Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background The 1996 Australian National Firearms Agreement introduced strict access limitations. However, reports on the effectiveness of the new legislation are conflicting. This study, accessing all cases of suicide 1997-2004, explores factors which may impact on the choice of firearms as a suicide method, including current licence possession and previous history of legal access. Methods Detailed information on all Queensland suicides (1997-2004) was obtained from the Queensland Suicide Register, with additional details of firearm licence history accessed from the Firearm Registry (Queensland Police Service). Cases were compared against licence history and method choice (firearms or other method). Odds ratios (OR) assessed the risk of firearms suicide and suicide by any method against licence history. A logistic regression was undertaken identifying factors significant in those most likely to use firearms in suicide. Results The rate of suicide using firearms in those with a current license (10.92 per 100,000) far exceeded the rate in those with no license history (1.03 per 100,000). Those with a license history had a far higher rate of suicide (30.41 per 100,000) compared to that of all suicides (15.39 per 100,000). Additionally, a history of firearms licence (current or present) was found to more than double the risk of suicide by any means (OR = 2.09, P < 0.001). The group with the highest risk of selecting firearms to suicide were older males from rural locations. Conclusion Accessibility and familiarity with firearms represent critical elements in determining the choice of method. Further licensing restrictions and the implementation of more stringent secure storage requirements are likely to reduce the overall familiarity with firearms in the community and contribute to reductions in rates of suicide.

Kinchin, I orcid:0000-0003-0133-2763; Mccalman, JR orcid:0000-0002-3022-3980 ; © 2019 Researchers worldwide are increasingly reporting the societal impact of their research as part of national research productivity assessments. However, the challenges they encounter in developing their impact case studies against specified government assessment criteria and how pitfalls can be mitigated are not reported. This paper examines the key steps taken to develop an Aboriginal Family Wellbeing (FWB) empowerment research impact case study in the context of an Australian Research Council (ARC) pilot research impact assessment exercise and the challenges involved in applying the ARC criteria. The requirement that researchers demonstrate how their institutions support them to conduct impactful research has the potential to create supportive environments for researchers to be more responsive to the needs of users outside academia. However, the 15-year reference period for the associated research underpinning the reported impact and the focus on researcher's current institutional affiliation constitute potential constraints to demonstrating the true impact of research. For researchers working with Indigenous people, relationships that build over long periods of time, irrespective of university affiliation, are critical to conducting impactful research. A more open-ended time-frame, with no institutional restrictions for the 'associated research' provides the best opportunity to demonstrate the true benefits of research not only for Indigenous people but for Australian society more broadly. ; Associated Grant Code:1078927

Researchers worldwide are increasingly reporting the societal impact of their research as part of national research productivity assessments. However, the challenges they encounter in developing their impact case studies against specified government assessment criteria and how pitfalls can be mitigated are not reported. This paper examines the key steps taken to develop an Aboriginal Family Wellbeing (FWB) empowerment research impact case study in the context of an Australian Research Council (ARC) pilot research impact assessment exercise and the challenges involved in applying the ARC criteria. The requirement that researchers demonstrate how their institutions support them to conduct impactful research has the potential to create supportive environments for researchers to be more responsive to the needs of users outside academia. However, the 15-year reference period for the associated research underpinning the reported impact and the focus on researcher's current institutional affiliation constitute potential constraints to demonstrating the true impact of research. For researchers working with Indigenous people, relationships that build over long periods of time, irrespective of university affiliation, are critical to conducting impactful research. A more open-ended time-frame, with no institutional restrictions for the 'associated research' provides the best opportunity to demonstrate the true benefits of research not only for Indigenous people but for Australian society more broadly. ; This study was undertaken under the auspices of the Centre of Research Excellence: An Innovation Platform for Integrated Quality Improvement in Indigenous Primary Health Care (CRE-IQI, funded by the NHMRC ID 1078927). In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge funding support received by the Lowitja Institute, and in-kind support from James Cook University and the Cairns Institute.