Search

Simple Summary: The current evidence regarding Indigenous* women and breast cancer in Australia shows lower prevalence but higher mortality rates. There are a range of reasons for this, including co-morbidities, lack of access to health services and low health information fluency. Perhaps most importantly, breast cancer health policy and service delivery practice do not meet the needs of Indigenous women in Australia, according to Indigenous women. Talking and listening to Indigenous women about breast cancer highlight that the solutions to improve breast cancer outcomes are available and that they are not complex. Indigenous women must be involved in the improvement of policy and practice in order for these outcomes to improve. *Terminology: We respectfully refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as "Indigenous". In Australia, the incidence rate of breast cancer is lower in Indigenous* women than non-Indigenous women; however, the mortality rate is higher, with Indigenous women 1.2 times more likely to die from the disease. This paper provides practical and achievable solutions to improve health outcomes for Indigenous women with breast cancer in Australia. This research employed the Context–Mechanism–Outcome (CMO) framework to reveal potential mechanisms and contextual factors that influence breast cancer outcomes for Indigenous women, stratified into multiple levels, namely, micro (interpersonal), meso (systemic) and macro (policy) levels. The CMO framework allowed us to interpret evidence regarding Indigenous women and breast cancer and provides nine practical ways to improve health outcomes and survival rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: LGBTQ people are less likely to seek support and face significant barriers in accessing affirmative family violence support services. Efforts to improve family violence service access must be grounded in the preferences of LGBTQ people themselves. Method: Data from a large nationwide Australian survey of the health and wellbeing of LGBTQ adults were analysed. 4,148 participants expressed a preference for family violence service provision. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with preferences for family violence service provision, comparing mainstream services that are not known to be inclusive, mainstream services that are known to be LGBTQ-inclusive, and LGBTQ-specific services. Results: In total, 8.8% (n = 363) of participants indicated a preference for mainstream services, 57.5% (n = 2,383) for mainstream services that are known to be LGBTQ-inclusive and 33.8% (n = 1,402) for LGBTQ-specific services. Trans and non-binary identified people were more likely to prefer LGBTQ-specific services than cisgender participants, while bisexual, pansexual and asexual people were more likely to prefer mainstream LGBTQ-inclusive services. Participants with a regular general practitioner were more likely to prefer LGBTQ-inclusive services. Participants who had not felt supported the most recent time they reported an experience of family violence were more likely to prefer LGBTQ-specific services. Conclusion: Family violence and healthcare services require training in LGBTQ issues to provide inclusive and affirming care. The findings have implications for policy and practice in family violence care and illustrate an urgent need to reform the current narrative of family violence, which frequently excludes LGBTQ communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Examine the distribution of funding for suicide prevention in Australia from 2021-22 to 2026-27. Methods. Government websites were reviewed to locate budget documents related to suicide prevention funding. Information was extracted on the program/service to be funded, and the funder entity, duration, and year allocation. Extracted data was reviewed to identify commonly targeted sub-populations. Results. The majority of suicide prevention-related funding was allocated to aftercare for persons who have attempted suicide, consistent with the effectiveness of these services, followed by programs targeting the general population. Little funding was allocated to other specific sub-populations, such as young people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The amount of funding allocated to suicide prevention varied across jurisdictions, which is only partially explained by suicide rates. Conclusions. There is a need for greater investment in care for specific sub-populations who are at higher risk of suicide. This study provides a baseline for comparing future investments in suicide prevention in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]