Search

John Davies Thomas (1844-1893) described a two-ounce drop-bottle for chloroform in 1872 while he was a resident medical officer at University College Hospital, London. After working as a ship's surgeon, he settled in Australia. In May 1875, Thomas presented a paper on the mortality from ether and chloroform at a meeting of the Medical Society of Victoria in Melbourne, Victoria. Surveys conducted in Europe and North America had established that the mortality from chloroform was eight to ten times higher than that from ether. At that time, chloroform was the most widely administered anaesthetic in Australia. Thomas' paper was published in The Australian Medical Journal and reprinted by the Medical Society of Victoria for distribution to hospitals in the Colony of Victoria. Later that year, Thomas moved to Adelaide, South Australia, where he may have been influential at the Adelaide Hospital in ensuring that ether was administered more often than chloroform. It does not appear that Thomas' papers on anaesthesia had a significant effect on the conduct of anaesthesia in Victoria or New South Wales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the effect of a mass media campaign designed to increase bowel cancer screening participation. Methods: We assessed weekly participation, from January 2015 to December 2017, in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in Victoria, where a seven-week campaign aired in mid-2017, and in the adjacent comparison state of South Australia. Participation, defined as the number of immunochemical faecal occult blood tests returned out of those invited by the Screening Program in the past 16 weeks, was analysed using negative binomial regression. Results: Compared with non-campaign weeks, there was an increase in the return rate in the campaign state during campaign weeks (adjusted return rates non-campaign weeks = 34.4% vs. campaign weeks = 45.3%, p < 0.01), not observed in the comparison state (38.3% vs. 40.3%, p > 0.05). The increase in the return rate was significantly greater in the campaign state (Rate Ratio of Campaign/Non-Campaign weeks = 1.31, p < 0.01) than the comparison state (1.05, p > 0.05, interaction p < 0.001), and did not differ significantly by age, sex or socio-economic area. The relative increase was greater among never-participants (Rate Ratio of Campaign/Non-Campaign weeks = 1.24) than previous-participants (1.16), interaction p < 0.001). Conclusions: This mass media campaign increased bowel cancer screening participation, including from never and low participation subgroups. To maximize participation and ensure equitable population benefit, repeated campaigns that reach eligible people about bowel cancer risks and potential life-saving benefits of screening should be standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]