Suchergebnisse

In response to concerns within the Children's Welfare Association of Victoria (CWAV) about the difficulty of recruiting foster parents, a study of the recruitment process experienced by Victorian inquirers was conducted. The literature consistently reports a low rate of conversion of inquirers into foster carers. This study was concerned with finding out the cause of this low rate, what happens to the inquirers after making a call and why they decide to continue or not continue with foster care?Telephone interviews were conducted with 91 inquirers about their experience of the recruitment process. Only 4 per cent of these inquirers had become carers. The rest were split evenly between those who decided not to continue because of personal circumstances, and those who were discouraged in some way by the response to their contact received from the allocated agency. This result was surprising and disappointing, and we suggest that these callers may be a more valuable resource than agencies suspect. Ways of giving these callers more effective follow up, while recognising constraints on time and resources experienced by workers in this field, are needed to take full advantage of the opportunity to recruit the potential carers among them.

Background: Regulating the use of genetic information in insurance is an issue of ongoing international debate. In Australia, providers of life and other mutually rated insurance products can request applicants to disclose all results from any genetic test. Insurers can then use this information to adjust premiums and make policy decisions. The Australian Financial Services Council (FSC; an industry body) developed and maintains the relevant industry standard, which was updated in late 2016. Aims/Objective: To review the 2016 FSC Standard in light of relevant research and determine the legitimacy of the Australian regulatory environment regarding use of genetic information by insurers. Results: We identified five concerns arising from the 2016 FSC Standard: (1) use of results obtained from research; (2) the requirement for an applicant to disclose whether they are "considering" a genetic test; (3) failure to account for genome sequencing and other technology developments; (4) limited evidence regarding adverse selection; and (5) the inappropriateness of industry self-regulation. Conclusion: Industry self-regulation of the use of genetic information by life insurers, combined with a lack of government oversight, is inappropriate and threatens to impede the progress of genomic medicine in Australia. At this critical time, Australia requires closer government oversight of the use of genetic information in insurance.

Men's conformity to masculine norms, such as stoicism and self-reliance, has been shown to be associated with a range of negative psychological outcomes. We developed Man Up—a three-part documentary that examined the link between masculinity, mental health, and suicide for men in Australia. We conducted a multifaceted evaluation that included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a web survey. RCT participants and web survey respondents were asked how their views of the term "man up" had changed since watching the documentary. This article provides feedback from the 306 men who responded to this question. Participants commented on how the documentary prompted them to rethink stereotypes of masculinity. The findings suggest that the documentary had a positive impact on men.

<b><i>Aim:</i></b> To explore the potential emotional and behavioural impact of providing information on personalised genomic risk to the public, using melanoma as an example, to aid research translation. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We conducted four focus groups in which 34 participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario of an individual's lifetime genomic risk of melanoma (using the term 'genetic risk'). We asked about understanding of genetic risk, who would choose to receive this risk information, potential emotional and behavioural impacts, and other concerns or potential benefits. Data were analysed thematically. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Participants thought this risk information could potentially motivate preventive behaviours such as sun protection and related it to screening for other diseases including breast cancer. Factors identified as influencing the decision to receive genetic risk information included education level, children, age and gender. Participants identified potential negative impacts on the recipient such as anxiety and worry, and proposed that this could be mitigated by providing additional explanatory and prevention information, and contact details of a health professional for further discussion. Participants' concerns included workplace and insurance discrimination. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Participants recognised the potential for both positive and negative emotional and behavioural impacts related to receiving information on the personalised genomic risk of melanoma.

All same-sex dizygotic (DZ) twins and approximately one-third of monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs have separate placentas, making it impossible to use the number of placentas to determine zygosity. Zygosity determination is further complicated because incorrect assumptions are often made, such as that only DZ pairs have two placentas and that all MZ pairs are phenotypically identical. These assumptions, by twins, their families and health professionals, along with the lack of universal zygosity testing for same-sex twins, has led to confusion within the twin community, yet little research has been conducted with twins about their understanding and assumptions about zygosity. We aimed to explore and quantify understanding and assumptions about zygosity using twins attending an Australian twin festival. We recruited 91 twin pairs younger than 18 years of age and their parents, and 30 adult twin pairs who were all uncertain of their zygosity, to complete one pen and paper questionnaire and one online questionnaire about their assumed zygosity, reasons for their assumptions and the importance of accurate zygosity knowledge. Responses were compared with their true zygosity measured using a genetic test. We found a substantial proportion of parents and twins had been misinformed by their own parents or medical professionals, and that knowledge of their true zygosity status provided peace of mind and positive emotional responses. For these reasons we propose universal zygosity testing of same-sex twins as early in life as possible and an increase in education of medical professionals, twins and families of twins about zygosity issues.

We report previously undocumented evidence of genetic discrimination by Australian insurance companies, obtained through direct consumer reports. We surveyed 174 consumers with cancer-predisposing variants, recruited by cancer organisations Lynch Syndrome Australia and Pink Hope. Questions related to experiences accessing risk-rated insurance after genetic testing. Results indicate that both legal (permitted under current regulation) and illegal discrimination is occurring. Although some respondents had not applied for risk-rated insurance, or had insurance in place before genetic testing (n = 100), those seeking new policies (n = 74) commonly experienced difficulties obtaining insurance (86%, 64/74). Of those experiencing difficulties, 50% (32/64) had no prior history or symptoms of cancer, and had undertaken risk reduction through surveillance and/or preventative surgery. Seventy-seven percent (49/64) reported difficulties related to life insurance. Follow-up telephone interviews with four respondents further described cases of apparent illegal breaches. All reports of discrimination identified were, to our knowledge, previously unreported in the literature. The number of cases suggests a systemic problem with the Australian life insurance industry. We support calls for government oversight of the inherently conflicted model of industry self-regulation in Australia, and an immediate ban on the use of genetic test results in insurance underwriting.

We report previously undocumented evidence of genetic discrimination by Australian insurance companies, obtained through direct consumer reports. We surveyed 174 consumers with cancer-predisposing variants, recruited by cancer organisations Lynch Syndrome Australia and Pink Hope. Questions related to experiences accessing risk-rated insurance after genetic testing. Results indicate that both legal (permitted under current regulation) and illegal discrimination is occurring. Although some respondents had not applied for risk-rated insurance, or had insurance in place before genetic testing (n = 100), those seeking new policies (n = 74) commonly experienced difficulties obtaining insurance (86%, 64/74). Of those experiencing difficulties, 50% (32/64) had no prior history or symptoms of cancer, and had undertaken risk reduction through surveillance and/or preventative surgery. Seventy-seven percent (49/64) reported difficulties related to life insurance. Follow-up telephone interviews with four respondents further described cases of apparent illegal breaches. All reports of discrimination identified were, to our knowledge, previously unreported in the literature. The number of cases suggests a systemic problem with the Australian life insurance industry. We support calls for government oversight of the inherently conflicted model of industry self-regulation in Australia, and an immediate ban on the use of genetic test results in insurance underwriting.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Genetic discrimination (GD) in the context of life insurance is a perennial concern in Australia and internationally. To address such concerns in Australia, an industry self-regulated Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance was introduced in 2019 to restrict life insurers from using genetic test results in underwriting for policies under certain limits. Financial advisers (FAs) are sometimes engaged by clients to provide financial advice and assist them to apply for life insurance. They are therefore well-placed to comment on GD and the operation of the Moratorium. Despite this, the financial advising sector in Australia has yet to be studied empirically with regards to GD and the Moratorium. This study aims to capture this perspective by reporting on interviews with the financial advising sector. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Ten semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with FAs and key informants and were analysed using thematic analysis. <b><i>Conclusion(s):</i></b> Participants' level of awareness and understanding of the Moratorium varied. Participants reported mixed views on the Moratorium's effectiveness, how it operates in practice, and perceived industry compliance. Participants also provided reflections on Australia's current approach to regulating GD, with most participants supporting the concept of industry self-regulation but identifying a need for this to be supplemented with external oversight and meaningful recourse mechanisms for consumers. Our results suggest that there is scope to increase FAs' awareness of GD, and that further research, consultation, and policy consideration are required to identify an optimal regulatory response to GD in Australia.

Available Open Access under CC-BY-NC licence. The public and parliamentary debate about UK abortion law reform is often diverted away from key moral and political questions by disputes regarding basic questions of fact. And all too often, claims of scientific 'fact' are ideologically driven. But what effect would decriminalisation be likely to have on women's health? What would be the impact on the incidence of abortions? Would decriminalisation equate to deregulation, sweeping away necessary restrictions on dangerous or malicious conduct? With each chapter written by leading experts in the fields of medicine, law, reproductive health and social science, this book offers a concise and authoritative account of the evidence regarding the likely impact of decriminalisation of abortion in the UK