Suchergebnisse

Background:Organised cervical screening programmes are a combination of arrangements designed to maximise benefit and minimise harm associated with cervical cancer at the population level. Many organised programmes are described as 'evidence-based', reflecting an expectation that healthcare should be based on the tenets of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). EBM is both normalised and contested.
Aims and objectives:As part of a larger study of how cervical screening came to be the way it is, we conducted a grounded theory study of cervical screening experts' perspectives on evidence and its use in guideline development processes.
Methods:We sampled from several countries and across a range of professional backgrounds. Analysis was developed through transcript coding and memo writing, using constant comparison to develop insight and connections between concepts.
Findings:We found that the 'evidence-based' descriptor was used rhetorically to indicate scientific trustworthiness; in short 'evidence-based' indicated 'good'. Experts held ideal conceptions of evidence and its use as objective and value-free, yet reported experiences that suggested those ideals were unattainable in practice. The 'evidence-based' ideal included restricting what counts as evidence to matters of science and epidemiology. This produced pronounced attention to matters of efficacy and effectiveness of cervical screening tests, and neglected decisions relating to the other arrangements that combine to produce an organised screening programme.
Discussion and conclusions:Rhetorical use of the 'evidence-based brand' appeals to a particular kind of authority: one which is difficult to achieve in practice, and belies the variety of information that is required and the socially negotiated nature of policy and programme decisions.

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to identify how the topic of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is framed by experts and to clarify differences and similarities within these frames in terms of problems, causes, values and solutions. Methods We used a qualitative methodology using interviews with breast screening experts across Australia and applying framing theory to map and analyse their views about overdiagnosis. We interviewed 33 breast screening experts who influence the public and/or policy makers via one or more of: public or academic commentary; senior service management; government advisory bodies; professional committees; non-government/consumer organisations. Experts were currently or previously working in breast screening in a variety of roles including clinical practice, research, service provision and policy, consumer representation and advocacy. Results Each expert used one or more of six frames to conceptualise overdiagnosis in breast screening. Frames are described as: Overdiagnosis is harming women; Stop squabbling in public; Don't hide the problem from women; We need to know the overdiagnosis rate; Balancing harms and benefits is a personal matter; and The problem is overtreatment. Each frame contains a different but internally coherent account of what the problem is, the causes and solutions, and a moral evaluation. Some of the frames are at least partly commensurable with each other; others are strongly incommensurable. Conclusions Experts have very different ways of framing overdiagnosis in breast screening. This variation may contribute to the ongoing controversy in this topic. The concept of experts using different frames when thinking and talking about overdiagnosis might be a useful tool for those who are trying to negotiate the complexity of expert disagreement in order to participate in decisions about screening.

BACKGROUND: Low socioeconomic groups (SEGs) in Australia are less likely to consume diets consistent with the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs) and suffer poorer health than the broader population. The unaffordability, or perceived high cost, of healthy diets may be a factor. Detailed data on the cost of habitually consumed diets is required in order to inform strategies to alleviate socioeconomic impacts on dietary intake. This systematic scoping review aims to identify the cost of the habitual dietary intake of low SEGs in Australia, in terms of the whole diet and its composite foods, in comparison to the cost in higher SEGs. METHODS: A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature since 2000 and key government and non-government organisation (NGO) websites was undertaken. Data were extracted, synthesised and analysed in relation to study populations, dietary cost assessment measures, socioeconomic measures, and dietary cost and affordability. RESULTS: The review identified four studies meeting inclusion criteria. Results confirmed that overall, low SEGs spend a lower amount, yet a higher proportion of household income, on food and drinks than higher SEGs. Quantitative comparison of the dietary costs between included studies was not possible due to difference in populations and study metrics. Costs of the habitual diet in these studies were not reported for ADG food groups, so did not allow for assessment of the healthfulness of the dietary intake or comparison with costs of recommended diets at food group level. CONCLUSIONS: Existing research does not provide sufficiently granular data of the costs of habitual diets of low SEGs in comparison to higher SEGs or data in a form that can inform strategies and interventions to improve dietary intake and diet-related health of low SEGs in Australia. Future empirical health research requires more granular measures of habitual spending on ADG food groups across SEGs.

Development of effective policy responses to address complex public health problems can be challenged by a lack of clarity about the interaction of risk factors driving the problem, differing views of stakeholders on the most appropriate and effective intervention approaches, a lack of evidence to support commonly implemented and acceptable intervention approaches, and a lack of acceptance of effective interventions. Consequently, political considerations, community advocacy and industry lobbying can contribute to a hotly contested debate about the most appropriate course of action; this can hinder consensus and give rise to policy resistance. The problem of alcohol misuse and its associated harms in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, provides a relevant example of such challenges. Dynamic simulation modelling is increasingly being valued by the health sector as a robust tool to support decision making to address complex problems. It allows policy makers to ask 'what-if' questions and test the potential impacts of different policy scenarios over time, before solutions are implemented in the real world. Participatory approaches to modelling enable researchers, policy makers, program planners, practitioners and consumer representatives to collaborate with expert modellers to ensure that models are transparent, incorporate diverse evidence and perspectives, are better aligned to the decision-support needs of policy makers, and can facilitate consensus building for action. This paper outlines a procedure for embedding stakeholder engagement and consensus building in the development of dynamic simulation models that can guide the development of effective, coordinated and acceptable policy responses to complex public health problems, such as alcohol-related harms in NSW.

Background. Chronic pain is a major and growing public health issue. Multidisciplinary tertiary pain services cannot meet patient demand and greater involvement of primary care is needed. The aims of this study were to understand the needs and priorities of Australian primary health networks (PHNs) related to the management and secondary prevention of chronic pain; map current PHN chronic pain initiatives and identify gaps; highlight key enablers to implementation; and highlight solutions identified by PHNs to increase capacity to commission initiatives. Methods. Mixed methods were used, including: a review of PHN needs assessments; and consultation with PHN executive-level staff and program managers from 27 out of the 28 PHNs, and the WA Primary Health Alliance (WAPHA – a state alliance between three Western Australian PHNs) via telephone interviews, online surveys, a workshop, a deliberative dialogue and email consultation. Results. Chronic pain was identified as a health and/or service need by approximately half of PHNs. Barriers for PHNs to identifying chronic pain as a need or priority are highlighted. Gaps identified by the mapping included: initiatives related to the secondary prevention of chronic pain (post-surgery or post-injury), digitally enabled consumer and health professional chronic pain initiatives, and chronic pain initiatives for specific populations groups such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Among existing PHN practice, two exemplar evidence-based initiatives suitable for scale-up across PHNs in Australia were identified: multidisciplinary community-based pain programs, and an online health professional capacity-building initiative, Project ECHO (chronic pain). Solutions identified by PHNs to increase capacity to commission initiatives included: co-funding initiatives across different PHN funding streams, collaborative initiatives between PHNs, and co-commissioning with government and non-government partners. Conclusions. Chronic pain has been classified as a disease in ...

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ; Background Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. Design Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. Results CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). Conclusions Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

Background: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development is increasing. Community/Citizen's Juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection, and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs and develop an initial checklist, and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. Design: Using literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy-advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. Results: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38) while least reported was availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38) however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). Conclusions: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy-making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy-advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardised, systematic and transparent reporting.

BACKGROUND: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. DESIGN: Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. RESULTS: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). CONCLUSIONS: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

The MJA–Lancet Countdown on health and climate change was established in 2017 and produced its first Australian national assessment in 2018. It examined 41 indicators across five broad domains: climate change impacts, exposures and vulnerability; adaptation, planning and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co-benefits; economics and finance; and public and political engagement. It found that, overall, Australia is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change on health, and that policy inaction in this regard threatens Australian lives. In this report we present the 2019 update. We track progress on health and climate change in Australia across the same five broad domains and many of the same indicators as in 2018. A number of new indicators are introduced this year, including one focused on wildfire exposure, and another on engagement in health and climate change in the corporate sector. Several of the previously reported indicators are not included this year, either due to their discontinuation by the parent project, the Lancet Countdown, or because insufficient new data were available for us to meaningfully provide an update to the indicator. In a year marked by an Australian federal election in which climate change featured prominently, we find mixed progress on health and climate change in this country. There has been progress in renewable energy generation, including substantial employment increases in this sector. There has also been some progress at state and local government level. However, there continues to be no engagement on health and climate change in the Australian federal Parliament, and Australia performs poorly across many of the indicators in comparison to other developed countries; for example, it is one of the world's largest net exporters of coal and its electricity generation from low carbon sources is low. We also find significantly increasing exposure of Australians to heatwaves and, in most states and territories, continuing elevated suicide rates at higher temperatures. ...