Hospitalization rates of children by developmental disability, maternal nativity, and Indigenous status: the complexity of intersectionality

Abstract

This commentary is on the original article by Abdullahi et al. on pages 470–476 of this issue.

‘Impairments of the brain’: Global South perspectives on childhood neurodevelopmental disability

“…22 Disability researchers have highlighted the importance of intersectionality and have argued in favour of combining aspects of critical race theory and disability studies into disability critical race studies. [23][24][25] In addition to ethnicity, sex, and discrimination, postcolonialism, culture and poverty have been cited as key factors that impact the study of disability in the Global South. 26 Therefore, in this paper, we look at how a a disabled individual is defined by historical and cultural concepts, what role the individual has in the family and community, and how poverty and neocolonialism are closely linked to the lived experiences, through a narrative case study of a 10-year-old Ugandan male with a neurodevelopmental disability.…”

“…Pickens argues that this approach ‘relies on the interrelated nature of identity as formation and lived experience’ 22 . Disability researchers have highlighted the importance of intersectionality and have argued in favour of combining aspects of critical race theory and disability studies into disability critical race studies 23–25 . In addition to ethnicity, sex, and discrimination, postcolonialism, culture and poverty have been cited as key factors that impact the study of disability in the Global South 26 …”

Post‐neonatal cerebral palsy in Australia: Through the lens of intersectionality

“…In their commentary on recent evidence that hospitalization rates are elevated for children with developmental disabilities in Indigenous and low‐income immigrant populations in Australia, 4 Slaughter‐Acey and Saintil advocate for interpreting the findings within an ‘intersectionality’ framework. 5 In this framework, inequalities in health affecting individuals belonging to more than one disadvantaged group are seen as interlocking and a consequence of historical systems of oppression or of inequities in power and access to quality health care. 6 Waight et al note that Indigenous populations in Australia are more likely than others to reside in remote areas, that access to health care is limited in remote areas, and that ‘decades of unsafe health care has had detrimental effects on how First Nations families expect to experience the health care system and on [their] subsequent health and wellbeing.’ Further, the authors are careful to point out that being born to Indigenous parents should not be seen as a risk factor for post‐neonatal CP but rather that ‘being treated unsafely is the actual risk factor.’ 1 …”

“…In their commentary on recent evidence that hospitalization rates are elevated for children with developmental disabilities in Indigenous and low‐income immigrant populations in Australia, 4 Slaughter‐Acey and Saintil advocate for interpreting the findings within an ‘intersectionality’ framework 5 . In this framework, inequalities in health affecting individuals belonging to more than one disadvantaged group are seen as interlocking and a consequence of historical systems of oppression or of inequities in power and access to quality health care 6 .…”

Postmodern family‐centred care for disability

“…This requires that we stay flexible enough to recognize and remove barriers, including those at organization and institutional levels. It is also useful to consider an intersectionality framework to approach the multiplicity of issues relating to co‐existing categories that underlie family members’ own myths and norms, like ethnicity, religion, socio‐economic standing, sex, and disability 4 . Finally, while developing evidence‐informed practice, we must further enrich our practice based on families’ experiences and remember that in all things, the family (however it is constituted) must come first 5 …”