Search

Introduction: Commercial tobacco use was systematically embedded as a valuable commodity through colonisation that continues to be exploited for profit by the Tobacco Industry. There have been significant declines in current smoking prevalence among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 18 years and over, from 55% in 1994 to 43% in 2018–2019. This paper seeks to better understand smoke‐free behaviours, and to systematically quantify associations between a range of SDOH and non‐smoking/never‐smoking among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults (≥18) living in regional Australia. Objective: To explore the social determinants of health (SDOH) related to non‐ and never‐smoking among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in regional Australia. Design: Cross‐sectional analysis of the NATSIHS, weighted to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adult population living in regional Australia, was conducted. Participants were characterised as people who were current smokers, never‐smokers and non‐smokers (ex‐ and never‐smokers). The social determinants of health exposures related to socioeconomic position, well‐being and access to healthcare. Setting: Regional Australia is distinct from urban and remote areas, based on the ASGS Remoteness Structure (ABS) 2018–2019. Participants: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults (≥18 years) who were selected, consented and asked questions about smoking in the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey (NATSIHS 2018/19). Results: High income was associated with non‐smoking (Prevalence Ratio [PR] = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.66–2.57) and never‐smoking (PR = 2.02; 1.46–2.79), as was completing year 10 (non‐smoking PR = 1.34; 1.12–1.61 and never‐smoking PR = 1.56; 1.20–2.03). Better food security was associated with a higher prevalence of never‐smoking (PR = 2.42; 1.48–3.98). Lower psychological distress scores were associated with non‐smoking (PR = 1.30; 1.10–1.53) and never‐smoking (PR = 1.56; 1.21–2.01). Never‐smoking was more frequent in participants reporting no experiences of unfair treatment (PR = 1.59; 1.22–2.06). Having a usual healthcare provider was associated with non‐smoking (PR = 1.38; 1.02–1.86). Positive exposure to the SDOH were associated with non‐ and never‐smoking among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults in regional Australia. Structural and systemic changes to address the SDOH, including discrimination and racism, are expected to accelerate non‐smoking behaviours and improve health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Prevalence of distress in cancer patients is established at approximately 50%, yet uptake of psychosocial support is minimal. Objective: This study aimed to understand why clinically distressed oncology patients choose not to access psychosocial support, including whether this differs by geographic location. It also aimed to determine the proportion of rural and metropolitan patients experiencing clinical levels of distress, and of these, the proportion who do not wish to access support. Design: The study used a cross‐sectional design. Two hundred and ninety‐eight Australian cancer patients completed an online survey, including the Distress Thermometer and open‐ended questions about reasons for declining support. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to analyse the data. Findings: More than half (56%) of participants reported experiencing clinically significant levels of distress. Of these, almost half (47%) declined psychosocial support. Content analysis of reasons for declining psychosocial support resulted in six main concepts: I don't need support; I'm using personal resources to cope; negative perceptions and attitudes; life doesn't stop for cancer; I'm focussed on fighting cancer; and systemic barriers. Rural cancer patients most often indicated using personal resources to cope, while metropolitan participants most commonly indicated not needing support. A range of subconcepts were also identified. Perceiving distress as manageable or transient was almost exclusively reported by metropolitan participants, while stigma was almost exclusively reported by rural participants. Discussion: The findings provided greater depth of insight into reasons cancer patients decline psychosocial support and identified several qualitative differences in the reasons provided by metropolitan and rural patients. Recommendations are provided for clinicians, in particular for clinicians who work with rural cancer patients and their supporters. Conclusion: These findings can inform equitable resourcing of psychosocial support in rural areas and the adaptation of psychosocial interventions to be more flexible and responsive to individual needs. This may help increase patient uptake of support, particularly in rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Colorectal cancer has geographic inequities in Australia, with higher mortality rates and lower participation in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) in remote and rural areas. The at‐home kit is temperature‐sensitive, necessitating a 'hot zone policy' (HZP); kits are not sent when an area's average monthly temperature is above 30°C. Australians in HZP areas are susceptible to potential screening disruptions but may benefit from well‐timed interventions to improve participation. This study describes the demographics of HZP areas and estimates the impacts of potential screening changes. Methods: The number of individuals in HZP areas was estimated, as well as correlations with remoteness, socio‐economic and Indigenous status. The potential impacts of screening changes were estimated. Results: Over a million eligible Australians live in HZP areas, which are more likely to be remote/rural, have lower socio‐economic status and higher Indigenous populations. Predictive modelling estimates that any 3‐month screening disruption would increase CRC mortality rates up to 4.1 times more in HZP areas vs unaffected areas, while targeted intervention could decrease mortality rates 3.4 times more in HZP areas. Conclusion: People living in affected areas would be negatively impacted by any NBCSP disruption, compounding existing inequities. However, well‐timed health promotion could have a stronger impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the challenges faced by rural and remote Australian communities in accessing primary health care and emphasizes the need for sustainable multidisciplinary health care teams. It highlights recent initiatives and frameworks aimed at addressing these challenges, such as the Ngayubah Gaden Consensus Statement and the Innovative Models of Care Program.

The article presents the discussion on high-quality health, disability and aged care, as well as other social assistance services. Topics include Alliance highlights the multidirectional inter-relatedness of health, education and poverty exploring the concepts in further detail in the submission to the Senate Inquiry; and lower rates of employment, lower incomes and lower educational attainment than the metropolitan counterparts.

Aims: To describe the population distribution and socio‐economic position of residents across all states and territories of Australia, stratified using the 7 Modified Monash Model classifications. The numerical summary, and the methods described, can be applied by a variety of end users including workforce planners, researchers, policy‐makers and funding bodies for guiding future investment under different scenarios, and aid in evaluating geographically focused programs. Context: The Commonwealth Department of Health is transitioning to the Modified Monash Model to objectively describe geographical access. This change applies to the Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training Program, one of the Australian Government's key policies to address the maldistribution of the rural health workforce. Unlike the previously applied Australian Statistical Geography Standard‐Remoteness Areas, a summary of the population in each Modified Monash Model classification is not available, nor is a socio‐economic overview of the communities within these areas. Approach: Spatial analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data (Modified Monash Model, population data and the Index of Relative Socio‐economic Advantage and Disadvantage collected or derived from the 2016 census) at the Statistical Area 1—the smallest unit for the release of census data. Conclusion: Linking the Modified Monash Model, a socio‐economic index and granular population data at the national level highlights the disadvantage of many residents in small rural towns (Modified Monash 5). The Modified Monash Model does not exhibit a continuum of the largest population residing in the most accessible classification and the smallest population residing in the least accessible classification that is seen in the Australian Statistical Geography Standard‐Remoteness Areas. Coupled with policy relevance, the advantage of using the Modified Monash Model as the basis for analysis is that it highlights areas that have both a critical mass of residents and differing levels of socio‐economic advantage and disadvantage. This will help end users to target funding to those regions where there is potential to improve access to services for the greatest number of rural residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Early intervention with appropriate first aid following burn injury improves clinical outcomes. Previous evidence suggests geographic remoteness may be a barrier to receiving appropriate burns first aid. This study investigated the prevalence of gold standard first aid in patients managed in Australian burn services and whether geographic remoteness was associated with receiving gold standard first aid. Design: Registry‐based cohort study. Setting: Binational clinical quality registry. Participants: Burn‐injured patients admitted to a specialist Australian burn service. Main outcome measures: Receiving gold standard first aid following a burn injury. Results: Approximately two‐thirds of patients received gold standard first aid. Patients whose burns were sustained in very remote regions had a greater risk of receiving no first aid, compared to gold standard first aid, relative to patients who sustained their burn injuries in major cities. Conclusions: Nearly two‐thirds of patients received gold standard burns first aid following injury. However, patients who were injured in the most remote regions of Australia were at an increased risk of not receiving gold standard first aid treatment within 3 hours of injury. Further examination of factors contributing to poorer first aid standards in remote areas is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]