BackgroundCompared to non-indigenous populations, indigenous populations experience disproportionately greater morbidity, and a reduced life expectancy; however, conflicting data exist regarding whether a higher risk of fracture is experienced by either population. We systematically evaluate evidence for whether differences in fracture rates at any skeletal site exist between indigenous and non-indigenous populations of any age, and to identify potential risk factors that might explain these differences.MethodsOn 31 August 2016 we conducted a comprehensive computer-aided search of peer-reviewed literature without date limits. We searched PubMed, OVID, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and reference lists of relevant publications. The protocol for this systematic review is registered in PROSPERO, the International Prospective Register of systematic reviews (CRD42016043215). Using the World Health Organization reference population as standard, hip fracture incidence rates were re-standardized for comparability between countries.ResultsOur search yielded 3227 articles; 283 potentially eligible articles were cross-referenced against predetermined criteria, leaving 27 articles for final inclusion. Differences in hip fracture rates appeared as continent-specific, with lower rates observed for indigenous persons in all countries except for Canada and Australia where the opposite was observed. Indigenous persons consistently had higher rates of trauma-related fractures; the highest were observed in Australia where craniofacial fracture rates were 22-times greater for indigenous compared to non-indigenous women. After adjustment for socio-demographic and clinical risk factors, approximately a three-fold greater risk of osteoporotic fracture and five-fold greater risk of craniofacial fractures was observed for indigenous compared to non-indigenous persons; diabetes, substance abuse, comorbidity, lower income, locality, and fracture history were independently associated with an increased risk of fracture.ConclusionsThe observed paucity of data and suggestion of continent-specific differences indicate an urgent need for further research regarding indigenous status and fracture epidemiology and aetiology. Our findings also have implications for communities, governments and healthcare professionals to enhance the prevention of trauma-related fractures in indigenous persons, and an increased focus on modifiable lifestyle behaviours to prevent osteoporotic fractures in all populations.

IntroductionOver recent years, there has been concerted effort to ‘close the gap’ in the disproportionately reduced life expectancy and increased morbidity experienced by indigenous compared to non-indigenous persons. Specific to musculoskeletal health, some data suggest that indigenous peoples have a higher risk of sustaining a fracture compared to non-indigenous peoples. This creates an imperative to identify factors that could explain differences in fracture rates. This protocol presents our aim to conduct a systematic review, first, to determine whether differences in fracture rates exist for indigenous versus non-indigenous persons and, second, to identify any risk factors that might explain these differences.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic search of PubMed, OVID, MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE to identify articles that compare all-cause fracture rates at any skeletal site between indigenous and non-indigenous persons of any age. Eligibility of studies will be determined by 2 independent reviewers. Studies will be assessed for methodological quality using a previously published process. We will conduct a meta-analysis and use established statistical methods to identify and control for heterogeneity where appropriate. Should heterogeneity prevents numerical syntheses, we will undertake a best-evidence analysis to determine the level of evidence for differences in fracture between indigenous and non-indigenous persons.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will use published data; thus, ethical permissions are not required. In addition to peer-reviewed publication, findings will be presented at (inter)national conferences, disseminated electronically and in print, and will be made available to key country-specific decision-makers with authority for indigenous health.

Objective: To transform data from a research setting into a format that could be used to support strategies encouraging healthy lifestyle choices and service planning within local government. Methods: Details of the health status and lifestyle behaviours of the Geelong, Victoria, population were generated independently by the Geelong Osteoporosis Study (GOS), a prospective population‐based cohort study. Recent GOS follow‐up phases provided evidence about patterns of unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, smoking and harmful alcohol use. These factors are well‐recognised modifiable risk factors for chronic disease; the dataset was complemented with prevalence estimates for musculoskeletal disease, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, asthma and cancer. Results: Data were provided to Healthy Together Geelong in aggregate form according to age, sex and suburb. A population statistics company used the data to project health outcomes by suburb for use by local council. This data exchange served as a conduit between epidemiological research and policy development. Conclusion and implications: Regional policy makers were informed by local evidence, rather than national or state health survey, thereby optimising potential intervention strategies.