Letteratura scientifica selezionata sul tema "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social impact and program evaluation"

Objectives The aim of the study was to assess the utility of national Aboriginal survey data in a regional geospatial analysis of daily smoking prevalence for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and discuss the appropriateness of this analysis for policy and program impact assessment. Methods Data from the last two Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) national surveys of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey 2014–15 (n = 7022 adults) and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey 2012–13 (n = 10 896 adults), were used to map the prevalence of smoking by Indigenous regions. Results Daily smoking prevalence in 2014–15 at Indigenous regions ranges from 27.1% (95%CI 18.9–35.3) in the Toowoomba region in Queensland to 68.0% (95%CI 58.1–77.9) in the Katherine region in the Northern Territory. The confidence intervals are wide and there is no significant difference in daily smoking prevalence between the two time periods for any region. Conclusion There are significant limitations with analysing national survey data at finer geographical scales. Given the national program for Indigenous tobacco control is a regional model, evaluation requires finer geographical analysis of smoking prevalence to inform public health progress, policy and program effects. Options to improve the data currently collected include increasing national survey sample sizes, implementing a smoking status question in census surveys, investing in current cohort studies focused on this population or implementing localised surveys. What is known about the topic? The last geospatial analysis of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smoking prevalence was undertaken in 1997. Current national survey data have not been analysed geospatially. What does this paper add? This paper provides new insights into the use of national survey data for understanding regional patterns and prevalence levels of smoking in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. What are the implications for practitioners? The findings of the study suggest caution when interpreting prevalence maps and highlight the need for greater sample sizes in national survey data. The analysis is also an opportunity to assess the use of national survey data in evaluating the policy impact of programs targeted at a regional level.

Aim: This paper discusses the current mental health and social and emotional wellbeing in Indigenous Australian mental health and wellbeing, the gaps in research, the need for transformative and decolonising research and practice, and the opportunities and recommendations to address existing mental health inequities. Method: This paper reviews key mental health and social and wellbeing policy documents and frameworks, and examines relevant literature documenting current decolonising strategies to improve programs, services and practice. It also draws on the key findings of the Centre of Best Practice in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention (CBPATSISP) and Transforming Indigenous Mental Health and Wellbeing research projects. In addition this work builds on the substantial work of the national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Evaluation Project (ATSISPEP) which outlines a range of solutions to reduce the causes, prevalence, and impact of Indigenous suicide by identifying, translating, and promoting the adoption of evidenced based best practice in Indigenous specific suicide prevention activities. Discussion and Conclusion: This paper details the challenges as well as the promise and potential of engaging in transformative and decolonising research and practice to address the existing health service inequities. Acknowledging and addressing these health inequities is an urgent and critical task given the current COVID-19 pandemic and potential for further increasing the adverse mental health and wellbeing gap for Indigenous Australians.

Background Chronic diseases account for over 70% of health gaps between Aboriginal people and the rest of the Australian population. The 1 Deadly Step program involves community-based events that use a sporting platform and cultural ambassadors to improve chronic disease prevention and management in New South Wales (NSW). Objective This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a community-based chronic disease screening program for Aboriginal people. Methods In 2015, the program was enhanced to include an iPad app for screening assessments, a results portal for nominated care providers, and a reporting portal for program administrators and implemented in 9 NSW community events. A mixed methods evaluation comprising survey data, analytics obtained from iPad and Web portal usage, and key informant interviews was conducted. Results Overall, 1046 people were screened between April 2015 and April 2016 (mean age 40.3 years, 640 (61.19%) female, 957 (91.49%) Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander). High chronic disease rates were observed (231 [22.08%] participants at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, 173 [16.54%] with diabetes, and 181 [17.30%] with albuminuria). A minority at high risk of CVD (99/231 [42.9%]) and with diabetes (73/173 [42.2%]) were meeting guideline-recommended management goals. Overall, 297 participants completed surveys (response rate 37.4%) with 85.1% reporting satisfaction with event organization and information gained and 6.1% experiencing problems with certain screening activities. Furthermore, 21 interviews were conducted. A strong local working group and processes that harnessed community social networks were key to implementation success. Although software enhancements facilitated screening and data management, some technical difficulties (eg, time delays in processing blood test results) impeded smooth processing of information. Only 51.43% of participants had a medical review recorded postevent with wide intersite variability (10.5%-85.6%). Factors associated with successful follow-up included clinic managers with overall program responsibility and availability of medical staff for immediate discussion of results on event day. The program was considered highly resource intensive to implement and support from a central coordinating body and integration with existing operational processes was essential. Conclusions 1 Deadly Step offers an effective and acceptable strategy to engage Aboriginal communities in chronic disease screening. High rates of risk factors and management gaps were encountered, including people with no previous knowledge of these issues. Strategies to improve linkage to primary care could enhance the program’s impact on reducing chronic disease burden.

Health inequity and unjust access to care and a higher burden of chronic disease persist in Australia for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (respectfully Indigenous) peoples. For example, in 2015 -2017, compared with non-Indigenous people, Indigenous people had 3.1 times higher rate of in hospitalisation, 4.7 times higher rate of Discharge Against Medical Advice, and almost three times the rate of Potentially Preventable Hospitalisations. These are significant measures of healthcare inequity that highlight the lack of an integrated care model for Indigenous people. Hospital in the Home (HITH) has been a successful integrated care model globally. There is an extensive international research base, including a meta-analysis of 61 randomised control trials, as well as growing experience in Australia. The demonstrated beneficial impact of HITH programs includes equal or better patient clinical outcomes, higher patient satisfaction, reduced hospital admission and re-admissions and reduced overall costs. Despite recognising the inequities in health outcomes for Indigenous people, there has been no published report of Indigenous-specific models of HITH in Australia. Culturally safe health services which address potential institutional barriers to acute inpatient care can improve Indigenous peoples’ access to and the quality of integrated health care. An Indigenous HITH program (I-HITH) will integrate the models of care between secondary and primary care sectors, aiming to improve care outcomes of Indigenous people, via bringing acute care, and the management of acute exacerbations of chronic conditions, closer to home and/or community. The need for an I-HITH program led by the Indigenous community was identified during extensive consultation undertaken by Brisbane North Primary Health Network, Metro North Health and Institute of Urban Indigenous Health, the largest Aboriginal community controlled primary healthcare provider in Australia which provides primary health care for approximately 50% of all Indigenous people in the catchment area. Community leaders, clinical, and system leaders have co-designed the I-HITH program with interventions across the health sectors including hospitals, primary and community-based services, and residential aged care. In the I-HITH model, there has been the establishment of a Primary Care Pathway whereby the GP has admitting rights and retains governance of the patient whilst they are admitted. In the process of establishing this innovative and integrated model of care for Indigenous people in Australia, there have been positive experiences and lessons learnt that could be valuable for other countries especially if the goal is to deliver timely and effectively care for priority groups of peoples. These include 1) co-design process in system innovation and changes in healthcare settings; 2) leadership and cross-sectorial partnerships focusing on integrated care transitions between organisations; 3) clinical governance especially from the whole person perspective in their care plans; 4) incremental referrals to I-HITH ensuring the shared-decision making process that aligns with clients’ values and principles; 5) evaluation team in the whole journey of the development, implementation, and outcome assessment, and continuous quality improvement. The program evaluation includes measures of process, implementation, and outcomes using mixed methods. The team is now ready to receive its first patient.

The Ngaa-bi-nya framework presented here is a practical guide for the evaluation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and social programs. It has a range of prompts to stimulate thinking about critical success factors in programs relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s lives. Ngaa-bi-nya was designed from an Aboriginal practitioner-scholar standpoint and was informed by the holistic concept of Aboriginal health, case studies with Aboriginal-led social and emotional well-being programs, human rights instruments, and the work of Stufflebeam. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and social programs have been described as suffering from a lack of evaluation. Ngaa-bi-nya is one of the few tools developed specifically to reflect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ contexts. It prompts the user to take into account the historical, policy, and social landscape of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s lives, existing and emerging cultural leadership, and informal caregiving that supports programs. Ngaa-bi-nya’s prompts across four domains—landscape factors, resources, ways of working, and learnings—provide a structure through which to generate insights necessary for the future development of culturally relevant, effective, translatable, and sustainable programs required for Australia’s growing and diverse Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations.

Arts-based prison programs are often viewed as hobbies or as activities that have little impact on prisoner rehabilitation according to conventional understandings of the term. This is despite growing evidence that arts-based programs can assist with learning retention and can improve self-confidence and ways of coping with emotions. Generally, arts practices have been found to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have grown up or live in urban areas with asserting and strengthening their cultural identity, but we know little about the effects of arts-based prison programs on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoner wellbeing. This article focuses on a creative writing program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners at Junee Correctional Centre, New South Wales. The program, Dreaming Inside, has produced seven volumes of poetry and stories. This article combines and reports findings from two evaluations of the program, one using program feedback forms and the other using semi-structured interviews with prisoners who participated in the program. The themes that emerged from both evaluations affirm the program’s efficacy in improving prisoner self-esteem, confidence and wellbeing, and in reigniting and strengthening cultural engagement.

The National Empowerment Project is an innovative Aboriginal-led community empowerment project that has worked with eight Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia over the period 2012–13. The aim of the Project was to develop, deliver and evaluate a program to: (1) promote positive social and emotional well-being to increase resilience and reduce the high reported rates of psychological distress and suicide among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; and (2) empower communities to take action to address the social determinants that contribute to psychological distress, suicide and self-harm. Using a participatory action research approach, the communities were supported to identify the risk factors challenging individuals, families and communities, as well as strategies to strengthen protective factors against these challenges. Data gathered during Stage 1 were used to develop a 12-month program to promote social and emotional well-being and build resilience within each community. A common framework, based on the social and emotional well-being concept, was used to support each community to target community-identified protective factors and strategies to strengthen individual, family and community social and emotional well-being. Strengthening the role of culture is critical to this approach and marks an important difference between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous mental health promotion and prevention activities, including suicide prevention. It has significant implications for policy makers and service providers and is showing positive impact through the translation of research into practice, for example through the development of a locally run empowerment program that aims to address the social determinants of health and their ongoing negative impact on individuals, families and communities. It also provides a framework in which to develop and strengthen culture, connectedness and foster self-determination, through better-informed policy based on community-level holistic responses and solutions as opposed to an exclusive focus on single-issue deficit approaches.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of the Cultural, Social and Emotional Wellbeing Program for reducing psychological distress and enhancing the social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal women preparing for release from prison.Study designMixed methods; qualitative study (adapted reflexive thematic analysis of stories of most significant change) and assessment of psychological distress.Setting, participantsAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women at the Boronia Pre‐release Centre for Women, Perth, Western Australia, May and July 2021.InterventionCultural, Social and Emotional Wellbeing Program (two days per week for six weeks). The Program involves presentations, workshops, activities, group discussions, and self‐reflections designed to enhance social and emotional wellbeing.Main outcome measuresThemes and subthemes identified from reflexive thematic analysis of participants’ stories of most significant change; change in mean psychological distress, as assessed with the 5‐item Kessler Scale (K‐5) before and after the Program.ResultsFourteen of 16 invited women completed the Program; ten participated in its evaluation. They reported improved social and emotional wellbeing, reflected as enhanced connections to culture, family, and community. Mean psychological distress was lower after the Program (mean K‐5 score, 11.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.0–13.6) than before the Program (9.0; 95% CI, 6.5–11.5; P = 0.047).ConclusionThe women who participated in the Program reported personal growth, including acceptance of self and acceptance and pride in culture, reflecting enhanced social and emotional wellbeing through connections to culture and kinship. Our preliminary findings suggest that the Program could improve the resilience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in contact with the justice system.

Background: this study aimed to develop and pilot test the model of care, Grinnin’ Up Mums & Bubs, to train Aboriginal Health Workers to promote oral health among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander pregnant women. Methods: Participatory Action Research was employed to develop the different components of the model (oral health promotion resources, training workshop, and a culturally safe referral pathway to dental services). The model was piloted (pre-post), using an embedded mixed-methods design, to determine the acceptability, satisfaction, and any recommendations made by seven Aboriginal Health Workers at an antenatal service in Western Sydney, Australia. Results: there was a high level of satisfaction with the components of the model of care among the participants, who believed that the model could be integrated into practice. The training showed some improvement in oral health knowledge and confidence. The participants recommended strategies for discussing oral health with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander pregnant women, and changes in public health dental policy to ensure that all women would be able to access affordable dental services through the referral pathway. Conclusion: the findings suggest a high level of satisfaction with the model of care among the Aboriginal Health Workers. Further evaluation is needed to confirm the short and long-term impact of the model.

The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the impact of a Central Australian cultural awareness training program for health care staff. A mixed methods approach was used. Program participants completed a baseline and post-program questionnaire, which included an attitude scale assessing cultural safety, critical thinking and transformative unlearning, and open-ended questions. An online follow-up survey two months later repeated these questions. Mean scale scores were compared using paired and unpaired t-tests. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Baseline scale mean was 45.7. At post-program it had statistically significantly increased to 47.3, using both the paired (p<0.01) and unpaired t-test (p=<0.03). By the time of the two-month follow-up it had decreased to 42.2. This was not statistically different from the baseline score with a paired (n=11) t-test (p=<0.37), however the difference was statistically significant with an unpaired t-test (p=<0.01) which included an additional eight respondents. Qualitative feedback was consistently positive. Many respondents learnt new information about the negative effects of colonisation on Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people, and how this continues to affect current health. Learning about Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander cultures, kinship relationships and systems, and communication styles was identified as directly relevant to work practices. A cultural education program produced positive short-term changes in attitudes and was highly valued by participants. However, it is unclear if these changes are maintained in the medium-term.

My field placement for Master of Philosophy in Applied Epidemiology (MAE) program was with the Indigenous Health Division of the Australian Government Department of Health, and it provided opportunities for epidemiological training in a broad range of contexts. I present four projects to fulfil the core requirements of the MAE. I participated in a retrospective investigation into cases of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) identified over a four year period in the Australian Capital Territory. In this investigation I collected epidemiological evidence and analysed existing environmental and whole-genome sequencing data to identify two small, but prolonged, outbreaks at a tertiary hospital. The investigation revealed that nosocomial transmission of CPE is more extensive than previously understood, and is characterised by lengthy asymptomatic carriage and persistence of CPE in the hospital environment. We used the outbreak data to assess the utility of an interstate CPE prevention and control guideline, and to develop infection control recommendations specifically for the hospital. I analysed data from the Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children (LSIC) to identify early life exposures associated with social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children at school commencement. Large household size and frequent exposure to major life events were weakly associated with poorer mental health and fewer prosocial behaviours; but conversely predicted a greater connection of the child to community, culture and country. Most importantly, I found that mainstream mental health assessment tools do not reflect the positive, holistic concept of SEWB, and I was unable to create a more appropriate index using LSIC data. This study highlighted the need to develop measures that privilege Indigenous ways of being and knowing. My evaluation of Australia’s Enhanced Invasive Pneumococcal Disease Surveillance Program found that this complex system is highly flexible and stable, and is acceptable to users and stakeholders. It has proved very useful for monitoring the national infant vaccination program—informing a change to the recommended vaccine in 2011. The program is less useful for evaluating targeted vaccination in other high-risk groups and for surveillance of antimicrobial resistance. My key recommendations focussed on collecting complete data for all cases, ensuring stakeholders can easily access useful surveillance data, and improving collection of antimicrobial resistance data. I conducted the first evaluation of the New Directions: Mothers and Babies Services (NDMBS) program, which aims to increase access to maternal and health child services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. I assessed the effect of over $224 million of investment between 2007 and 2015 using data from the Australian Early Development Census. I found that there was little difference in indicators of early child development in the first year of school in areas that were serviced by NDMBS-funded organisations, compared to areas that did not. This may have been due to differences in geographical remoteness between the two exposure groups, but the equivocal findings were more likely due to the evaluation’s ecological design and classification error. The project highlighted the importance of developing a program logic model and evaluation plan during the program planning stage, to ensure that data is prospectively collected for use in evaluation.

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.