Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Cancer Research Australia"

255 Background: Self-reported patient experience data is vital to the design of responsive and relevant health services. Annual Cancer Patient Experience Surveys in England (NHS-CPES) have been used to effectively guide and monitor improvements in patient experience. This study measured baseline cancer patient experience in member hospitals of the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Australia, and benchmarked this with cancer patients in England. Methods: The NHS-CPES instrument and methodology was used. A paper-based questionnaire was mailed to 5,722 admitted patients aged >18 years with an eligible ICD-10 code. Australian results were compared to 71,793 patients in England from the 2011/12 NHS-CPES. Results: 37% (2,101) patients responded. Most patients rated their overall care as very good or excellent (91% Australia, 88% England). Having a named nurse specialist was a key predictor of experience. Patients with a specialist nurse were significantly more positive in 50 questions in Australia (77%) and 64 questions in England (98%) compared to patients without one. In both countries, patients with rarer cancers tended to be less positive than those with other cancer types. Australian patients with brain/central nervous system cancers and sarcomas gave the lowest score in 46 questions (71%). Patients with a disability or a long-term condition, and those from minority ethnic groups were also less positive. Relevant patient information was lacking; only 65% of patients in Australia and 77% in England were given understandable written information specific to their care, and a little over half received information about financial entitlements (58% Australia, 52% England). Conclusions: Cancer patient experience using the NHS-CPES has been successfully measured and compared across two different health systems. Findings in Australia are similar to those in England suggesting the same key issues affect all cancer patients. Important areas for quality improvement include the provision of tailored written patient information and the provision of named nurse specialists as part of the model of care. Acknowledgement: The authors thank Quality Health Limited for data analysis and the NHS for permitting use of the NHS-CPES.

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.

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

e18812 Background: Australian oncologists reported dramatic decreases in cancer referrals during the pandemic. As real time data were difficult to acquire, Cancer Australia used surrogate measures to infer where reductions in medical services occurred. We analysed data available through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), a list of the medical services and professional attendances subsidised by the Australian Government, for the five highest incidence cancers: breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, and skin cancers. Methods: We identified over 500 MBS item codes for diagnostic and treatment procedures for malignancies and pre-cancerous conditions. Item codes were categorised into analysis groups based on cancer type and/or similarities in type of service. Data were examined at national and jurisdictional levels for 2020 to determine reductions during the initial COVID-19 period and to monitor subsequent recovery. Data were compared to 2019 to account for normal seasonal variation. Results: Australia’s first wave of the pandemic ran from March to May, and a second wave in the state of Victoria alone ran from July to September 2020. We observed notable reductions across all diagnostic and surgical procedure groups examined, with initial reductions observed between March and April for diagnostic procedures, and a one-month delay for surgical procedures, between April and May. Some services showed an initial recovery in May, with many showing partial or full recovery by June. For some groups, analyses showed sustained reductions over the 12-month period. While COVID-19 case numbers were greater during the second wave, the impact on services was less pronounced, likely owing to more refined policy approaches to managing health system and workforce capacity. There was further recovery by September for some but not all services. Similar patterns of change were observed across all Australian states and territories, with some variation by jurisdiction. Conclusions: The pandemic has impacted the delivery of cancer care. Any potential delays in diagnoses and treatment due to these reductions in services may lead to more advanced cancer stage at diagnosis and poorer patient outcomes including recurrence and survival. Impact of COVID-19 on selected cancer services in Australia in 2020.[Table: see text]

Purpose Financial concerns represent a major stressor for families of children with cancer but remain poorly understood among those with terminally ill children. We describe the financial hardship, work disruptions, income loss, and coping strategies of families who lost children to cancer. Methods Retrospective cross-sectional survey of 141 American and 89 Australian bereaved parents whose children died between 1990 and 1999 and 1996 to 2004, respectively, at three tertiary-care pediatric hospitals (two American, one Australian). Response rate: 63%. Results Thirty-four (24%) of 141 families from US centers and 34 (39%) of 88 families from the Australian center reported a great deal of financial hardship resulting from their children's illness. Work disruptions were substantial (84% in the United States, 88% in Australia). Australian families were more likely to report quitting a job (49% in Australia v 35% in the United States; P = .037). Sixty percent of families lost more than 10% of their annual income as a result of work disruptions. Australians were more likely to lose more than 40% of their income (34% in Australia v 19% in the United States; P = .035). Poor families experienced the greatest income loss. After accounting for income loss, 16% of American and 22% of Australian families dropped below the poverty line. Financial hardship was associated with poverty and income loss in all centers. Fundraising was the most common financial coping strategy (52% in the United States v 33% in Australia), followed by reduced spending. Conclusion In these US and Australian centers, significant household-level financial effects of a child's death as a result of cancer were observed, especially for poor families. Interventions aimed at reducing the effects of income loss may ease financial distress.

Background: Stage at diagnosis is an important prognostic factor for cancer, providing contextual information for interpreting population health indicators such as mortality from cancer and cancer survival. Australian population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) routinely collect information on cancer incidence and mortality. The need for high quality, comprehensive national data on stage at diagnosis to supplement these data are widely recognized in Australia. The collection and dissemination of quality national stage data will enhance the: • ability to better monitor cancer outcomes, inform cancer control policy; • understand variations across different populations; and • identify where further research and targeted strategies may be required to improve cancer outcomes. Linking data on cancer stage at diagnosis with other administrative cancer data will also allow for a better understanding of the relationship between stage at diagnosis, treatments received, patterns of cancer recurrence, and survival outcomes. Aim: To strengthen national data capacity by collecting and reporting cancer stage at diagnosis for Cancer Australia's Stage, Treatment and Recurrence (STaR) project. Methods: Working with state and territory population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) and the Australian Pediatric Cancer Registry, Cancer Australia supported the development and testing of Business Rules for the collection of national cancer stage at diagnosis for: • The top 5 incident cancers based on the Tumor, Node, and Metastasis (TNM) staging system. These rules were endorsed by the Australasian Association of Cancer Registries (AACR) as a national standard in May 2016; and • Childhood cancers, with a separate set of Business Rules for 16 childhood cancer types based on the Toronto Pediatric Cancer Stage Guidelines. These rules were supported by the AACR as a national standard. Results: Using the AACR-endorsed Business Rules, comprehensive national cancer stage at diagnosis data for the top 5 incident cancers (for 2011) have been collected in Australia for the first time. Over 90% of incidence cases were able to be assigned a value for registry-derived (RD) stage at diagnosis for melanoma (97%), prostate (97%), and female breast (94%) cancers. Lower staging completeness was found for colorectal cancers (88%), and for lung cancers (72%). Business Rules for the collection of stage at diagnosis data for pediatric cancers have also been developed; 93% of sample cases diagnosed in the period 2006-2010 were able to be staged, ranging from 84% for nonrhabdomyosarcoma to 100% for hepatoblastoma. Conclusion: The Business Rules enabled the uniform collection of cancer stage at diagnosis data for the first time in Australia. The collection of these data will allow for the linkage of stage at diagnosis to other sources of information, including patterns of treatments applied, and enable reporting of survival and recurrence outcomes by stage.

Introduction: The Australian 2002 National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) treatment guidelines for non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) were updated in 2008. At this time, the lack of high-quality Australian research conducted between 2002 to 2008 was noted. The primary aim of the present study was to assess the improvement in the quantity and quality of Australian research in the 2019 keratinocyte cancer guidelines. Secondary aims included an assessment of the quantity and quality of Australian research in comparison to the guidelines provided by the other selected countries, and an evaluation of the improvements in the Australian contribution since 2008. Method: Surgical (Sx) and radiotherapy (RT) treatment sections were interrogated. The analysis was simple. Each reference was counted as one unit. The quantity assessment was carried out by categorizing the references according to their country of origin: Australia, United Kingdom (UK), United States (US) and European Union (EU) countries, which were grouped as one country (EU) for the purpose of this study. The number of references from each country were then added up. To assess for quality, all references were ranked according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) rating scale. A quality ratio for each country was then calculated by dividing the total number of prospective trials (i.e., levels I and II) by the number of retrospective studies (level III and lower) from each country if the numbers were sufficient. To evaluate the Australian improvement since 2008, Australian references were first categorized according to their year of publication (2002 to 2017), and then allocated to one of four bins of class intervals representing time periods. Results: Twenty-five of the 133 Sx references in the 2019 guidelines were Australian, which was less than the US (58) and EU (37), but better than the UK (12). Quality ratios were: Australia 0.8, UK 1.4, US 0.31, and EU 0.48. Of the 238 RT references, Australia contributed 53, US 107, EU 62, and UK 16. Quality ratios were: Australia 0.06, UK 0.3, US 0.18, and EU 0.34. Australia’s contribution to the UK and US RT guidelines were evaluated. For the UK RT guidelines (11 references), Australia contributed 3, UK 1, US 2 and EU 5. For the US ASTRO guidelines (101 references), Australia contributed 20, UK 1, US 44 and EU 36. Quality ratios were Australia 0.11, US 0.19 and EU 0.2. For Australian research overtime (2002-2017), the quantity and quality of Sx papers are decreasing; whereas for RT, the quantity is increasing but the quality remains poor. Conclusion: The contribution of Australian research to Australia’s own keratinocyte cancer guidelines is not the highest and did not improve over the period of evaluation. The same can be stated for Australia’s research contribution to the UK and US RT guidelines. Australia needs to do more high-quality research.

e18500 Background: A recent review of the medical literature of rural health cancer care delivery has not been published. We conducted a preliminary review of the last twenty years of rural health cancer care delivery literature utilizing medical subject headings (MeSH) within the PubMed NCBI) database. Methods: Using PubMed MeSH Major Topic terms “rural population” and “cancer” we identified publications published from 2000 to 2020. We searched PubMed for publications that included the major topic MeSH terms “rural population” and “cancer”. We individually reviewed articles, confirmed the focus of the article, and subcategorized the articles. Results: We identified 580 publications which met the search criteria, the majority were focused on the United States (266), followed by China (56), Australia (54), and India (27). Among the publications focusing on the United States, 76 involved Appalachian States. Kentucky (18) and Georgia (10) were the states most frequently represented. Malignancies most commonly represented were: breast cancer (148), uterine/cervical (84), and colorectal cancers (68). The journals which published the most rural health cancer care delivery were The Journal of Rural Health (42), Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (20), Cancer (14), Rural and Remote Health (13), Journal of Cancer Education (13), Australian Journal of Rural Health (12). Conclusions: The rural health cancer care literature in the last two decades focuses primarily on the United States, China, Australia, and India. Within the United States, the research focus is Appalachia. The majority of articles focus on breast cancer, uterine/cervical, and colorectal cancers. The journal which published the majority of rural health cancer care articles was the Journal of Rural Health.

The most common and enduring explanation for the way research is used (or abused or not used) in policy is the ‘two communities’ theory. According to this theory, the problematic relationship between research and policy is caused by the different ‘cultures’ inhabited by policy makers and researchers. The most common and enduring types of strategies that are put forward to increase research use in policy involve bridging or linking these ‘two communities’. This study challenges this way of thinking about the relationship between research and policy. Four case studies of national public health policy in Australia—breast cancer screening, prostate cancer screening, needle and syringe programs in the community, and needle and syringe programs in prisons—are used to present the context, events, processes, research, and actors involved in policy making. Three theories are deployed to explore the relationship between research and policy in each of the cases individually and across the cases as a whole. These theories bring different determinants and dynamics of the relationship to light and each is at least partially successful in increasing our understanding of the relationship between research and policy. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) understands the relationship in terms of a power struggle between competing coalitions that use research as a political resource in the policy process. The Policy Making Organisation Framework (PMOF) understands the relationship in terms of institutional and political factors that determine the way data is selected or rejected from the policy process. The Governmentality Framework (GF) understands the relationship in terms of the Foucauldian construct of power/knowledge that is created through discourse, ‘regimes of truth’ and ‘regimes of practices’ found in public health policy and research. This study has found that in three of the four case studies, public health policy was strongly influenced by research, the exception being NSP in prisons. In all cases, however, it is not possible to construct a robust and coherent account of the policy process or the policy outcome without considering the multifaceted role of research. When these theories are explored at a more fundamental level they support the argument that when research influences policy it is transformed into knowledge-for-policy by being invested with meaning and power. This process of transformation occurs through social and political action that mobilises ideal structures (such as harm minimisation and the World Health Organisation’s principles for evaluating screening programs) and material structures (such as medical journals and government advisory bodies) to resolve meta-policy problems (such as how to define complex public health problems in a way that makes them amenable to empirical research and practical action). This study provides good evidence that the notion of ‘research transfer’ between ‘two communities’ is a flawed way of understanding the research–policy relationship. Rethinking the relationship between research and policy involves building an enhanced theoretical repertoire for understanding this complex social interaction. This step is essential to the success of future efforts to make public health policy that is effective, just and emancipatory. This study makes a contribution to this task.

The most common and enduring explanation for the way research is used (or abused or not used) in policy is the ‘two communities’ theory. According to this theory, the problematic relationship between research and policy is caused by the different ‘cultures’ inhabited by policy makers and researchers. The most common and enduring types of strategies that are put forward to increase research use in policy involve bridging or linking these ‘two communities’. This study challenges this way of thinking about the relationship between research and policy. Four case studies of national public health policy in Australia are used to present the context, events, processes, research, and actors involved in policy making. Three theories are deployed to explore the relationship between research and policy in each of the cases individually and across the cases as a whole. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) understands the relationship in terms of a power struggle between competing coalitions that use research as a political resource in the policy process. The Policy Making Organisation Framework (PMOF) understands the relationship in terms of institutional and political factors that determine the way data is selected or rejected from the policy process. The Governmentality Framework (GF) understands the relationship in terms of the Foucauldian construct of power/knowledge that is created through discourse, ‘regimes of truth’ and ‘regimes of practices’ found in public health policy and research. ...

There has been an increase in the use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in cancer populations, with reported higher prevalence rates in women than in men. Men with a variety of cancers have been understudied in CAM research, as well as the contribution and involvement of their significant others, like close family members or/and close friends. The aim of this thesis was to investigate the use of CAM in men after a diagnosis of cancer. Specifically, the research aimed to explore how significant others impact on men’s decisions to (continue to) use CAM, how they negotiate, talk, and practice CAM in everyday life, and how this affects their interpersonal relationship. A mixed methodological approach with two independent but related studies addressed the research aims: one quantitative study (survey) and one qualitative study (semi-structured interviews). The results are presented in two published and three submitted papers that contribute to our understanding of CAM use in men affected with cancer and how their CAM uptake is shaped by their social networks. Paper one reports the results of an integrative review of the literature, and indicates that significant others of patients with cancer often act as information seekers, advocates, and/or role models in patients’ decision-making about CAM. Despite the limited number of reviewed studies about familial involvement available, the results suggest that there may be important interpersonal consequences following patients’ decision to use or not use CAM, that need to be further explored. Paper two reports the results from the Study 1 survey involving 403 Australian men affected with cancer, a convenience sample of consecutive patients visiting two public and two private outpatient cancer clinics in Metropolitan Adelaide. The results indicate that the majority of male cancer patients (61.5%) have experience with CAM at some point during their cancer treatment, while more than half of the study sample (52.9%) were currently using CAM whilst receiving conventional medical treatment. It was also shown that family were the most frequent providers of information about CAM, and were significantly more often involved in patients’ discussions about CAM use than medical professionals. Papers three, four, and five report the results of Study 2, involving qualitative analysis of 43 semi-structured interviews with 26 men and 24 significant others, thereby exploring in-depth participants’ perceptions and experiences of CAM. Paper three indicates that men with cancer use CAM for individual and social/interpersonal reasons, a unique category augmenting those previously discussed in the literature. Discourse analysis highlighted how the interpersonal dimension impact on men’s decisions to uptake CAM, and how the use of CAM functions to connect the male cancer patient with his social network. Paper four reports on the variations of significant others’ involvement in men’s CAM uptake and maintenance, and indicates that CAM is sometimes practised as a shared and/or private activity in everyday life. The shared practice of CAM was associated with interpersonal benefits, working to strengthen the bond between men and their significant others, but there were instances when men expressed a need to practice CAM as a private activity. It was found that CAM benefited both men and their significant others to reduce uncertainty and to regain control. Paper five reports on how regular and habitual male CAM users integrate CAM routines and CAM rituals in their everyday life. The discursive analysis illustrates how CAM routines provide male cancer patients with certainty and control. By contrast, CAM rituals function for cancer patients and their significant others as a means to create and maintain meaning, thereby working to counter fear and uncertainty consequent upon a diagnosis of cancer. In summary, the results of these studies have shown that the majority of men with a variety of cancers use CAM in addition to conventional cancer care. Family members and/or close friends are a significant source of influence in men’s CAM uptake and maintenance. The interactions about CAM between men and their significant others functioned to help them to connect with each other or strengthen their social bond, and constitute a beneficial effect of CAM use. In addition, it was found that regular CAM use helped men and their significant others to regain control and to reduce uncertainty. These findings may help healthcare professionals to better understand how interpersonal processes impact on men’s CAM decisions. The results might also be translated into clinical practice, for example, in designing supportive cancer care programmes tailored specifically to men affected with cancer, with or without involvement of their significant others.
Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Psychology, 2014

The Tasmanian devil is threatened by Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD), a transmissible form of cancer that has reduced the population by over 80%. Persecution, extreme climate events, vehicle collision and habitat destruction also put pressure on this endangered species. The recovery effort to save the Tasmanian devil commenced over 15 years ago as a collaborative initiative between the Tasmanian government, the Australian government, the Zoo and Aquarium Association Australasia, and many research institutions. Saving the Tasmanian Devil documents the journey taken by partner organisations in discovering what DFTD is, the effect it has on wild devil populations, and the outcomes achieved through research and management actions. Chapters describe all aspects of devil conservation, including the captive devil populations, applied pathology, immunology and genetic research findings, adaptive management, and the importance of advocacy and partnerships. This book will provide management practitioners and conservation scientists with insight into the complexities of undertaking a program of this scale, and will also be of value to researchers, students and others interested in conservation.

Over the past several decades, dramatic improvements in outcome have occurred for children treated for cancer. Many of these advances can be attributed to the benefits of multicenter research conducted within the context of a cooperative group clinical trials infrastructure (D’Angio & Vietti, 2001; Pediatric Oncology Group, 1992). Historically, the cooperative groups sponsored by the National Cancer Institute provided pooled expertise, centralized high-quality medical informatics resources, and access to large patient populations. This infrastructure enabled investigators to ask more focused research questions with greater statistical power as well as generalize research findings to the broader population. Although childhood cancer is by no means a rare disease, its incidence in the general population is sufficiently low that few single pediatric oncology treatment centers are likely to treat enough patients, representing an adequately homogeneous sample, to provide a robust evaluation of clinical outcomes. In many respects, multisite research has been necessary to acquire adequate sample sizes to allow appropriate statistical evaluations of treatment outcomes and generalization of these outcomes to the larger pediatric oncology population. Awareness of this fact led first to the development of small consortia of pediatric oncology centers and later to the formation of large multiinstitutional cooperative study groups to conduct controlled clinical therapeutic trials for pediatric cancer patients. Ultimately, the four major childhood cancer study groups (the Children’s Cancer Group, CCG; the Pediatric Oncology Group, POG; the National Wilms Tumor Study Group; and the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group) merged in 2000 to form a single collaborative group: the Children’s Oncology Group (COG). At present, the 238 institutions that comprise the COG provide the research infrastructure for the majority of pediatric oncology clinical trials conducted in North America, Australia, and parts of Europe. Moreover, because the COG member institutions include all major university and teaching hospitals throughout the United States and Canada, the majority of children diagnosed with cancer in North America will be treated at a COG member institution with the opportunity to be enrolled on a COG protocol. An early evaluation of referral patterns to the two largest cooperative groups enumerated the observed cancer cases from the CCG and POG cancer incidence registries.

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.

Citrus Bacterial Canker Disease (CBCD), caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri, occurs in many citrus areas of the world. It has been reported in 40 different countries, on 5 continents (Asia, South Africa, Australia, South America and North America). Prior to the 1984 outbreak in Florida, the 4 known strains of the bacterium were A, B, C and Mexican bacterioses. Canker-A or Strain-A, endemic in Asia, was reported in China, India and Java in the early 1800’s, found in Japan in 1899 and in the Philippines in 1914. It affects most citrus species and hybrids. Grapefruit is especially susceptible. Strain-A was introduced into the United States from Japan on trifoliate orange seedlings in 1910. An eradication program was started in 1915 in Florida and the disease was eradicated in 1927. In South America, the Asiatic form was not found until 1957 in Brazil and 1972 in Argentina. In 1979, the A Strain broke out in the commercial citrus area of Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Paper published with permission.

American Samoa is an unincorporated territory of the U.S. roughly 2,300 air miles southwest of Honolulu and about 2,700 miles north of Australia. The largest and most populated island in American Samoa is Tutuila, which is located the territory’s historic capitol of Pago Pago. The territory is home to the world’s largest tuna cannery. Population growth has been dramatic and the island’s energy costs have increased substantially in recent years. The American Samoa Power Authority (ASPA) is responsible for solid waste collection and disposal in the territory with landfilling being the primary mode of waste disposal. However, limited available land on the main island due to volcanic topography limits the long-term use of landfilling as the island’s sole waste management tool. The relative isolated location of American Samoa and the instability of world oil markets have prompted ASPA to look at more environmentally and economically sustainable means of solid waste management. As an outgrowth of its research, ASPA submitted and received a technical assistance grant from the U.s. Department of the Interior to conduct an extensive waste composition study and EfW feasibility study to examine the advantages and disadvantages of efW for American Samoa. The results of these studies have been completed by SCS on behalf of ASPA, which is currently taking steps to permit and procure a 2.0 megawatt, modular efW facility that will go online in 2012 as part of a public private partnership. The lessons learned by SCs and ASPA during the course of the investigations are illustrative of the types of long-term, waste management and energy decision-making that many small communities will have to undertake to attain viable and sustainable alternatives.

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

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

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