Isolated clubfoot in the Northern Territory of Australia: birth prevalence and population description

Abstract Background Clubfoot prevalence in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population (hereafter Indigenous population) is reportedly higher than globally. This study enumerates and describes the isolated (also ‘idiopathic’) clubfoot population in Australia’s Northern Territory (NT), where...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of epidemiology Vol. 54; no. 4
Main Authors: Paterson, Kelly, Barker, Ruth, Taylor, Sean, Clough, Alan
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: England Oxford University Press 11.06.2025
Subjects:
Adult
Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
Clubfoot - epidemiology
Clubfoot - ethnology
Female
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Logistic Models
Male
Northern Territory - epidemiology
Odds Ratio
Prevalence
Retrospective Studies
Sex Distribution
Northern Territory
prevalence
Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
Northern Territory
congenital abnormalities
clubfoot
ISSN:1464-3685, 1464-3685
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background Clubfoot prevalence in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population (hereafter Indigenous population) is reportedly higher than globally. This study enumerates and describes the isolated (also ‘idiopathic’) clubfoot population in Australia’s Northern Territory (NT), where 30% of the population is Indigenous. Methods In this retrospective study, medical records were searched to identify all cases in the NT born in 2009–22 inclusive. Birth prevalence was calculated by using established methods. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing characteristics of Indigenous with non-Indigenous babies with clubfoot. Results The birth prevalence of isolated clubfoot (150 cases/53 591 births) was 2.80/1000 (95% CI: 2.35–3.25). For 109 Indigenous babies, the prevalence was five times higher (5.99, 95% CI: 4.87–7.12) than for non-Indigenous babies (1.16, 95% CI: 0.84–1.56) and three times higher in Indigenous males (4.11, 95% CI: 3.35–4.86) than females (1.42, 95% CI: 0.96–1.88). Among babies with clubfoot, Indigenous babies with clubfoot were more likely to be male (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.22–5.90; P = 0.014), from remote or very remote localities (OR = 14.24; CI: 5.98–33.90; P < 0.001), and have younger mothers (OR = 13.88; 95% CI: 3.90–49.39; P < 0.001). Conclusion The prevalence of isolated clubfoot in Australia’s NT is higher than global estimates and other Australian reports, and disproportionately affects Indigenous babies. An Australian clubfoot register would be invaluable to improve the national understanding of prevalence patterns. Given the disproportionate prevalence in Indigenous babies, culturally responsive service provision, clinical outcomes, and experiences of their families warrant investigation.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1464-3685
1464-3685
DOI:10.1093/ije/dyaf121