Discrimination is a fundamental determinant of health and health inequities. However, despite the high prevalence of discrimination exposure, there is limited evidence specific to Indigenous populations on the link between discrimination and health. This study employs a validated measure to quantify experiences of everyday discrimination in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Australia’s Indigenous peoples) adults surveyed from 2018 to 2020 (≥16 years, n = 8108). It quantifies Prevalence Ratios (PRs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for wellbeing outcomes by level of discrimination exposure, and tests if associations vary by attribution of discrimination to Indigeneity. Of the participants, 41.5% reported no discrimination, 47.5% low, and 11.0% moderate-high. Discrimination was more commonly reported by younger versus older participants, females versus males, and those living in remote versus urban or regional areas. Discrimination was significantly associated in a dose-response manner, with measures of social and emotional wellbeing, culture and identity, health behaviour, and health outcomes. The strength of the association varied across outcomes, from a 10–20% increased prevalence for some outcomes (e.g., disconnection from culture (PR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.14), and high blood pressure (1.20; 1.09, 1.32)), to a five-fold prevalence of alcohol dependence (4.96; 3.64, 6.76), for those with moderate-high versus no discrimination exposure. The association was of consistent strength and direction whether attributed to Indigeneity or not—with three exceptions. Discrimination is associated with a broad range of poor wellbeing outcomes in this large-scale, national, diverse cohort of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults. These findings support the vast potential to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ wellbeing, and to reduce Indigenous-non-Indigenous inequities, by reducing exposure to discrimination.

Smoking is the leading contributor to the burden of disease and mortality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, with an estimated 37% of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deaths attributed to smoking. The Tackling Indigenous Smoking (TIS) program was implemented to support people to quit smoking, prevent initiation, and reduce exposure to second-hand smoke. Analysis of baseline (2018–2020) data from a large-scale cohort study was conducted to quantify smoking-related attitudes and behaviours among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults, overall and in relation to exposure to the TIS program. Most results were similar for TIS and non-TIS, but there was a significantly lower prevalence of smoking inside households (PR0.85; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.97), smoking ≥21 cigarettes per day (PR0.79; 95% CI: 0.62, <1.00), and smoking a first cigarette within 5 min of waking (PR0.87; 95% CI: 0.76, <1.00) in TIS-funded compared to non-TIS-funded areas. Findings from the analysis highlight encouraging anti-smoking attitudes and behaviours across TIS-funded and non-TIS-funded areas, and serve as a basis for future analysis of change in outcomes over time associated with exposure to a large multi-mode population health program (TIS).

Indigenous communities are under-represented in genomics research, contributing to inequitable health-related knowledge, outcomes, and benefits. Under-representation reflects enduring consequences of colonial research practices that have engendered cultural, ethical, legal, and social (CELS) concerns among communities. Researchers must understand, navigate, and address these in their research practices. This study aimed to identify and synthesise CELS considerations to inform Indigenous genomics research practices. A systematic scoping review was conducted, including peer-reviewed papers on genomics that discussed cultural, ethical, legal, or social matters relevant to Indigenous Peoples globally; available in full-text and in English. Inductive content analysis using NVivo 12 Plus was undertaken to identify CELS considerations and develop content categories, with papers coded to multiple categories where relevant. As of May 2024, 186 papers were identified for inclusion: n = 70 (38%) included cultural, n = 91 (49%) ethical, n = 49 (26%) legal, and n = 125 (67%) social considerations. Cultural considerations included cultural harm, significance of blood, and the need to integrate Indigenous knowledges. Ethical considerations included consent, data access and sharing, privacy, and confidentiality. Legal considerations included laws protecting Indigenous interests, control of genomic samples and data, biovalue and DNA as a commodity, genetic discrimination, and the use of genomic data in constructing and defining racial identity. Social considerations included collective decision-making, genetic determinism, and stigmatisation, and the importance of contextualising findings within wider social determinants of health frameworks. Overall, researchers need to understand, navigate, and address CELS considerations of relevance to Indigenous Peoples to build trust, promote inclusion, and support equitable benefit-sharing in genomics research.

Community-supported investment in blue-green space and fauna habitat protection is important, yet the drivers of willingness to pay (WTP) are poorly understood. Moreover, research on WTP for environmental services rarely considers the role of context in determining which services donors prefer. We address these gaps with a novel experimental approach (N=360), randomly assigning participants to a condition priming either Covid19, the Australian 2019-2020 bushfires, or to one of two control conditions. We measured subsequent WTP for blue-green space and koala habitat, finding mostly non-significant effects for experimental condition on WTP, preparedness to donate, or the importance placed on investment. Both WTP for blue-green space and koala habitat was significantly associated with experience with bushfire, left-leaning political orientation, and higher blue-green space usage. Assessment of WTP for blue-green space in Australian cities indicates a positive attitude, especially among active users, although people are still willing to contribute to koala protection.