Reducing the rate of over‐representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out‐of‐home care (OOHC) is a key Closing the Gap target committed to by all Australian governments. Current strategies are failing. The “gap” is widening, with the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in OOHC at 30 June 2020 being 11 times that of non‐Indigenous children. Approximately, one in five Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children entering OOHC each year are younger than one year. These figures represent compounding intergenerational trauma and institutional harm to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and communities. This article outlines systemic failures to address the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents during pregnancy and following birth, causing cumulative harm and trauma to families, communities and cultures. Major reform to child and family notification and service systems, and significant investment to address this crisis, is urgently needed. The Family Matters Building Blocks and five elements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle (Prevention, Participation, Partnership, Placement and Connection) provide a transformative foundation to address historical, institutional, well‐being and socioeconomic drivers of current catastrophic trajectories. The time for action is now.

(1) Background: This article examines whether connection to digital technologies helps connect young Indigenous people in Australia to culture, community and country to support good mental health and well-being and protect against indirect and potentially long-term effects of COVID-19. (2) Method: We reviewed literature published between February and November 2020 and policy responses related to digital strategies. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, government policy websites and key Indigenous literature sources, identifying 3460 articles. Of these, 30 articles and 26 policy documents were included and analysed to identify existing and expected mental health outcomes among Indigenous young people associated with COVID-19 and more broadly. (3) Results: There are inequities in affordable access to digital technologies. Only 63% of Indigenous people have access to internet at home. Digital technologies and social media contribute to strong cultural identity, enhance connections to community and country and improve mental health and social and emotional well-being outcomes. (4) Discussion: Access to digital technologies can facilitate healing and cultural continuity, self-determination and empowerment for young people to thrive, not just survive, in the future. (5) Conclusion: More targeted policies and funding is urgently needed to promote digital technologies to enhance Indigenous young people’s access to mental health and well-being services, maintain cultural connections and evaluate the effectiveness of these initiatives using Indigenous well-being indicators.

Currently, there are few robustly evaluated social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) measures available for use with Aboriginal youth in research, policy, and practice. As such, this study used a Rasch measurement approach to examine the psychometric properties of Strong Souls, a 25-item self-reported SEWB instrument, created for use with Aboriginal youth in the Northern Territory. Our sample (N = 154) included youth (15–25 years old) living on Whadjuk (metropolitan Western Australia; N = 91) and Kamilaroi countries (rural New South Wales; N = 63). Using Rasch modelling techniques, evidence for multidimensionality in the scale was observed, resulting in subsequent analyses conducted separately on two subscales: Psychological Distress and Resilience. The Resilience subscale did not meet the Rasch model assumptions, with poor person and item separation and reliability indexes suggesting the scale was not reliably differentiating between participants’ Resilience scores. The Psychological Distress subscale had mixed separation and reliability index results, with good construct validity implied but poorer ability to target the distress of participants. Our findings provide novel evidence demonstrating the functioning of Strong Souls in a contemporary sample of Aboriginal youth, suggesting further modifications of the instrument are required before it can be used with confidence as a reliable measure in this population group.

Introduction Self-regulation is a modifiable protective factor for lifespan mental and physical health outcomes. Early caregiver-mediated interventions to promote infant and child regulatory outcomes prevent long-term developmental, emotional and behavioural difficulties and improve outcomes such as school readiness, educational achievement and economic success. To harness the population health promise of these programmes, there is a need for more nuanced understanding of the impact of these interventions. The aim of this realist review is to understand how, why, under which circumstances and for whom, early caregiver-mediated interventions improve infant and child self-regulation. The research questions guiding this review were based on consultation with families and community organisations that provide early childhood and family services. Methods and analysis Realist reviews take a theory-driven and iterative approach to evidence synthesis, structured around continuous refinement of a programme theory. Programme theories specify context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain what works, for whom, under which circumstances and how. Our initial programme theory is based on prior work in this field and will be refined through the review process. A working group, comprising service users, community organisation representatives, representatives from specific populations, clinicians and review team members will guide the evidence synthesis and interpretation, as well as the development and dissemination of recommendations based on the findings of the review. The review will involve searching: (i) electronic databases, (ii) connected papers, articles and citations and (iii) grey literature. Decisions to include evidence will be guided by judgements about their contribution to the programme theory and will be made by the research team, with input from the working group. Evidence synthesis will be reported using the Realist and MEta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required as this is a review. Findings will be disseminated to our working group and through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Review registration number The protocol is registered with Open Science Framework https://osf.io/5ce2z/registrations.

The quality of social and emotional wellbeing services for Indigenous families of young children is not known, in many settings especially services provided by primary care centers. Our primary objective was to assess delivery of social and emotional wellbeing services to the families of young (3–11 months) and older (12–59 months) Indigenous children attending primary care centers. Our secondary objective was to assess if delivery differed by geographic location. Two thousand four hundred sixty-six client files from 109 primary care centers across Australia from 2012 to 2014 were analysed using logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. The proportion of families receiving social and emotional wellbeing services ranged from 10.6% (102) (food security) to 74.7% (1216) (assessment of parent child interaction). Seventy one percent (71%, 126) of families received follow up care. Families of children aged 3–11 months (39.5%, 225) were more likely to receive social and emotional wellbeing services (advice about domestic environment, social support, housing condition, child stimulation) than families of children aged 12–59 months (30.0%, 487) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.68 95% CI 1.33 to 2.13). Remote area families (32.6%, 622) received similar services to rural (29.4%, 68) and urban families (44.0%, 22) (aOR 0.64 95% CI 0.29, 1.44). The families of young Indigenous children appear to receive priority for social and emotional wellbeing care in Australian primary care centers, however many Indigenous families are not receiving services. Improvement in resourcing and support of social and emotional wellbeing services in primary care centers is needed.