Search

Background: Co‐produced research holds enormous value within the health sciences. Yet, there can be a heavy focus on what research participants think, do and know; while the researcher's responsibility to explore and re/work their own knowledge or praxis tends to escape from view. This is reflected in the limited use of co‐production to explore broad structural distributions of health and risk(s). We argue this missed opportunity has the potential to unfold as what Berlant calls a 'cruel optimism', where something desirable becomes an obstacle to flourishing and/or produces harm. We explore challenges to involving lay populations meaningfully in health research amidst a neoliberal cultural landscape that tends to responsibilise people with problems they cannot solve. Methods and Findings: Drawing together principles from hermeneutic and feminist philosophy, we develop a novel methodology for co‐producing research about determinants of health and health risk (using a case study of alcohol consumption as an example) that centres on what researchers do, know and think during research: Women's Thought Collectives. Discussion: Keeping the constructed nature of social systems—because they shape ideas of value, expertise and knowledge—in view during co‐produced research illuminates the potential for cruel optimisms within it. Such reflexive awareness carves out starting points for researchers to engage with how social hierarchies might (tacitly) operate during the co‐production of knowledge. Our work has broad utility for diverse population groups and provides important considerations around the roles and responsibilities for reflexive co‐production of knowledge at all levels of health systems. Patient or Public Contribution: The development of these ideas was sparked by working with lay participants during the Women's Thought Collectives for Kristen Foley's doctoral research 2021–2023, but undertaken without their direct involvement—in accordance with the responsibilities of researchers in the reflexive co‐production of knowledge. Forthcoming publications will address the outcomes and processes of this work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High rates of alcohol consumption by midlife women, despite the documented risks associated with breast cancer, varies according to social class. However, we know little about how to develop equitable messaging regarding breast cancer prevention that takes into consideration class differences in the receipt and use of such information. Objective: To explore the heuristics used by women with different (inequitable) life chances to determine the trustworthiness of information regarding alcohol as a modifiable risk factor for breast cancer risk. Methods and materials: Interviews were conducted with 50 midlife (aged 45–64) women living in South Australia, diversified by self-reported alcohol consumption and social class. Women were asked to describe where they sought health information, how they accessed information specific to breast cancer risk as it relates to alcohol, and how they determined whether (or not) such information was trustworthy. De-identified transcripts were analysed following a three-step progressive method with the aim of identifying how women of varying life chances determine the trustworthiness of alcohol and breast cancer risk information. Three heuristics were used by women: (1) consideration of whose interests are being served; (2) engagement with 'common sense'; and (3) evaluating the credibility of the message and messenger. Embedded within each heuristic are notable class-based distinctions. Conclusions: More equitable provision of cancer prevention messaging might consider how social class shapes the reception and acceptance of risk information. Class should be considered in the development and tailoring of messages as the trustworthiness of organizations behind public health messaging cannot be assumed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Government responses to COVID-19 have dramatically altered the social quality of daily circumstances. Consequently, theoretical questions about social cohesion require recalibration as we explore new models of social quality. Central to this article is trust, one of the fundamental tenets of social cohesion. We present data from interviews with 40 women in midlife (45-64 years) regarding their everyday experiences of "life in lockdown" during the pandemic. Key themes focus on women's (dis)trust in individuals (e.g., politicians, public health experts, family, themselves) and systems (e.g., politics, medicine, the media). This study provides insights into the differential impact of the pandemic in shaping public trust and hence social cohesion--in authority, institutions, and "each other"--with important lessons for how future efforts can rebuild trust in post-pandemic times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Waiting times for hospital appointments, treatment and/or surgery have become a major political and health service problem, leading to national maximum waiting times and policies to reduce waiting times. Quantitative studies have documented waiting times for various types of surgery and longer waiting times in public vs private hospitals. However, very little qualitative research has explored patient experiences of waiting, how this compares between public and private hospitals, and the implications for trust in hospitals and healthcare professionals. The aim of this paper is to provide a deep understanding of the impact of waiting times on patient trust in public and private hospitals.Methods: A qualitative study in South Australia, including 36 in-depth interviews (18 from public and 18 from private hospitals). Data collection occurred in 2012-13, and data were analysed using pre-coding, followed by conceptual and theoretical categorisation.Results: Participants differentiated between experiences of 'waiting for' (e.g. for specialist appointments and surgery) and 'waiting in' (e.g. in emergency departments and outpatient clinics) public and private hospitals. Whilst 'waiting for' public hospitals was longer than private hospitals, this was often justified and accepted by public patients (e.g. due to reduced government funding), therefore it did not lead to distrust of public hospitals. Private patients had shorter 'waiting for' hospital services, increasing their trust in private hospitals and distrust of public hospitals. Public patients also recounted many experiences of longer 'waiting in' public hospitals, leading to frustration and anxiety, although they rarely blamed or distrusted the doctors or nurses, instead blaming an underfunded system and over-worked staff. Doctors and nurses were seen to be doing their best, and therefore trustworthy.Conclusion: Although public patients experienced longer 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' public hospitals, it did not lead to widespread distrust in public hospitals or healthcare professionals. Private patients recounted largely positive stories of reduced 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' private hospitals, and generally distrusted public hospitals. The continuing trust by public patients in the face of negative experiences may be understood as a form of exchange trust norm, in which institutional trust is based on base-level expectations of consistency and minimum standards of care and safety. The institutional trust by private patients may be understood as a form of communal trust norm, whereby trust is based on the additional and higher-level expectations of flexibility, reduced waiting and more time with healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper explores the nature and reasoning for (dis)trust in Australian public and private hospitals. Patient trust increases uptake of, engagement with and optimal outcomes from healthcare services and is therefore central to health practice, policy and planning. Methods: A qualitative study in South Australia, including 36 in-depth interviews (18 from public and 18 from private hospitals). Results: 'Private patients' made active choices about both their hospital and doctor, playing the role of the 'consumer', where trust and choice went hand in hand. The reputation of the doctor and hospital were key drivers of trust, under the assumption that a better reputation equates with higher quality care. However, making a choice to trust a doctor led to personal responsibility and the additional requirement for self-trust. 'Public patients' described having no choice in their hospital or doctor. They recognised 'problems' in the public healthcare system but accepted and even excused these as 'part of the system'. In order to justify their trust, they argued that doctors in public hospitals tried to do their best in difficult circumstances, thereby deserving of trust. This 'resigned trust' may stem from a lack of alternatives for free health care and thus a dependence on the system. Conclusion: These two contrasting models of trust within the same locality point to the way different configurations of healthcare systems, hospital experiences, insurance coverage and related forms of 'choice' combine to shape different formats of trust, as patients act to manage their vulnerability within these contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australian women's alcohol consumption has increased in frequency during COVID-19. Research suggests this is to cope with stress resulting from the pandemic and COVID-19 countermeasures that require social distancing. This is a critical public health concern because increased alcohol consumption, even for a short period, increases the myriad longer-term health risks associated with cumulative exposure to alcohol. This paper provides unique qualitative evidence of how health risk perceptions are re-focused toward the shorter-term during the pandemic, through analysis of interviews with 40 middle-aged Australian women (aged 45-64) representing a range of self-perceived drinking status' ("occasional"/"light"/"moderate"/"heavy") before and then during the pandemic ( n = 80 interviews). Our analysis captures women's risk horizons drifting away from the uncertain longer-term during COVID-19, toward the immediate need to "get through" the pandemic. We show how COVID-19 has increased the perceived value of consuming alcohol among women, particularly when weighed up against the social and emotional "costs" of reducing consumption. Our findings have implications for the delivery of alcohol-related health risk messages designed for middle-aged women both during, and into the recovery phases of the pandemic, who already consume more alcohol and experience more alcohol-related health risk than women in other age groups., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Lunnay, Foley, Meyer, Warin, Wilson, Olver, Miller, Thomas and Ward.)

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) has the second highest cancer mortality rate in Australia. The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) aims to increase early detection of CRC by offering free Faecal Occult Blood Testing (FOBT), although uptake is low for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups., Aim of Paper: To present data on trust and mistrust in the NBCSP by population groups with low uptake and thus to highlight areas in need of policy change., Methods: A qualitative study was undertaken in South Australia, involving interviews with 94 people from four CALD groups: Greek, Iranian, Anglo-Australian, and Indigenous peoples., Results: Our study highlights the complexities of institutional trust, which involves considerations of trust at interpersonal, local and national levels. In addition, trust and mistrust was found in more abstract systems such as the medical knowledge of doctors to diagnose or treat cancer or the scientific procedures in laboratories to test the FOBTs. The object of institutional (mis)trust differed between cultural groups - Anglo-Australian and Iranian groups indicated a high level of trust in the government, whereas Indigenous participants were much less trusting., Conclusion: The level and nature of trust in the screening process varied between the CALD groups. Addressing program misconceptions, clarifying the FOBT capabilities and involving medical services in collecting and transporting the samples may increase trust in the NBCSP. However, broader and more enduring mistrust in services and institutions may need to be dealt with in order to increase trust and participation., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Healthy food is becoming increasingly expensive, and families on low incomes face a difficult financial struggle to afford healthy food. When food costs are considered, families on low incomes often face circumstances of poverty. Housing, utilities, health care, and transport are somewhat fixed in cost; however food is more flexible in cost and therefore is often compromised with less healthy, cheaper food, presenting an opportunity for families on low incomes to cut costs. Using a "Healthy Food Basket" methodology, this study costed a week's supply of healthy food for a range of family types. It found that low-income families would have to spend approximately 30% of household income on eating healthily, whereas high-income households needed to spend about 10%. The differential is explained by the cost of the food basket relative to household income (i.e., affordability). It is argued that families that spend more than 30% of household income on food could be experiencing "food stress." Moreover the high cost of healthy foods leaves low-income households vulnerable to diet-related health problems because they often have to rely on cheaper foods which are high in fat, sugar, and salt.

Objective: The National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) is a population-based screening program based on a mailed screening invitation and immunochemical faecal occult blood test. Initial published evidence from the NBCSP concurs with international evidence on similar colorectal cancer screening programs about the unequal participation by different population sub-groups. The aim of the paper is to present an analysis of the equity of the NBCSP for South Australia, using the concept of horizontal equity, in order to identify geographical areas and population groups which may benefit from targeted approaches to increase participation rates in colorectal cancer screening., Method: De-identified data from the NBCSP (February 2007 to July 2008) were provided by Medicare Australia. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were undertaken in order to identify the predictors of participation rates in the NBCSP., Results: The overall participation rate was 46.1%, although this was statistically significantly different (p<0.001) by gender (42.6% for males and 49.5% for females), socioeconomic status (40% in most deprived quintile through to 48.1% in most affluent quintile) and remoteness (45.6% for metropolitan, 46% for remote and 48.6% for rural areas). These findings were confirmed in multivariate analyses. Of the NBCSP participants, 0.24% (CI 95% 0.20-0.30) identified themselves as Indigenous and 8% (CI 95% 7.7-8.3) reported speaking a language other than English at home., Conclusion: Findings from this study suggest inequities in participation in the NBCSP on the basis of gender, geographical location, Indigenous status and language spoken at home., (© 2011 The Authors. ANZJPH © 2010 Public Health Association of Australia.)

Introduction: In Australia, colorectal cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer and cause of death from malignant diseases, and its incidence is rising. The aim of this article was to present an analysis of National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) data for rural and remote South Australia (SA), in order to identify geographical areas and population groups that may benefit from targeted approaches to increase participation rates in colorectal cancer screening., Methods: De-identified data from the NBCSP (February 2007 to July 2008) were provided by Medicare Australia. Mapping and analysis of the NBCSP data was performed using ESRI ArcGIS (http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/index.html) and MapInfo (http://slp.pbinsight.com/info/mipro-sem-au). Data were aggregated to postcode and Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) and participation was then mapped according to overall participation rates, sex, age, Indigenous status and Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)-Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD). The participants were South Australians who turned 55 and 65 years between 2007 and 2008 who returned the completed NBCSP test sent to them by Medicare Australia., Results: The overall participation rate was 46.1% in rural and remote SA, although this was statistically significantly different (p<.001) according to sex (46.7% for males and 53.3% for females), age (45.2% for those 55 years, and 52% for those 65 years), socio-economic status (from 43% in 'most deprived' quintile to 50% in 'most affluent' quintile) and remoteness (45.6% for metropolitan, 46% for remote and 48.6% for rural areas). Indigenous participation was 0.5%., Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest lower NBCSP participation rates for people from metropolitan and remote areas, compared with those from rural areas. The uptake of cancer screening is lower for older rural and remote residents, men, Indigenous people, lower socioeconomic groups and those living in the Far North subdivision of SA.