2014/2015 and 2018/2019. The Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset records all hospital admissions in public and private hospitals in Victoria (population 6.5 million). Population-based incidence of self-harm, logistic regression and percentages (95% confidence intervals) were calculated to compare between culturally and linguistically diverse groups by birthplaces and the non-culturally and linguistically diverse groups of self-harm admissions. Results: When grouped together culturally and linguistically diverse individuals had lower rates of (hospital-treated) self-harm compared with the non-culturally and linguistically diverse individuals. However, some culturally and linguistically diverse groups such as those originating from Sudan and Iran had higher rates than non-culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Among self-harm hospitalised patients, those in the culturally and linguistically diverse group (vs non-culturally and linguistically diverse group) were more likely to be older, Metropolitan Victorian residents, from the lowest socioeconomic status, and being ever or currently married. Self-harm admissions by persons born in Southern and Eastern Europe were the oldest of all groups; in all other groups number of admissions tended to decrease as age increased whereas in this group the number of admissions increased as age increased. Conclusion: There was considerable heterogeneity in rates of hospital-treated self-harm in culturally and linguistically diverse communities, with some countries of origin (e.g. Sudan, Iran) having significantly higher rates. Some of this variation may be due to factors relating to the mode of entry into Australia (refugee vs planned migration), and future research needs to examine this possibility and others, to better plan for support needs in the culturally and linguistically diverse communities most affected by self-harm. Combining all culturally and linguistically diverse people into one group may obscure important differences in self-harm. Different self-harm prevention strategies are likely to be needed for different culturally and linguistically diverse populations.

Risky alcohol use places those with existing chronic conditions at increased risk of medical complications. Yet, there is little research assessing the alcohol consumption among this group. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of risky drinking among people with a range of chronic diseases. As part of the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), 22684 Australians aged ≥18 years answered questions about their experience of chronic diseases and their drinking patterns. Nearly 18% (CI: 17.2–19.3) of people with chronic disease reported drinking at a long-term risky level, roughly the same rate as those without chronic disease (19.3%, (CI: 18.6–20.2)). Nearly one-quarter, 24% (CI: 23.0–25.3), of people with chronic diseases drank at levels of increased short-term risk, significantly less than the rest of the sample. Respondents with mental illness were more likely to drink at risky levels than the rest of the sample, while the reverse was true of those with diabetes. Overall, those with chronic diseases have similar drinking patterns to the rest of the population, despite increased risks associated with this consumption. Regular screening and subsequent brief interventions for those with chronic disease, particularly mental illness and cancer, are recommended.

Purpose: To examine the associations between Culturally and Linguistically Diverse backgrounds (vs non-Culturally and Linguistically Diverse) and in-hospital death due to self-harm, repeat self-harm and mental health service use after self-harm. Method: A retrospective study of 42,127 self-harm hospital inpatients aged 15+ years in Victoria, Australia, from July 2008 to June 2019. Linked hospital and mental health service data were used to assess in-hospital death, repeat self-harm and mental health service use in the 12 months following index self-harm hospital admission. Logistic regression and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models were used to estimate associations between cultural background and outcomes. Results: Culturally and Linguistically Diverse people accounted for 13.3% of self-harm hospital inpatients. In-hospital death (0.8% of all patients) was negatively associated with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse background. Within 12 months, 12.9% of patients had self-harm readmission and 20.1% presented to emergency department with self-harm. Logistic regression components of zero-inflated negative binomial regression models showed no differences in the odds of (hospital-treated) self-harm reoccurrence between Culturally and Linguistically Diverse and non- Culturally and Linguistically Diverse self-harm inpatients. However, count components of models show that among those with repeat self-harm, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse people (e.g. born in Southern and Central Asia) made fewer additional hospital revisits than non-Culturally and Linguistically Diverse people. Clinical mental health service contacts following self-harm were made in 63.6% of patients, with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse people (Asian backgrounds 43.7%) less likely to make contact than the non-Culturally and Linguistically Diverse group (65.1%). Conclusions: Culturally and Linguistically Diverse and non-Culturally and Linguistically Diverse people did not differ in the likelihood of hospital-treated repeat self-harm, but among those with self-harm repetition Culturally and Linguistically Diverse people had fewer recurrences than non-Culturally and Linguistically Diverse people and utilised mental health services less following self-harm admissions.