Academic literature on the topic 'National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)'

Background and context: Bowel cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in Australia, yet survival is above 90% if it is detected at stage one. Cancer Council Australia has advocated since 1997 (when RCT evidence was published) for a national government-run screening program—a challenge to any government, given the costs and changes across the health system, irrespective of the health benefits. Cancer Council Australia has advocated at every step in the program’s development, from pilot studies to securing bipartisan political support for the program´s introduction to funding allocations linked to our budget submissions. Yet cost pressures restricted the Australian Government in 2013 to implementation by 2034 - an unacceptable timeframe in view of preventable deaths over that period. To find a peer-reviewed “big number” to convince candidates in Australia´s 2013 federal election to support full implementation by 2020, Cancer Council commissioned a study of multiple screening scenarios submitted to a leading medical journal, showing our implementation plan would prevent 35,000 bowel cancer deaths by 2040. The incoming government, despite campaigning on national debt-reduction, allocated almost $100 million dollars—the centrepiece of its first health budget—to Cancer Council Australia´s plan, attributing the decision to our advice. Subsequent Cancer Council Australia research has shown the program´s life-saving benefits to be even greater if participation can be increased, and that it would achieve net savings. We continue to push for program promotion, with our peer-reviewed research showing 60% participation would prevent 84,000 bowel cancer deaths by 2040. Aim: To highlight how political advocacy and scientific research can work together by ensuring the advocacy is based on the best available evidence, with that evidence collected through a peer-reviewed study designed to deliver major policy reform. Strategy/Tactics: The key strategy/tactics were basic but often overlooked: collect the most compelling evidence of benefit, thereby making it difficult for politicians to dismiss the advocacy. The example of bowel cancer screening advocacy in Australia since 2012-13 has been presented in Australian research institutes to highlight how studies can be designed expressly to translate to a major policy outcome. Program/Policy process: Cancer Council Australia adhered to all government processes within its advocacy remit (budget submissions, being appointed to government committees, producing clinical practice guidelines) while working independently to drive the research and public policy agenda. Outcomes: The accelerated implementation of a landmark national screening program. What was learned: That even politicians obsessed with budget cuts can´t always argue with the best evidence—and that researchers can design studies that change policy and practice, if guided by political pragmatists.

Abstract Objectives Prolonged exposure to stress is a risk factor for mental and physical health problems (i.e., depression, cardiovascular disease). Although higher consumption of fruit and vegetables (FV) has been associated with lower perceived stress (PS), the relationship between specific FV types and PS remains uncertain. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the relationship between consumption of specific FV types with PS in a cohort of men and women aged 25–92 years who took part in the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) Study. Methods A validated Food Frequency Questionnaire was used to assess dietary intake (n = 8,640). A validated questionnaire was used to assess PS (high PS cut-offs were obtained from the highest quartile of PS for each sex). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was performed to investigate the associations. Results The mean age of participants (50.1% females) was 47.8 (SD 15) years. Those in the highest quartiles of apples and pears, orange and other citrus, and banana intakes had a significantly lower odds (24–31%) of having high PS, compared to lowest. Similarly, those with higher intakes of cruciferous, yellow/orange/red, and legume vegetables had significantly lower odds (25–27%) of having high PS. Conclusions In Australian adults, a higher consumption of different types of FV may alleviate stress and potentially improve mental and physical wellbeing. Funding Sources This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. The salary of MS and CPB is supported by a Royal Perth Hospital Research Foundation Career Advancement Fellowship. The salary of LCB is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant and a National Heart Foundation of Australia Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship. The salary of JRL is supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship. The salary of JMH is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Research Fellowship. The salary of JES is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant. None of the funding agencies had any role in any aspects of the manuscript.

In 1974, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) in Australia reviewed what initiatives might be undertaken to promote medical research relevant to the needs of the population. It noted that Australia had contributed with distinction in some areas, such as the neurosciences and immunology, whereas fields such as epidemiology and psychiatry were much less developed scientifically. As the principal source of funding for medical research, the NH & MRC had hitherto supported projects, individuals and a small number of institutions (e.g. the Walter and Eliza Hall, the Florey and the Baker Institutes). The initiative adopted in 1974, as an additional commitment, was to establish some research units in areas of major relevance for public health. These were intended to become centres of excellence in fields where more expertise was needed at a national level.

Introduction: The National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia’s largest medical research funder, mandates open access for journal articles published from funded research. Publishing articles in fully open access journals is an acceptable route to achieve compliance. However, the total cost of article processing charges and the extent to which Council funds contribute to payment are unknown.Objectives: The main objectives of this study were to calculate the cost of article processing charges and determine the extent of acknowledgement of payment for Council-funded articles published in fully open access journals during 2019.Methods: The funding acknowledgement fields of Web of Science provided the list of Council-funded articles. The Directory of Open Access Journals identified fully open access journal titles and their article processing charges. Data analysisinvolved bibliometric research methods, principally descriptive statistics.Results: The cost of article processing charges for 2,261 articles published in 2019 was over US$5,000,000. Charges ranged from zero to US$5,200, with the median being US$1,900. The acknowledgement of payment of article processing chargeswas extremely low (1.72%).Discussion: The insufficient acknowledgement of the considerable expenditure on article processing charges is concerning. The “Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research” underscores the principles of transparency in declaringinterests. Required is greater disclosure of expenditure on article processing charges and accountability for public-funded research.Conclusion: The disclosure of article processing charge payments should be mandated by the Council and included in the publication metadata deposited in repositories under the National Health and Medical Research Council’s OpenAccess Policy. Acknowledgements and disclosures are essential in recognising professional contributions and ensuring the responsible conduct of research.

Australia utilises nationally approved guidelines for managing women with abnormal Pap smears. The guidelines were recently revised using the process designated by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Revising the guidelines was protracted and controversial. This paper explores the reasons for the difficulties encountered and queries the cost of undertaking such work.

There have been a number of important developments in Australia in the area of telemedicine. At the national level, the House of Representatives' Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs has been conducting the Inquiry into Health Information Management and Telemedicine. The Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council has supported the establishment of a working party convened by the South Australian Health Commission to prepare a detailed report on issues relating to telemedicine. State governments have begun a number of telemedicine projects, including major initiatives in New South Wales and Victoria and the extensive development of telepsychiatry services in Queensland. Research activities in high-speed image transmission have been undertaken by the Australian Computing and Communications Institute and Telstra, and by the Australian Navy. The matter of the funding of both capital and recurrent costs of telemedicine services has not been resolved, and issues of security and privacy of medical information are subject to discussion. The use of the Internet as a universal communications medium may provide opportunities for the expansion of telemedicine services, particularly in the area of continuing medical education. A need has been recognized for the coordinated evaluation of telemedicine services as cost-benefit considerations are seen to be very important.

In 2017, following an extensive review of its ethical guidelines on assisted reproductive technology (ART), the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) upheld its moratorium on non-medical sex selection (NMSS) pending further public debate. Interestingly, the public consultation conducted by the NHMRC revealed a majority of submissions supported a permissive approach to NMSS, suggesting a potential shift in attitudes about NMSS in Australia. Historically, public consultation on NMSS both internationally and in Australia has revealed general opposition to this practice. This has reinforced concerns raised against NMSS in bioethical debates and been reflected in a restrictive regulatory approach to NMSS in many countries. The NHMRC public consultation highlights a potential disconnect between the concerns raised about NMSS in scholarly literature and more liberal community views. This paper reviews the submissions made to the NHMRC on NMSS and argues that the current moratorium should be revisited with a view to exploring a more nuanced approach to regulating NMSS in the future.

The current knowledge of the pollution of Australian urban soils was reviewed with special reference to heavy metals. Increased community concern in recent years has resulted m a major upsurge in the investigation and rehabilitation of contaminated soils. This has led to a concomitant reassessment and development of regulatory procedures, and the establishment of some new environmental agencies. This review considers sources and extent of contamination, and approaches to the establishment of reference background levels in urban and rural areas. Assessment of contaminated sites has been largely based on overseas experience but site specific approaches relevant to Australian soils and climates are needed and are being developed by State authorities in collaboration with the Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The need for soil-based research and for standardized soil sampling procedures for site evaluation and action is stressed. Many opportunities exist for soil scientists in solving problems of soil contamination and rehabilitation.

As Australia’s leading agency for funding health research (expending over $400 million in 2006), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has a major responsibility to improve the evidence base for health policy and practice. There is an urgent need for better evidence to guide policy and programs that improve the health of Indigenous peoples. In 2002, NHMRC endorsed a series of landmark policy changes to acknowledge its ongoing role and responsibilities in Indigenous health research—adopting a strategic Road Map for research, improving Indigenous representation across NHMRC Council and Principal Committees, and committing 5% of its annual budget to Indigenous health research. This thesis examines how these policies evolved, the extent to which they have been implemented, and their impact on agency expenditure in relation to People Support. Additionally, this thesis describes the impact of NHMRC policies in reshaping research practices among Indigenous populations.

Master of Philosophy
As Australia’s leading agency for funding health research (expending over $400 million in 2006), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has a major responsibility to improve the evidence base for health policy and practice. There is an urgent need for better evidence to guide policy and programs that improve the health of Indigenous peoples. In 2002, NHMRC endorsed a series of landmark policy changes to acknowledge its ongoing role and responsibilities in Indigenous health research—adopting a strategic Road Map for research, improving Indigenous representation across NHMRC Council and Principal Committees, and committing 5% of its annual budget to Indigenous health research. This thesis examines how these policies evolved, the extent to which they have been implemented, and their impact on agency expenditure in relation to People Support. Additionally, this thesis describes the impact of NHMRC policies in reshaping research practices among Indigenous populations.

It is now fifteen years since Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council called for a collaborative approach to the education of dental health professionals. In spite of this, challenges remain in improving the cohesiveness of the oral health team. While the potential value of interprofessional education is strongly asserted by various stakeholders, in reality a paradigm shift still needs to occur at educational, professional and organisational levels. To contribute to the limited knowledge in the field of dental technology education, this research compares the attitudes and perceptions of dental technology students and graduates from two different curricula about collaborative working as a member of an oral health team. Differences in curriculum structure and content between the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) and University sectors were analysed in relation to the extant literature on interprofessional education. A mixed method approach then explored attitudes and readiness of students and graduates for collaborative professional practice. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used. Cross-sectional data were collected from participants during and after the completion of the Bachelor of Oral Health in Dental Technology at Griffith University, Gold Coast, and Diploma of Dental Technology at Southbank Institute of Technology, Brisbane. Third and fifth year dental students at Griffith University were also included, as exemplars of other members of the oral health team who learn alongside dental technology students.
Thesis (PhD Doctorate)
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
School of Dentistry and Oral Health
Griffith Health
Full Text

AbstractThe virtual National Health Insurance (NHI) card not only represents digitization but also enables contactless health care during the pandemic. Under the process of full-scale digitization, the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) continues to refine the health service delivery measures, especially in the field of home-based medical care and telemedicine.Under the personal data protection regulation, the NHI data are opened for academic research purposes. More than 6550 published journal articles have utilized the NHI data, and these articles are made searchable online to support health policy management and clinical research. The NHI medical images combined with the application of artificial intelligence (AI) are the cornerstones of Taiwan’s smart health care. Domestic research teams are eligible to use the NHI database to verify or build their AI models after their research proposals are approved by the Management Council of the AI Application of NHI Data. The NHIA also plans to use NHI big data to develop digital patient decision aids by establishing a two-way digital interaction model to address the concerns of the healthcare providers and the public. By comparing the secondary use of health data in different countries, Taiwan is seeking a balance between innovation and conservative policies and is creating an environment that ensures the well-being of the next generation.

This chapter explicates the multi-profession scheme in Australia that incorporates medical practitioners, nurses and twelve other professional groups. It considers the origins and establishment of the National Scheme for the Registration and Accreditation of the Health Professions introduced in Australia in 2010, within the context of wider regulatory and public policy reforms and initiatives. The key structural aspects of the Scheme’s model of accountability to ministers and parliaments are analysed. It emphasises the extent to which the Scheme has been influenced by Australia’s federal system and the respective responsibilities of each layer of government. The chapter explains how governments in Australia, as represented by their Health Ministers, through the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council, have taken on the appearance of the mythical hydra-headed monster, concurrently a unitary and disparate form purposely constructed to act in the public interest in a unique antipodean model of health workforce governance.

There is ample evidence that child maltreatment (child abuse and neglect) is a prevalent problem, globally. Every 2 years since 1982, the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ISPCAN) conducts a survey to assess the state of child maltreatment and child protection internationally. This chapter is excerpted and based on World Perspectives on Child Abuse, 11th Edition.1* Those wishing to read the full report, including detailed information on individual countries, can obtain a copy from ISPCAN at www.ispcan.org. It is naturally difficult to cover the entire world and to capture what is happening related to child maltreatment and child protection in many countries in any depth. Nevertheless, data from this survey offer a valuable snapshot of policies and practices pertaining to child maltreatment in different regions of the world and according to country income level. With members in more than 100 countries, ISPCAN has the capacity to identify knowledgeable professionals in the field of child maltreatment. ISPCAN initiated the current survey with respondents to past surveys. In addition, potential participants thought to be familiar with child protection in their countries were sought from ISPCAN membership. ISPCAN and executive council members were also asked to reach out to their networks, particularly in countries in which a respondent had not been identified. In addition to individual connections, ISPCAN works with national organizations in several countries as well as other international organizations. They too helped identify key informants to complete the survey. Repeated efforts were made to reach respondents in as many countries as possible. Of the 96 countries with identified respondents, 76% completed the survey. Of the 73 countries represented, 10 were from Africa, 14 from the Americas, 25 from Asia, and 23 from Europe; Oceania was represented by just Australia. Using designations of the World Bank, there was good representation of high- and middle-income countries (33 for each), but only 7 responses were from low-income countries. Caution is naturally needed when interpreting findings based on low numbers. The editor, together with an international advisory committee, developed the survey, building on prior iterations. Participants were invited to complete the survey, administered online using SurveyMonkey. Each respondent was e-mailed a link to the survey. They were also encouraged to seek input from colleagues when necessary, to help ensure the accuracy of the information. It is inherently difficult to know the many aspects of child protection in one’s country, especially when systems are not centralized and considerable variation may exist. It was beyond the scope of this project to check the accuracy of responses. These data, therefore, may not always accurately represent the complex picture or the variations within a country. The results of the survey help inform the status of maltreated children globally and likely system and programmatic interventions needed to ameliorate the status of children worldwide.

It has been fascinating to watch how American healthcare delivery system is going through a paradigm shift to meet new government mandates and bend the care delivery cost curve. For years, US health care system has been fragmented and falling short on quality, outcomes, costs, and lacking framework to support care continuum. According to the study conducted by National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, for many years, US population has been dying at the younger age than population with similar characteristics in other countries such as Canada, Australia and Japan. When compared with the peer countries, US Population did worse in health areas such as drug related deaths, obesity, chronic diseases, disability, etc. (Institute of Medicine of the National Academics. 2013 in, U.S Health in International Perspective Shorter Lives, Poorer Health.)

Introduction: In 2018, the Australian Centre for Cannabinoid Clinical and Research Excellence (ACRE), a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence was funded to develop a suite of state-wide medicinal cannabis prescribing guidance documents. At this time, regulatory changes in Australia were enabling broader access to medicinal cannabis in a medical model. The initiative funded through the New South Wales (NSW) Government’s Clinical Cannabis Medicines Program enabled the development of practical resources to support NSW medical practitioners in prescribing medicinal cannabis to patients for conditions where cannabinoids are perceived to have some benefit. Aim: To provide interim guidance to support medical practitioners in the prescription of medicinal cannabis where they are perceived to have potential benefit. Methods: A team of clinical pharmacologists, pharmacists and clinicians collaborated in the development of the first tranche of prescribing guidance documents. The suite of six medicinal cannabis prescribing guidance documents covered the most common indications for which prescriptions for medicinal cannabis were being sought by NSW patients: dementia; anorexia and cachexia; nausea; chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; spasticity; and chronic non-cancer pain. In 2019, the draft guidance documents underwent a comprehensive review and consultation process involving fifty key stakeholders before publication. Results: The ACRE medicinal cannabis prescribing guidance documents have been widely adopted, both in NSW and around the world. The prescribing guidance documents are now recommended as a health professional educational resource by the Australian national medicines regulator the Therapeutic Goods Administration and state health departments. The prescribing guidance on epilepsy from the second tranche of guidance documents has recently been published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. National medicinal cannabis prescribing pattern data and enquiries to the first-of-kind, state-government funded medicinal cannabis advisory service for medical practitioners informed the themes of the second tranche of six medicinal cannabis prescribing guidance documents being developed in 2022. Conclusions: ACRE medicinal cannabis prescribing guidance documents delivered interim guidance to Australian medical practitioners on the evidence-based and best-practice prescription of medicinal cannabis. Prescribing guidance document themes align with Australian medicinal cannabis prescribing patterns and areas where medical practitioners are seeking further information and advice. It is anticipated that the prescribing guidance documents will be updated periodically as further evidence becomes available. Acknowledgements: NSW Government through the NSW Clinical Cannabis Medicines Program supported development of the NSW Cannabis Medicines Prescribing Guidance. ACRE was established and is funded through the National Health and Medical Research Council Centres of Research Excellence scheme.

ABSTRACT Background: The health information system, especially medical records in hospitals must be carried out accurately and completely. Medical records are important as evidence for the courts, education, research, and policy makers. This study aimed to investigate the factors affecting the compliance with completeness of filling patient’s medical re­cords at hospitals. Subjects and Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching from Pro­Quest, Scopus, and National journals using keywords medical records, filling of medical records, and non- compliance filling medical records. The abstracts and full-text arti­cles published between 2014 to 2019 were selected for this review. A total of 62,355 arti­cles were conducted screening of eligibility criteria. The data were reported using PRIS­MA flow chart. Results: Eleven articles consisting of eight articles using observational studies and three articles using experimental studies met the eligible criteria. There were two articles analyzed systematically from the United States and India, two articles reviewed literature from the United States and England, and seven articles were analyzed statis­tically from Indonesia, America, Australia, and Europe. Six articles showed the sig­nificant results of the factors affecting non-compliance on the medical records filling at the Hospitals. Conclusion: Non-compliance with medical record filling was found in the hospitals under study. Health professionals are suggested to fill out the medical record com­pletely. The hos­pital should enforce compliance with complete medical record fill­ing by health professionals. Keywords: medical record, compliance, hospital Correspondence: Chrismatovanie Gloria. Hospital Administration Department, Faculty Of Public Health, Uni­­ver­sitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java. Email: chrismatovaniegloria@gmail.com. Mo­­­­bi­le: +628132116­1896 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26911/the7thicph.04.29

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 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.

This rapid evaluation of core Life Education programs conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) in June 2021 is an independent investigation that demonstrates the evidence base underpinning Life Education programs in primary schools Australia-wide. It presents a national snapshot by drawing upon existing Life Education-specific evaluation data, existing ACER student wellbeing data, and accepted best practice in the field of student health and wellbeing education. The project addressed the key evaluation questions: How are core Life Education programs underpinned by evidence-based best practice, and how are core Life Education programs impacting primary-aged student wellbeing outcomes that align to the health and physical education Australian and State Curriculums?

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.

As national education programs incorporate HIV prevention into school curricula, policymakers and educators need to know what they can expect from these initiatives. Can such courses influence the behavior of students as well as their knowledge and attitudes? If not, what can these courses reasonably be expected to accomplish, and what part can they play in overall HIV programming for youth? To help answer these questions, the Medical Research Council of South Africa and the Horizons Program studied the Life Skills Grade 9 Curriculum, a school-based HIV/AIDS initiative, as it was introduced in the Pietermaritzburg region of KwaZulu Natal Province in 2001. The 16-hour Grade 9 Curriculum is taught at least once a week over two school terms as part of the Life Orientation subject. The national and provincial South African departments of education, health, and social welfare collaborated on the curriculum design, teacher training, and course introduction. Horizons assessed the life skills program in KwaZulu Natal using both a population-based survey and an evaluation of the course curriculum. This brief focuses on the impact of the curriculum that was being introduced to ninth-grade students.