Search

Introduction: The current paper examines the proportion of drinking occasions and total alcohol consumed that takes place at off‐premise locations. Comparisons are made between high‐income countries: Australia, New Zealand, England and Scotland, and across drinker‐types: high‐risk and lower‐risk. Methods: Data were taken from the International Alcohol Control study in Australia (N = 1789), New Zealand (N = 1979), England (N = 2844) and Scotland (N = 1864). The cross‐national survey measures location and beverage‐specific alcohol consumption. The number of drinking occasions and mean consumption across on‐ and off‐premise locations and the proportion of drinking occasions that high‐ and lower‐risk drinkers had at on‐ and off‐premise locations was estimated for each country. Results: The majority of drinking occasions among high‐risk drinkers occurred at off‐premise locations across all four countries; Australia 80.1%, New Zealand 72.0%, England 61.7% and Scotland 60.7%. High‐risk drinkers in Australia had significantly larger proportions of drinking occasions occurring at off‐premise locations compared to England and Scotland. Across all countries, high‐risk drinkers and lower‐risk drinkers consumed significantly larger quantities of alcohol per occasion at off‐premise locations compared to on‐premises locations. Finally, the majority of total alcohol consumed occurred at off‐premise locations across all countries for high‐ and lower‐risk drinkers. Discussion and Conclusions: As the accessibility to alcohol outside of licensed premises continues to increase, particularly with the expansion of home delivery services, it is important to be mindful of the high proportion of heavy drinking occasions that occur off‐premise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early intervention is essential healthcare for stuttering, and the translation of research findings to community settings is a potential roadblock to it. Aims: This study was designed to replicate and extend the Lidcombe Program community translation findings of O'Brian et al. (2013) but with larger participant numbers, incorporating clinicians (speech pathologists/speech anlanguage therapists) and their clients from Australia and England. Methods & Procedures: Participants were 51 clinicians working in public and private clinics across Australia (n = 36) and England (n = 15), and 121 of their young stuttering clients and their families. Outcome measures were percentage of syllables stuttered (%SS), parent severity ratings at 9 months post‐recruitment, number of clinic visits to complete Stage 1 of the Lidcombe Program, and therapist drift. Outcomes & Results: Community clinicians in both countries achieved similar outcomes to those from randomized controlled trials. Therapist drift emerged as an issue with community translation. Speech and language therapists in England attained outcomes 1.0%SS above the speech pathologists in Australia, although their scores were within the range attained in randomized trials. Conclusions & Implications: Community clinicians from Australia and England can attain Lidcombe Program outcome benchmarks established in randomized trials. This finding is reassuring in light of the controlled conditions in clinical trials of the Lidcombe Program compared with its conduct in community practice. The long‐term impact of therapist drift in community clinical practice with the Lidcombe Program has yet to be determined. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: The Lidcombe Program is an efficacious early stuttering intervention. Translation to clinical communities has been studied with one Australian cohort. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: A larger translation cohort is studied, comprising community clinicians and children in Australia and England. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Community clinicians from Australia and England can attain Lidcombe Program outcome benchmarks established in randomized trials. This finding is reassuring in light of the controlled conditions in clinical trials of the Lidcombe Program compared with its conduct in community practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The United Kingdom and Australia have developed highly divergent policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). To understand the historical origins of these differences, we describe the history of tobacco control in each country and the key roles played in setting ENDS policy in its early stages by public health regulations and policy networks, anti‐smoking organizations, 'vaper' activist networks and advocates of harm reduction policies towards injecting drug use. Methods: We analysed key government reports, policy statements from public health bodies and non‐government organizations (e.g. cancer councils and medical organizations) on ENDS; submissions to an Australian parliamentary inquiry; media coverage of policy debates in medical journals; and the history of tobacco control policy in Australia and England. Key discourses about ENDS were identified for each country. These were compared across countries during a multi‐day face‐to‐face meeting, where consensus was reached on the key commonalities and divergences in historical approaches to nicotine policy. This paper focuses on England, as different policy responses were apparent in constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular. Results: Policymakers in Australia and England differ markedly in the priority that they have given to using ENDS to promote smoking cessation or restricting smokers' access to prevent uptake among young people. In understanding the origins of these divergent responses, we identified the following key differences between the two countries' approaches to nicotine regulation: an influential scientific network that favoured nicotine harm reduction in the United Kingdom and the absence of such a network in Australia; the success of different types of health activism both in England and in Europe in opposing more restrictive policies; and the greater influence on policy in England of the field of illicit drug harm reduction. Conclusions: An understanding of the different policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in England and Australia requires an appreciation of how actors within the different policy structures, scientific networks and activist organizations in each country and region have interpreted the evidence and the priority that policymakers have given to the competing goals of preventing adolescent uptake and encouraging smokers to use ENDS to quit smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This paper presents updated prevalence estimates of awareness, ever‐use, and current use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) from 14 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) countries that have varying regulations governing NVP sales and marketing. Design, Setting, Participants and Measurements: A cross‐sectional analysis of adult (≥ 18 years) current smokers and ex‐smokers from 14 countries participating in the ITC Project. Data from the most recent survey questionnaire for each country were included, which spanned the period 2013–17. Countries were categorized into four groups based on regulations governing NVP sales and marketing (allowable or not), and level of enforcement (strict or weak where NVPs are not permitted to be sold): (1) most restrictive policies (MRPs), not legal to be sold or marketed with strict enforcement: Australia, Brazil, Uruguay; (2) restrictive policies (RPs), not approved for sale or marketing with weak enforcement: Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand; (3) less restrictive policies (LRPs), legal to be sold and marketed with regulations: England, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United States; and (4) no regulatory policies (NRPs), Bangladesh, China, Zambia. Countries were also grouped by World Bank Income Classifications. Country‐specific weighted logistic regression models estimated adjusted NVP prevalence estimates for: awareness, ever/current use, and frequency of use (daily versus non‐daily). Findings NVP awareness and use were lowest in NRP countries. Generally, ever‐ and current use of NVPs were lower in MRP countries (ever‐use = 7.1–48.9%; current use = 0.3–3.5%) relative to LRP countries (ever‐use = 38.9–66.6%; current use = 5.5–17.2%) and RP countries (ever‐use = 10.0–62.4%; current use = 1.4–15.5%). NVP use was highest among high‐income countries, followed by upper–middle‐income countries, and then by lower–middle‐income countries. Conclusions: With a few exceptions, awareness and use of nicotine vaping products varied by the strength of national regulations governing nicotine vaping product sales/marketing, and by country income. In countries with no regulatory policies, use rates were very low, suggesting that there was little availability, marketing and/or interest in nicotine vaping products in these countries where smoking populations are predominantly poorer. The higher awareness and use of nicotine vaping products in high income countries with moderately (e.g. Canada, New Zealand) and less (e.g. England, United States) restrictive policies, is likely due to the greater availability and affordability of nicotine vaping products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The present position paper provides an account of the life of Martha Entwistle, the earliest recorded convict nurse who worked within the Castle Hill Asylum. In our review of primary historical sources, Australia's first convict mental health nurse was found to be a resilient woman who endured several traumatic life experiences. Her nursing within Australia's first mental health asylum was highly valued by the superintendent of the service. She nursed in a harsh colonial environment, short of adequate resources, during an era of fast‐paced industrial and technological a change. Martha Entwistle's experiences provide a historical account of the role of the early convict mental health nurse. Her life story enables modern‐day nurses to reflect on the advances made in mental health nursing and contexts of care for nurses today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to a paper printed in a prior issue is presented, written by Berridge et al., which discusses policy around electronic nicotine delivery systems.

This paper compares and contrasts child death review (CDR) structures and processes in six countries - Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, England and Wales. It presents findings from a comparative study based on analysis of data from 18 case studies. Data were collected through a combination of documentary analysis, interviews and observations. The study found that CDR processes vary according to: where the function is located and whether review is undertaken at state, local or national level; whether review is rooted in legislation; the focus of review; whether dedicated funding is provided; whether families are involved in the process; and whether structures are supported by useful data systems. It was not possible to evaluate the effectiveness of different review systems but the findings suggest that structure makes little difference in terms of determining the extent to which CDR findings inform prevention effort and activity. While factors such as lack of funding, lack of national data, or lack of legislation may hinder the work of CDR teams, CDR findings have informed prevention initiatives despite such barriers. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Messages Standardisation and aggregation of data at national or state level are crucial for effective CDR., A model of individual review, cross-case review and themed review can result in real learning and practice change., A public health model of CDR offers the most potential in terms of prevention., Families can contribute key information but participation must be managed sensitively and take account of cultural issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents and contrasts the findings from two independent but comparable court studies in England and Australia of care proceedings involving parents with learning difficulties. Significant differences between the two jurisdictions were found in both prevalence and outcomes, with a much higher proportion of cases showing in the England sample, with many more children being returned home to live with their parents in Australia, and with far more children being placed out-of-home and outside the family network in England. We explore the reasons for these differences and discuss the implications of the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]