Academic literature on the topic 'Cancer Australia Prevention'

Background and context: The Cancer Council New South Wales (CCNSW) is one of Australia's leading cancer charities and is uniquely 95% community funded. Cancer prevention is one of five strategic priority areas for CCNSW. An estimated to 37,000 cancer cases are preventable each year in Australia; 33% of cancers in men and 31% in women. The CCNSW developed and implemented the 1 in 3 Cancers Campaign in 2016, the first Australian multirisk factor cancer prevention campaign. This was also the organization's first experience in implementing a social marketing mass media campaign. Over two years, the campaign's primary objective was to raise awareness that one in three cancers are preventable, to highlight why preventing cancer is important and practical steps for prevention. Aim: To undertake an organizational review of internal learnings from the development, implementation and evaluation of the 1 in 3 Cancers Campaign and make recommendations for future campaign practice. Strategy/Tactics: Cross-organizational perspectives were provided from 20 Cancer Council staff from the areas of cancer prevention, research, fundraising and community engagement through a one-day workshop. Program/Policy process: Workshop participants: 1) reviewed best practice social marketing processes, 2) reviewed published evidence on mass media public education campaigns, 3) against this framework, determined internal organizational learnings from the 1 in 3 Cancers Campaign and made recommendations for future practice. Outcomes: A summary report of key lessons learnt from the implementation of the 1 in 3 Cancers Campaign and recommendations for future practice. What was learned: Areas of strengths were identified including cross-organizational collaboration, the development of an interactive cancer risk quiz, good community awareness of the campaign and key message take out. Areas for improvement included the need for greater resource investment (namely staff capacity, skills and budget), greater lead times for thorough campaign planning and the need to focus on singular behavioral cancer risk factors in communication messaging rather than multiple risk factors. The workshop concluded that well-planned, well-resourced mass media campaigns were an important evidence-based strategy for future cancer prevention practice.

Background: The aim of this presentation is to provide an update on the economic evaluation of the Australian SunSmart program as well as outline the cost of skin cancer treatment to the Victorian public hospital system. This follows the publication of two recently released published economic evaluations that discusses the potential effects of skin cancer prevention inventions. Aim: 1. To highlight the cost effectiveness of skin cancer prevention in Australia 2. To highlight the costs of skin cancer treatment in the Victorian public hospital system 3. To provide strong evidence to inform governments of the value of skin cancer prevention to reduce the costs of treatment in future years. Methods: Program cost was compared with cost savings to determine the investment return of the program. In a separate study, a prevalence-based cost approach was undertaken in public hospitals in Victoria. Costs were estimated for inpatient admissions, using state service statistics, and outpatient services based on attendance at three hospitals in 2012-13. Cost-effectiveness for prevention was estimated from 'observed vs expected' analysis, together with program expenditure data. Results: With additional $AUD 0.16 ($USD 0.12) per capita investment into skin cancer prevention across Australia from 2011 to 2030, an upgraded SunSmart Program would prevent 45,000 melanoma and 95,000 NMSC cases. Potential savings in future healthcare costs were estimated at $200 million, while productivity gains were significant. A future upgraded SunSmart Program was predicted to be cost-saving from the funder perspective, with an investment return of $3.20 for every additional dollar the Australian governments/funding bodies invested into the program. In relation to the costs to the Victorian public hospital system, total annual costs were $48 million to $56 million. Skin cancer treatment in public hospitals ($9.20∼$10.39 per head/year) was 30-times current public funding in skin cancer prevention ($0.37 per head/year). Conclusion: The study demonstrates the strong economic credentials of the SunSmart Program, with a strong economic rationale for increased investment. Increased funding for skin cancer prevention must be kept high on the public health agenda. This would also have the dual benefit of enabling hospitals to redirect resources to nonpreventable conditions.

Background: High-quality data can assist the development of policy and cancer strategies, stimulate lines of research, and inform the provision of care leading to better cancer outcomes. In November 2017 Cancer Australia launched the National Cancer Control Indicators (NCCI) Web site ( https://ncci.canceraustralia.gov.au ), Australia's first interactive Web site of cancer-specific, national population-based data across the continuum of care. The NCCI Web site presents a set of indicators for monitoring national cancer trends and benchmarking internationally across seven key aspects of cancer control; prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, psychosocial care, research and outcomes. Aim: By presenting a set of indicators using seven domains from the cancer care continuum, the NCCI Web site presents the most current Australian national data for a range of cancer control indicators in an accessible and interactive format. The primary aim of the NCCI Web site (hosted as part of the Cancer Australia Web site) is to monitor and report the most recent population-level trends to drive improvements across the cancer control continuum in Australia, and to facilitate international benchmarking of Australia's cancer control efforts. Methods: National data level on 33 individual measures across the seven cancer continuum domains was accessed from both government and nongovernment data custodians. Where applicable and available for measures, data were disaggregated and presented by age, sex, indigenous status, remoteness area of residence and socioeconomic status. Review of the data analysis was undertaken by 46 external reviewers including data custodians and subject matter experts. Results: Example summary data from several indicators across the NCCI Web site, including demographic disaggregation by age, sex, remoteness area of residence and socioeconomic status (where available) will be provided. e.g., • Smoking prevalence has decreased substantially over the past 30 years, and smoking rates among both adolescents and adults in Australia are among the lowest in the world. • Cancer mortality rates have been falling steadily since 1995, across most cancer types. Australia has lower mortality rates from cancer when compared with most other similar developed countries, about 6% lower than the estimated global average in 2012. National population-level data showing incidence by stage at diagnosis for the top five most common cancers has also been reported on the Web site - making Australia one of the few countries in the world where these data are available. Conclusion: The NCCI Web site is a flagship data Web site providing, for the first time, an evolving high-level national data resource to monitor Australian population-level trends in cancer control across the continuum. As one of the very few cross-continuum cancer reporting resources in the world, this is a valuable resource for use by those within the international cancer control community.

Cervical cancer remains a significant cause of death in women. There is a notable age related decrease in levels of screening and women aged over 50 years with later, more invasive disease. One hundred and forty women aged between 50 and 69 years (M "'58.21 years) and 23 Pap smear providers completed a Cervical Cancer Screening Questionnaire designed to identify the relative importance of barriers to attendance for cervical screening, as well as providers own barriers and issues. Responsibility for health, familiarity with, and ratings of the usefulness of Pap smears were the major dimensions along which regular and non-regular attenders differed supporting the hypothesis. Additionally, women who had regular Pap smears were younger, with higher levels of confidence in their provider, in the ability of the test to detect cervical cancer and in their overall value for the usefulness of the test. The application of the findings of the present study may improve the currently inconsistent promotion of cervical screening to older women. The use of a theoretical framework informed by the Theory of Reasoned Action and Multi-Attribute Utility Theory showed promising results in incorporating the diverse factors involved in participating. in preventative health screening. Recommendations are made on the necessity of both targeted and general intervention strategies to increase the uptake of preventative screening by at-risk groups.

Outdoor workers are exposed to high levels of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and may thus be at greater risk to experience UVR-related health effects such as skin cancer, sun burn, and cataracts. A number of intervention trials (n=14) have aimed to improve outdoor workers’ work-related sun protection cognitions and behaviours. Only one study however has reported the use of UV-photography as part of a multi-component intervention. This study was performed in the USA and showed long-term (12 months) improvements in work-related sun protection behaviours. Intervention effects of the other studies have varied greatly, depending on the population studied, intervention applied, and measurement of effect. Previous studies have not assessed whether: - Interventions are similarly effective for workers in stringent and less stringent policy organisations; - Policy effect is translated into workers’ leisure time protection; - Implemented interventions are effective in the long-term; - The facial UV-photograph technique is effective in Australian male outdoor workers without a large additional intervention package, and; - Such interventions will also affect workers’ leisure time sun-related cognitions and behaviours. Therefore, the present Protection of Outdoor Workers from Environmental Radiation [POWER]-study aimed to fill these gaps and had the objectives of: a) assessing outdoor workers’ sun-related cognitions and behaviours at work and during leisure time in stringent and less stringent sun protection policy environments; b) assessing the effect of an appearance-based intervention on workers’ risk perceptions, intentions and behaviours over time; c) assessing whether the intervention was equally effective within the two policy settings; and d) assessing the immediate post-intervention effect. Effectiveness was described in terms of changes in sun-related risk perceptions and intentions (as these factors were shown to be main precursors of behaviour change in many health promotion theories) and behaviour. The study purposefully selected and recruited two organisations with a large outdoor worker contingent in Queensland, Australia within a 40 kilometre radius of Brisbane. The two organisations differed in the stringency of implementation and reinforcement of their organisational sun protection policy. Data were collected from 154 male predominantly Australian born outdoor workers with an average age of 37 years and predominantly medium to fair skin (83%). Sun-related cognitions and behaviours of workers were assessed using self-report questionnaires at baseline and six to twelve months later. Variation in follow-up time was due to a time difference in the recruitment of the two organisations. Participants within each organisation were assigned to an intervention or control group. The intervention group participants received a one-off personalised Skin Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [SCRAT]-letter and a facial UV-photograph with detailed verbal information. This was followed by an immediate post-intervention questionnaire within three months of the start of the study. The control group only received the baseline and follow-up questionnaire. Data were analysed using a variety of techniques including: descriptive analyses, parametric and non-parametric tests, and generalised estimating equations. A 15% proportional difference observed was deemed of clinical significance, with the addition of reported statistical significance (p<0.05) where applicable. Objective 1: Assess and compare the current sun-related risk perceptions, intentions, behaviours, and policy awareness of outdoor workers in stringent and less stringent sun protection policy settings. Workers within the two organisations (stringent n=89 and less stringent n=65) were similar in their knowledge about skin cancer, self efficacy, attitudes, and social norms regarding sun protection at work and during leisure time. Participants were predominantly in favour of sun protection. Results highlighted that compared to workers in a less stringent policy organisation working for an organisation with stringent sun protection policies and practices resulted in more desirable sun protection intentions (less willing to tan p=0.03) ; actual behaviours at work (sufficient use of upper and lower body protection, headgear, and sunglasses (p<0.001 for all comparisons), and greater policy awareness (awareness of repercussions if Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was not used, p<0.001)). However the effect of the work-related sun protection policy was found not to extend to leisure time sun protection. Objective 2: Compare changes in sun-related risk perceptions, intentions, and behaviours between the intervention and control group. The effect of the intervention was minimal and mainly resulted in a clinically significant reduction in work-related self-perceived risk of developing skin cancer in the intervention compared to the control group (16% and 32% for intervention and control group, respectively estimated their risk higher compared to other outdoor workers: , p=0.11). No other clinical significant effects were observed at 12 months follow-up. Objective 3: Assess whether the intervention was equally effective in the stringent sun protection policy organisation and the less stringent sun protection policy organisation. The appearance-based intervention resulted in a clinically significant improvement in the stringent policy intervention group participants’ intention to protect from the sun at work (workplace*time interaction, p=0.01). In addition to a reduction in their willingness to tan both at work (will tan at baseline: 17% and 61%, p=0.06, at follow-up: 54% and 33%, p=0.07, stringent and less stringent policy intervention group respectively. The workplace*time interaction was significant p<0.001) and during leisure time (will tan at baseline: 42% and 78%, p=0.01, at follow-up: 50% and 63%, p=0.43, stringent and less stringent policy intervention group respectively. The workplace*time interaction was significant p=0.01) over the course of the study compared to the less stringent policy intervention group. However, no changes in actual sun protection behaviours were found. Objective 4: Examine the effect of the intervention on level of alarm and concern regarding the health of the skin as well as sun protection behaviours in both organisations. The immediate post-intervention results showed that the stringent policy organisation participants indicated to be less alarmed (p=0.04) and concerned (p<0.01) about the health of their skin and less likely to show the facial UV-photograph to others (family p=0.03) compared to the less stringent policy participants. A clinically significantly larger proportion of participants from the stringent policy organisation reported they worried more about skin cancer (65%) and skin freckling (43%) compared to those in the less stringent policy organisation (46%,and 23% respectively , after seeing the UV-photograph). In summary the results of this study suggest that the having a stringent work-related sun protection policy was significantly related to for work-time sun protection practices, but did not extend to leisure time sun protection. This could reflect the insufficient level of sun protection found in the general Australian population during leisure time. Alternatively, reactance caused by being restricted in personal decisions through work-time policy could have contributed to lower leisure time sun protection. Finally, other factors could have also contributed to the less than optimal leisure time sun protection behaviours reported, such as unmeasured personal or cultural barriers. All these factors combined may have lead to reduced willingness to take proper preventive action during leisure time exposure. The intervention did not result in any measurable difference between the intervention and control groups in sun protection behaviours in this population, potentially due to the long lag time between the implementation of the intervention and assessment at 12-months follow-up. In addition, high levels of sun protection behaviours were found at baseline (ceiling effect) which left little room for improvement. Further, this study did not assess sunscreen use, which was the predominant behaviour assessed in previous effective appearance-based interventions trials. Additionally, previous trials were mainly conducted in female populations, whilst the POWER-study’s population was all male. The observed immediate post-intervention result could be due to more emphasis being placed on sun protection and risks related to sun exposure in the stringent policy organisation. Therefore participants from the stringent policy organisation could have been more aware of harmful effects of UVR and hence, by knowing that they usually protect adequately, not be as alarmed or concerned as the participants from the less stringent policy organisation. In conclusion, a facial UV-photograph and SCRAT-letter information alone may not achieve large changes in sun-related cognitions and behaviour, especially of assessed 6-12 months after the intervention was implemented and in workers who are already quite well protected. Differences found between workers in the present study appear to be more attributable to organisational policy. However, against a background of organisational policy, this intervention may be a useful addition to sun-related workplace health and safety programs. The study findings have been interpreted while respecting a number of limitations. These have included non-random allocation of participants due to pre-organised allocation of participants to study group in one organisation and difficulty in separating participants from either study group. Due to the transient nature of the outdoor worker population, only 105 of 154 workers available at baseline could be reached for follow-up. (attrition rate=32%). In addition the discrepancy in the time to follow-up assessment between the two organisations was a limitation of the current study. Given the caveats of this research, the following recommendations were made for future research: - Consensus should be reached to define "outdoor worker" in terms of time spent outside at work as well as in the way sun protection behaviours are measured and reported. - Future studies should implement and assess the value of the facial UV-photographs in a wide range of outdoor worker organisations and countries. - More timely and frequent follow-up assessments should be implemented in intervention studies to determine the intervention effect and to identify the best timing of booster sessions to optimise results. - Future research should continue to aim to target outdoor workers’ leisure time cognitions and behaviours and improve these if possible. Overall, policy appears to be an important factor in workers’ compliance with work-time use of sun protection. Given the evidence generated by this research, organisations employing outdoor workers should consider stringent implementation and reinforcement of a sun protection policy. Finally, more research is needed to improve ways to generate desirable behaviour in this population during leisure time.

Research Doctorate - Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
The contents of this thesis by publication include an introduction, a critical review, five data-based manuscripts and a general discussion providing implications and conclusions. The papers examined the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the community-based setting and among first-degree relatives of CRC patients. At timing of thesis submission, three papers (two data-based and one review paper) had been accepted for publication. The remaining three are under editorial review. The burden of disease, early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) is presented in the Introduction. It provides a general overview of CRC-related global burden of disease, its aetiology and the efficacy of screening in reducing incidence and mortality. It also examines current levels of CRC screening uptake and the populations currently experiencing inequality in CRC screening. This chapter also provides an overview of the current state of medical consultation and delay in seeking medical advice for primary symptoms of CRC (i.e. rectal bleeding and change in bowel habit). Paper One provides a critical review of methodically sound community-based approaches to increasing CRC screening levels. Paper Two is a cross-sectional study which identified the current levels of CRC screening uptake and screening in accordance with National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) screening guidelines among an at-risk community cohort of persons aged 56-88 years. Paper Three is a cross-sectional cohort study using the aforementioned sampled population which assessed the socio-demographic and provider-level factors associated with ever receiving CRC testing and CRC screening in accordance with guideline recommendations. A secondary analysis was conducted to examine National Bowel Cancer Screening Program eligibility on each aforementioned outcome. Paper Four is a population-based study among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of CRC patients examining across varying levels of risk, the proportion of FDRs (i) ever receiving any CRC testing in their lifetime and (ii) screened in accordance with NHMRC screening guidelines. Socio-demographic and provider-level predictors of (i) and (ii) were also evaluated. Paper Five reports on a cross-sectional study examining, for two primary symptoms of colorectal cancer (i.e. rectal bleeding and change in bowel habit), rates of (i) non-consultation and (ii) delay in seeking medical advice for both symptoms. Additionally, the reasons for non-consultation and delay in seeking medical advice for each symptom as well as the triggers for consulting a doctor following symptom episode were investigated. Paper Six: The purpose of this study using the aforementioned Hunter Community Study cohort was to identify the socio-demographic and provider-related characteristics associated with (i) ever seeking medical advice for primary symptoms of CRC and (ii) early medical-advice-seeking behaviour for primary symptoms of CRC. Discussion and implications for future research and practice: In conclusion, this dissertation has provided insight into the current levels of CRC screening in compliance with NHMRC screening guideline recommendations at a community level and among an increased-risk population (i.e. first-degree relatives of CRC patients). Previously, little was known about community CRC screening levels across varying levels of risk. The low rates of screening in accordance with guidelines and the identified screening inequalities across individual and socio-demographic characteristics highlights the need for systematic population-based approaches to increase the rate of risk-appropriate CRC screening. This thesis also highlighted the poor receptivity of community members to prompt medical advice seeking for potential symptoms of CRC. Both high rates of delay and non-consultation for primary symptoms were evident, with little appreciable improvements indicated through a direct comparison with an earlier at-risk community data set. The current work highlights the need for systematic population-based approaches that are tested in methodically rigorous interventions, if improvements in the earlier presentation of primary symptoms and the level of risk-appropriate CRC screening are to occur. The direction of future research stemming from this dissertation and the possible pathways for future research initiatives are discussed.

Includes bibliographical references.
xiii, 260 leaves ; 30 cm.
Examins Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) screening as a possible means of reducing mortality from colorectal cancer in Australia. Consists of an evaluation of a FOBT screening program in South Australia (in terms of numbers of cancers detected, accuracy of the test used, costs of the program and characteristics of participants) and surveys of the general population and of South Australian general practitioners, providing information on knowledge, attitudes and practices in relation to colorectal cancer and its prevention.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Adelaide, Dept. of Community Medicine, 1995?

The worldwide increase in the number of people affected by cancer and the costs of cancer care has increased the urgency of efforts to translate knowledge about the causes of cancer into effective preventive interventions. A wide range of interventions has proven to be effective for cancer prevention, either by reducing exposure to known causes of human cancer or by disrupting the multistage progression of tumors. Examples of progress include the up to 40% decrease in the age-standardized lung cancer incidence rate among men in high- and middle-income countries due to tobacco control; the 30% decrease in colorectal cancer incidence in the United States from widespread screening and the removal of precursor adenomatous tumors; the decreased prevalence of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in East Asia due to neonatal vaccination; and protection against excessive sun exposure and decreased incidence of melanoma and keratinocytic carcinomas in Australia.

Skin cancer is Australia’s ‘national cancer’. At least two in three Australians are diagnosed with skin cancer by the age of 70 and over 1000 Australians are treated for skin cancer every day. The good news is that skin cancer is one of the most preventable forms of cancer. This book brings together leading experts in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of skin cancer, providing practical information about the sun and health. The book begins with an explanation of what skin cancer is and how it forms, then discusses ultraviolet radiation and how to protect yourself, the effects of tanning, myths and truths about sunscreen, getting enough Vitamin D, the impact of the sun on your eyes, early detection and treatment of skin cancer, and life after skin cancer. It is a must-read for anyone living under the Australian and New Zealand sun.

The first indications that hormonal imbalance during pregnancy may result in abnormal development of the fetus goes back to the 1930s. In 1939 researchers at Northwestern University Medical School reported that when pregnant rats were given an extra dose of external estrogen, the offspring suffered structural defects in their sex organs, both females and males (1) For years, this phenomenon was considered by the scientific and medical community as specifically related to rodents and thus did not concern humans. Furthermore, it had been generally believed that human placenta represented a barrier impenetrable by chemicals to which a pregnant woman was exposed. The myth of the placental barrier was shattered by the thalidomide tragedy. Thalidomide was developed in 1957 and found extensive use in Europe and Australia as a prescription drug to be used in pregnancy as a tranquilizer and against nausea. Soon, however, it had to be withdrawn from the market because some babies of women who took thalidomide were born highly deformed, lacking whole limbs or having underdeveloped limbs. Not all babies of women taking thalidomide suffered deformities There was no relationship between the total dose of the drug and the effect. Rather the effect depended on timing—on the time during the pregnancy during which the drug was taken. The deformities occurred only when thalidomide was taken during the organ-forming period—between the fifth and eighth week. Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was first synthesized as a synthetic estrogen-analog in 1943. In decades to follow it was widely prescribed to pregnant women for prevention of miscarriages. However, in 1952 an epidemiological study conducted at the University of Chicago indicated that there was no difference in the frequency of miscarriages between women who did not take DES and those that did take it. Despite this finding many physicians kept prescribing the drug through the 1960s. In 1971 two independent case-control epidemiological studies had shown that among girls born to women who took DES there was a high frequency of vaginal cancer occurring at unusually young age of 15 to 22 (2,3).

Overview Skin cancer prevention is a component of the new Cancer Plan 2022–27, which guides the work of the Cancer Institute NSW. To lessen the impact of skin cancer on the community, the Cancer Institute NSW works closely with the NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Advisory Committee, comprising governmental and non-governmental organisation representatives, to develop and implement the NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Strategy. Primary Health Networks and primary care providers are seen as important stakeholders in this work. To guide improvements in skin cancer prevention and inform the development of the next NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Strategy, an up-to-date review of the evidence on the effectiveness and feasibility of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care is required. A research team led by the Daffodil Centre, a joint venture between the University of Sydney and Cancer Council NSW, was contracted to undertake an Evidence Check review to address the questions below. Evidence Check questions This Evidence Check aimed to address the following questions: Question 1: What skin cancer primary prevention activities can be effectively administered in primary care settings? As part of this, identify the key components of such messages, strategies, programs or initiatives that have been effectively implemented and their feasibility in the NSW/Australian context. Question 2: What are the main barriers and enablers for primary care providers in delivering skin cancer primary prevention activities within their setting? Summary of methods The research team conducted a detailed analysis of the published and grey literature, based on a comprehensive search. We developed the search strategy in consultation with a medical librarian at the University of Sydney and the Cancer Institute NSW team, and implemented it across the databases Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus, Cochrane Central and CINAHL. Results were exported and uploaded to Covidence for screening and further selection. The search strategy was designed according to the SPIDER tool for Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Evidence Synthesis, which is a systematic strategy for searching qualitative and mixed-methods research studies. The SPIDER tool facilitates rigour in research by defining key elements of non-quantitative research questions. We included peer-reviewed and grey literature that included skin cancer primary prevention strategies/ interventions/ techniques/ programs within primary care settings, e.g. involving general practitioners and primary care nurses. The literature was limited to publications since 2014, and for studies or programs conducted in Australia, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Western Europe and Scandinavia. We also included relevant systematic reviews and evidence syntheses based on a range of international evidence where also relevant to the Australian context. To address Question 1, about the effectiveness of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings, we summarised findings from the Evidence Check according to different skin cancer prevention activities. To address Question 2, about the barriers and enablers of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings, we summarised findings according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The CFIR is a framework for identifying important implementation considerations for novel interventions in healthcare settings and provides a practical guide for systematically assessing potential barriers and facilitators in preparation for implementing a new activity or program. We assessed study quality using the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) levels of evidence. Key findings We identified 25 peer-reviewed journal articles that met the eligibility criteria and we included these in the Evidence Check. Eight of the studies were conducted in Australia, six in the UK, and the others elsewhere (mainly other European countries). In addition, the grey literature search identified four relevant guidelines, 12 education/training resources, two Cancer Care pathways, two position statements, three reports and five other resources that we included in the Evidence Check. Question 1 (related to effectiveness) We categorised the studies into different types of skin cancer prevention activities: behavioural counselling (n=3); risk assessment and delivering risk-tailored information (n=10); new technologies for early detection and accompanying prevention advice (n=4); and education and training programs for general practitioners (GPs) and primary care nurses regarding skin cancer prevention (n=3). There was good evidence that behavioural counselling interventions can result in a small improvement in sun protection behaviours among adults with fair skin types (defined as ivory or pale skin, light hair and eye colour, freckles, or those who sunburn easily), which would include the majority of Australians. It was found that clinicians play an important role in counselling patients about sun-protective behaviours, and recommended tailoring messages to the age and demographics of target groups (e.g. high-risk groups) to have maximal influence on behaviours. Several web-based melanoma risk prediction tools are now available in Australia, mainly designed for health professionals to identify patients’ risk of a new or subsequent primary melanoma and guide discussions with patients about primary prevention and early detection. Intervention studies have demonstrated that use of these melanoma risk prediction tools is feasible and acceptable to participants in primary care settings, and there is some evidence, including from Australian studies, that using these risk prediction tools to tailor primary prevention and early detection messages can improve sun-related behaviours. Some studies examined novel technologies, such as apps, to support early detection through skin examinations, including a very limited focus on the provision of preventive advice. These novel technologies are still largely in the research domain rather than recommended for routine use but provide a potential future opportunity to incorporate more primary prevention tailored advice. There are a number of online short courses available for primary healthcare professionals specifically focusing on skin cancer prevention. Most education and training programs for GPs and primary care nurses in the field of skin cancer focus on treatment and early detection, though some programs have specifically incorporated primary prevention education and training. A notable example is the Dermoscopy for Victorian General Practice Program, in which 93% of participating GPs reported that they had increased preventive information provided to high-risk patients and during skin examinations. Question 2 (related to barriers and enablers) Key enablers of performing skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings included: • Easy access and availability of guidelines and point-of-care tools and resources • A fit with existing workflows and systems, so there is minimal disruption to flow of care • Easy-to-understand patient information • Using the waiting room for collection of risk assessment information on an electronic device such as an iPad/tablet where possible • Pairing with early detection activities • Sharing of successful programs across jurisdictions. Key barriers to performing skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings included: • Unclear requirements and lack of confidence (self-efficacy) about prevention counselling • Limited availability of GP services especially in regional and remote areas • Competing demands, low priority, lack of time • Lack of incentives.

Background Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide.(1) It is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia (12,741 cases diagnosed in 2018) and the leading cause of cancer death.(2) The number of years of potential life lost to lung cancer in Australia is estimated to be 58,450, similar to that of colorectal and breast cancer combined.(3) While tobacco control strategies are most effective for disease prevention in the general population, early detection via low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in high-risk populations is a viable option for detecting asymptomatic disease in current (13%) and former (24%) Australian smokers.(4) The purpose of this Evidence Check review is to identify and analyse existing and emerging evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals to guide future program and policy planning. Evidence Check questions This review aimed to address the following questions: 1. What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 2. What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 3. What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? 4. What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Summary of methods The authors searched the peer-reviewed literature across three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase) for existing systematic reviews and original studies published between 1 January 2009 and 8 August 2019. Fifteen systematic reviews (of which 8 were contemporary) and 64 original publications met the inclusion criteria set across the four questions. Key findings Question 1: What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? There is sufficient evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of combined (pooled) data from screening trials (of high-risk individuals) to indicate that LDCT examination is clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality. In 2011, the landmark National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST, a large-scale randomised controlled trial [RCT] conducted in the US) reported a 20% (95% CI 6.8% – 26.7%; P=0.004) relative reduction in mortality among long-term heavy smokers over three rounds of annual screening. High-risk eligibility criteria was defined as people aged 55–74 years with a smoking history of ≥30 pack-years (years in which a smoker has consumed 20-plus cigarettes each day) and, for former smokers, ≥30 pack-years and have quit within the past 15 years.(5) All-cause mortality was reduced by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2% – 13.6%; P=0.02). Initial data from the second landmark RCT, the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (known as the NELSON trial), have found an even greater reduction of 26% (95% CI, 9% – 41%) in lung cancer mortality, with full trial results yet to be published.(6, 7) Pooled analyses, including several smaller-scale European LDCT screening trials insufficiently powered in their own right, collectively demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.91).(8) Despite the reduction in all-cause mortality found in the NLST, pooled analyses of seven trials found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–1.00).(8) However, cancer-specific mortality is currently the most relevant outcome in cancer screening trials. These seven trials demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of early stage cancers in LDCT groups compared with controls (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.43–3.03). Thus, when considering results across mortality outcomes and early stage cancers diagnosed, LDCT screening is considered to be clinically effective. Question 2: What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? The harms of LDCT lung cancer screening include false positive tests and the consequences of unnecessary invasive follow-up procedures for conditions that are eventually diagnosed as benign. While LDCT screening leads to an increased frequency of invasive procedures, it does not result in greater mortality soon after an invasive procedure (in trial settings when compared with the control arm).(8) Overdiagnosis, exposure to radiation, psychological distress and an impact on quality of life are other known harms. Systematic review evidence indicates the benefits of LDCT screening are likely to outweigh the harms. The potential harms are likely to be reduced as refinements are made to LDCT screening protocols through: i) the application of risk predication models (e.g. the PLCOm2012), which enable a more accurate selection of the high-risk population through the use of specific criteria (beyond age and smoking history); ii) the use of nodule management algorithms (e.g. Lung-RADS, PanCan), which assist in the diagnostic evaluation of screen-detected nodules and cancers (e.g. more precise volumetric assessment of nodules); and, iii) more judicious selection of patients for invasive procedures. Recent evidence suggests a positive LDCT result may transiently increase psychological distress but does not have long-term adverse effects on psychological distress or health-related quality of life (HRQoL). With regards to smoking cessation, there is no evidence to suggest screening participation invokes a false sense of assurance in smokers, nor a reduction in motivation to quit. The NELSON and Danish trials found no difference in smoking cessation rates between LDCT screening and control groups. Higher net cessation rates, compared with general population, suggest those who participate in screening trials may already be motivated to quit. Question 3: What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? There are no systematic reviews that capture the main components of recent major lung cancer screening trials and programs. We extracted evidence from original studies and clinical guidance documents and organised this into key groups to form a concise set of components for potential implementation of a national lung cancer screening program in Australia: 1. Identifying the high-risk population: recruitment, eligibility, selection and referral 2. Educating the public, people at high risk and healthcare providers; this includes creating awareness of lung cancer, the benefits and harms of LDCT screening, and shared decision-making 3. Components necessary for health services to deliver a screening program: a. Planning phase: e.g. human resources to coordinate the program, electronic data systems that integrate medical records information and link to an established national registry b. Implementation phase: e.g. human and technological resources required to conduct LDCT examinations, interpretation of reports and communication of results to participants c. Monitoring and evaluation phase: e.g. monitoring outcomes across patients, radiological reporting, compliance with established standards and a quality assurance program 4. Data reporting and research, e.g. audit and feedback to multidisciplinary teams, reporting outcomes to enhance international research into LDCT screening 5. Incorporation of smoking cessation interventions, e.g. specific programs designed for LDCT screening or referral to existing community or hospital-based services that deliver cessation interventions. Most original studies are single-institution evaluations that contain descriptive data about the processes required to establish and implement a high-risk population-based screening program. Across all studies there is a consistent message as to the challenges and complexities of establishing LDCT screening programs to attract people at high risk who will receive the greatest benefits from participation. With regards to smoking cessation, evidence from one systematic review indicates the optimal strategy for incorporating smoking cessation interventions into a LDCT screening program is unclear. There is widespread agreement that LDCT screening attendance presents a ‘teachable moment’ for cessation advice, especially among those people who receive a positive scan result. Smoking cessation is an area of significant research investment; for instance, eight US-based clinical trials are now underway that aim to address how best to design and deliver cessation programs within large-scale LDCT screening programs.(9) Question 4: What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Assessing the value or cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening involves a complex interplay of factors including data on effectiveness and costs, and institutional context. A key input is data about the effectiveness of potential and current screening programs with respect to case detection, and the likely outcomes of treating those cases sooner (in the presence of LDCT screening) as opposed to later (in the absence of LDCT screening). Evidence about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening programs has been summarised in two systematic reviews. We identified a further 13 studies—five modelling studies, one discrete choice experiment and seven articles—that used a variety of methods to assess cost-effectiveness. Three modelling studies indicated LDCT screening was cost-effective in the settings of the US and Europe. Two studies—one from Australia and one from New Zealand—reported LDCT screening would not be cost-effective using NLST-like protocols. We anticipate that, following the full publication of the NELSON trial, cost-effectiveness studies will likely be updated with new data that reduce uncertainty about factors that influence modelling outcomes, including the findings of indeterminate nodules. Gaps in the evidence There is a large and accessible body of evidence as to the effectiveness (Q1) and harms (Q2) of LDCT screening for lung cancer. Nevertheless, there are significant gaps in the evidence about the program components that are required to implement an effective LDCT screening program (Q3). Questions about LDCT screening acceptability and feasibility were not explicitly included in the scope. However, as the evidence is based primarily on US programs and UK pilot studies, the relevance to the local setting requires careful consideration. The Queensland Lung Cancer Screening Study provides feasibility data about clinical aspects of LDCT screening but little about program design. The International Lung Screening Trial is still in the recruitment phase and findings are not yet available for inclusion in this Evidence Check. The Australian Population Based Screening Framework was developed to “inform decision-makers on the key issues to be considered when assessing potential screening programs in Australia”.(10) As the Framework is specific to population-based, rather than high-risk, screening programs, there is a lack of clarity about transferability of criteria. However, the Framework criteria do stipulate that a screening program must be acceptable to “important subgroups such as target participants who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people from disadvantaged groups and people with a disability”.(10) An extensive search of the literature highlighted that there is very little information about the acceptability of LDCT screening to these population groups in Australia. Yet they are part of the high-risk population.(10) There are also considerable gaps in the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening in different settings, including Australia. The evidence base in this area is rapidly evolving and is likely to include new data from the NELSON trial and incorporate data about the costs of targeted- and immuno-therapies as these treatments become more widely available in Australia.

This report describes a rapid review exercise on the place-based intervention approaches to improving the health and wellbeing outcomes of residents in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW). The aim of this exercise is to inform the Cancer Institute NSW on their future policy and program developments in cancer prevention and screening. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following research questions: 1. What place-based interventions for health promotion and risk prevention and screening currently exist in NSW? 2. How effective have these interventions been in achieving their stated objectives?

Background Australia is a multi-cultural society with increasing rates of people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. On average, CALD groups have higher rates of tobacco use, lower participation in cancer screening programs, and poorer health outcomes than the general Australian population. Lower cancer screening and smoking cessation rates are due to differing cultural norms, health-related attitudes, and beliefs, and language barriers. Interventions can help address these potential barriers and increase tobacco cessation and cancer screening rates among CALD groups. Cancer Council NSW (CCNSW) aims to reduce the impact of cancer and improve cancer outcomes for priority populations including CALD communities. In line with this objective, CCNSW commissioned this rapid review of interventions implemented in Australia and comparable countries. Review questions This review aimed to address the following specific questions: Question 1 (Q1): What smoking cessation interventions have been proven effective in reducing or preventing smoking among culturally and linguistically diverse communities? Question 2 (Q2): What screening interventions have proven effective in increasing participation in population cancer screening programs among culturally and linguistically diverse populations? This review focused on Chinese-, Vietnamese- and Arabic-speaking people as they are the largest CALD groups in Australia and have high rates of tobacco use and poor screening adherence in NSW. Summary of methods An extensive search of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2013-March 2022 identified 19 eligible studies for inclusion in the Q1 review and 49 studies for the Q2 review. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Levels of Evidence and Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools were used to assess the robustness and quality of the included studies, respectively. Key findings Findings are reported by components of an intervention overall and for each CALD group. By understanding the effectiveness of individual components, results will demonstrate key building blocks of an effective intervention. Question 1: What smoking cessation interventions have been proven effective in reducing or preventing smoking among culturally and linguistically diverse communities? Thirteen of the 19 studies were Level IV (L4) evidence, four were Level III (L3), one was Level II (L2), none were L1 (highest level of evidence) and one study’s evidence level was unable to be determined. The quality of included studies varied. Fifteen tobacco cessation intervention components were included, with most interventions involving at least three components (range 2-6). Written information (14 studies), and education sessions (10 studies) were the most common components included in an intervention. Eight of the 15 intervention components explored had promising evidence for use with Chinese-speaking participants (written information, education sessions, visual information, counselling, involving a family member or friend, nicotine replacement therapy, branded merchandise, and mobile messaging). Another two components (media campaign and telephone follow-up) had evidence aggregated across CALD groups (i.e., results for Chinese-speaking participants were combined with other CALD group(s)). No intervention component was deemed of sufficient evidence for use with Vietnamese-speaking participants and four intervention components had aggregated evidence (written information, education sessions, counselling, nicotine replacement therapy). Counselling was the only intervention component to have promising evidence for use with Arabic-speaking participants and one had mixed evidence (written information). Question 2: What screening interventions have proven effective in increasing participation in population cancer screening programs among culturally and linguistically diverse populations? Two of the 49 studies were Level I (L1) evidence, 13 L2, seven L3, 25 L4 and two studies’ level of evidence was unable to be determined. Eighteen intervention components were assessed with most interventions involving 3-4 components (range 1-6). Education sessions (32 studies), written information (23 studies) and patient navigation (10 studies) were the most common components. Seven of the 18 cancer screening intervention components had promising evidence to support their use with Vietnamese-speaking participants (education sessions, written information, patient navigation, visual information, peer/community health worker, counselling, and peer experience). The component, opportunity to be screened (e.g. mailed or handed a bowel screening test), had aggregated evidence regarding its use with Vietnamese-speaking participants. Seven intervention components (education session, written information, visual information, peer/community health worker, opportunity to be screened, counselling, and branded merchandise) also had promising evidence to support their use with Chinese-speaking participants whilst two components had mixed (patient navigation) or aggregated (media campaign) evidence. One intervention component for use with Arabic-speaking participants had promising evidence to support its use (opportunity to be screened) and eight intervention components had mixed or aggregated support (education sessions, written information, patient navigation, visual information, peer/community health worker, peer experience, media campaign, and anatomical models). Gaps in the evidence There were four noteworthy gaps in the evidence: 1. No systematic review was captured for Q1, and only two studies were randomised controlled trials. Much of the evidence is therefore based on lower level study designs, with risk of bias. 2. Many studies provided inadequate detail regarding their intervention design which impacts both the quality appraisal and how mixed finding results can be interpreted. 3. Several intervention components were found to have supportive evidence available only at the aggregate level. Further research is warranted to determine the interventions effectiveness with the individual CALD participant group only. 4. The evidence regarding the effectiveness of certain intervention components were either unknown (no studies) or insufficient (only one study) across CALD groups. This was the predominately the case for Arabic-speaking participants for both Q1 and Q2, and for Vietnamese-speaking participants for Q1. Further research is therefore warranted. Applicability Most of the intervention components included in this review are applicable for use in the Australian context, and NSW specifically. However, intervention components assessed as having insufficient, mixed, or no evidence require further research. Cancer screening and tobacco cessation interventions targeting Chinese-speaking participants were more common and therefore showed more evidence of effectiveness for the intervention components explored. There was support for cancer screening intervention components targeting Vietnamese-speaking participants but not for tobacco cessation interventions. There were few interventions implemented for Arabic-speaking participants that addressed tobacco cessation and screening adherence. Much of the evidence for Vietnamese and Arabic-speaking participants was further limited by studies co-recruiting multiple CALD groups and reporting aggregate results. Conclusion There is sound evidence for use of a range of intervention components to address tobacco cessation and cancer screening adherence among Chinese-speaking populations, and cancer screening adherence among Vietnamese-speaking populations. Evidence is lacking regarding the effectiveness of tobacco cessation interventions with Vietnamese- and Arabic-speaking participants, and cancer screening interventions for Arabic-speaking participants. More research is required to determine whether components considered effective for use in one CALD group are applicable to other CALD populations.