Search

Healthcare professionals' advice on lifestyle behaviours is a key factor in improving a nation's health. Although allied health professionals have been well placed to provide such advice as part of patient care, little is known about the characteristics of allied health practitioners who discuss lifestyle topics with patients. This paper focused upon an overlooked avenue for lifestyle advice regarding an allied health profession – osteopathy. A workforce survey including questions about four lifestyle topics (including diet/nutrition, smoking/drugs/alcohol, physical activity/fitness, and stress management) was distributed to a nationally representative sample of Australian registered osteopaths in 2016. Separate multivariate logistic regression and Poisson regression models were developed to determine the most important predictors of the discussion of lifestyle factors. Amongst the 992 participating osteopaths, 89%, 49%, 38%, and 18% often discussed physical activity/fitness, stress management, diet/nutrition, and smoking/drugs/alcohol with their patients, respectively. Approximately 30% of participating osteopaths discussed at least three lifestyle topics with patients. Varied predictors were identified for discussing each lifestyle topic. Osteopaths who often discuss diet/nutrition in patient management plans were more likely to often discuss smoking/drugs/alcohol (OR = 14.13), physical activity/fitness (OR = 2.71), and/or stress management (OR = 1.69). In conclusion, lifestyle factors are often discussed with patients as part of osteopathy treatments in the Australian healthcare context. Osteopaths are well positioned to initiate discussions regarding patient lifestyles, and such discussions may be an effective contribution to health promotion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pregnancy can be a stressful period for most women and their family members, and the mental wellbeing of pregnant women can face serious challenges. Social support can play a role in improving the psychological well-being of pregnant women by enhancing the stress coping ability and alleviating stressful conditions. The current study aimed to assess the mediating effects of social support in the relationship between perceived stress and depressive symptoms as well as anxiety symptoms during pregnancy among Australian women. Methods: Of the 8,010 women who completed Survey 6 of the 1973–78 Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) cohort in 2012, those who reported being pregnant (n = 493) were included in the current analyses. Antenatal depressive and anxiety symptoms were assessed using the 10 item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D-10) scale, and the 9-item Goldberg Anxiety and Depression scale (GADS) respectively. The 19 item-Medical Outcomes Study Social Support index (MOSS) was used to examine social support. A parallel mediation model was used to explore the mediational role of each domain of social support between perceived stress and antenatal depressive and anxiety symptoms. Result: The study found that emotional/informational support has a partial mediating effect on the relationship between perceived stress and antenatal depressive symptoms (β = 0.371, 95% CI: 0.067, 0.799) and on the relationship between perceived stress and antenatal anxiety symptoms (β = 0.217, 95% CI: 0.029, 0.462). Affectionate support/positive social interaction and tangible support was found to play no significant mediation role between stress and antenatal depressive and anxiety symptoms. Conclusions: Emotional/informational support appears to play a mediating role in the relationship between stress and antenatal depressive as well as between stress and antenatal anxiety symptoms. In order to further protect pregnant women from the effects of stress, policy makers and maternal health professionals are advised to develop community-based social support programs to enhance prenatal psychosocial support and ensure pregnant women have adequate emotional/information support. Plain language summary: Social support is a resource or a means that an individual can use to cope with stressful events and improve psychological wellbeing. It improves emotional and physical well-being and promotes health for a successful pregnancy. However, the relationship between domains of social support and antenatal depressive and anxiety symptoms remains understudied in Australia. Therefore, our study intended to examine the mediating role of domains of social support in the linkage between stress and depressive and anxiety symptoms during pregnancy among Australian Women. Data were obtained from Survey 6 of the 1973–78 ALSWH cohort, which was conducted in 2012, and those who reported being pregnant were part of the study (n = 493, aged 34–39 years). Social support provided for a pregnant woman was the outcome variable, assessed using the 19-item Medical Outcomes Study Social Support index (MOS-SSS-19 item). A parallel mediation model was used to explore the mediational role of each domain of social support between perceived stress and antenatal depressive and anxiety symptoms. Emotional/informational support plays a mediating role in the relationship between stress and antenatal depressive as well as between stress and antenatal anxiety symptoms. So, to further protect pregnant women from the effect of stress, policymakers and maternal health professionals are advised to develop community-based social support programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pregnancy is a time for women in which the need for social support is crucial. Social support reduces stressors and improves the emotional and physical well-being of pregnant women. Women receiving low social support during pregnancy are at risk of substances use, developing mental illness, and adverse birth outcomes. The current study aims to determine the prevalence and determinants of low social support during pregnancy among Australian women. Methods: Data were obtained from the 1973–1978 cohort of Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) and those who report being pregnant (n = 493) were included in the current analyses. Social support was assessed using Medical Outcomes Study Social Support index (MOSS). A logistic regression model was applied to identify determinants of low social support, separately for each MOSS domain. Result: The study found that 7.1% (n = 35) of pregnant women reported low social support. Significant determinants of low emotional support were non-partnered (AOR = 4.4, 95% CI: 1.27, 14.99), difficulty managing on available income (AOR = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.18, 8.32), experiencing depressive symptoms (AOR = 8.5, 95% CI: 3.29, 22.27) and anxiety symptoms (AOR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.26, 7.03). Significant determinants of low affectionate support were suffering from depressive symptoms (AOR = 5.3, 95% CI: 1.59, 17.99), having anxiety symptoms (AOR: 6.9, 95% CI: 2.21, 22.11) and being moderately/very stressed (AOR: 3, 95% CI: 1.17, 7.89). Significant determinants of low tangible support were difficulty managing available income (AOR = 3, 95% CI: 1.29, 6.95), and being depressed (AOR = 2.8, 95% CI: 1.48, 5.34). Conclusion: The study revealed that 7.1% of pregnant women reported low social support. Having a mental health problems, being stressed, being from low socio-economic status and being non-partnered were significant determinants of low social support during pregnancy. Maternal health professionals and policymakers can use this information to screen pregnant women at risk of receiving low social support and improve the level of support being provided. Plain Language Summary: Providing strong social support improves emotional and physical well-being, strengthens social relationships, promotes health, and enhances the stress coping ability of pregnant women. However, pregnant women receiving low social support are at risk of substances use, developing mental illness, and adverse birth outcomes. The current study aims to determine the prevalence and determinants of low social support during pregnancy among Australian women. Data were obtained from Survey 6 of the 1973–1978 cohort of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) (n = 493, pregnant women aged 34–39 years). This cohort is one of ALSWH ongoing community-based study focusing on the health of women in Australia. Social support provided for a pregnant woman was the outcome variable, assessed using the 19-item Medical Outcomes Study Social Support index (MOSS). The prevalence of low social support in each domain was calculated for each of the independent variables. A logistic regression model, using a backward stepwise elimination approach, was employed to identify determinants of low social support. In the final model, the strength of association measured by adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. From the total participant pregnant women, 7.1% of them reported low social support. Significant determinants of low social support among pregnant Australian women were, having a mental illness, being stressed and/or being from low socio-economic status and being non-partnered. Maternal health professionals can use this information to screen pregnant women at risk of receiving low social support as well as develop policy to help enhance the social support being given and the psychological wellbeing being of pregnant women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pregnancy is a time of profound physical and emotional change as well as an increased risk of mental illness. While strengthening social support is a common recommendation to reduce such mental health risk, no systematic review or meta-analysis has yet examined the relationship between social support and mental problems during pregnancy. Methods: The PRISMA checklist was used as a guide to systematically review relevant peer-reviewed literature reporting primary data analyses. PubMed, Psych Info, MIDIRS, SCOPUS, and CINAHL database searches were conducted to retrieve research articles published between the years 2000 to 2019. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale tool was used for quality appraisal and the meta-analysis was conducted using STATA. The Q and the I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used to pool estimates. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger's regression test and adjusted using trim and Fill analysis. Result: From the identified 3760 articles, 67 articles with 64,449 pregnant women were part of the current systematic review and meta-analysis. From the total 67 articles, 22 and 45 articles included in the narrative analysis and meta-analysis, respectively. From the total articles included in the narrative analysis, 20 articles reported a significant relationship between low social support and the risk of developing mental health problems (i.e. depression, anxiety, and self-harm) during pregnancy. After adjusting for publication bias, based on the results of the random-effect model, the pooled odds ratio (POR) of low social support was AOR: 1.18 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.41) for studies examining the relationship between low social support and antenatal depression and AOR: 1.97 (95% CI: 1.34, 2.92) for studies examining the relationship between low social support and antenatal anxiety. Conclusion: Low social support shows significant associations with the risk of depression, anxiety, and self-harm during pregnancy. Policy-makers and those working on maternity care should consider the development of targeted social support programs with a view to helping reduce mental health problems amongst pregnant women. Plain language summary: Pregnancy is a significant event for reproductive-age women. It is supplemented by hormonal changes and can represent a time of increased risk for the occurrence of mental illness like depression, anxiety and self-harm. Providing good social support for the pregnant mother reduce this risk and prevent pregnancy complication and adverse birth outcome. However, no systematic review and/or meta-analysis has explored the associations between social support and mental illness (depression, anxiety, self-harm) among pregnant women. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the association between social support and mental illness (anxiety, depression, and self-harm) during pregnancy. The review identified 67 relevant articles with 64,449 pregnant women, from PubMed, Psych Info, MIDIRS, SCOPUS, and CINAHL database. Of the total 67 articles, 22 articles included in the narrative review and 45 articles included in the meta-analysis. Among studies included in the narrative synthesis, a majority of them reported significant positive associations between low social support and antenatal depression, antenatal anxiety and self-harm during pregnancy. Further, the pooled estimates of the meta-analysis show that low social support had a significant positive association with antenatal depression (AOR: 1.18 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.41)) and antenatal anxiety (AOR: 1.97 (95% CI: 1.34, 2.92)). Therefore, maternal health professionals need to have discussions with pregnant women regarding the level and source of social support they receive. Maternal health professionals may also need to consider encouraging the social network of pregnant women to improve social support being given. Policy-makers and those working on maternity care should consider the development of targeted social support programs with a view to helping reduce mental health problems amongst pregnant women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the prevalence and clinical management characteristics of chiropractors practising in urban and rural or remote Australia. Design: A cross‐sectional analysis of the Australian Chiropractic Research Network project data. Setting: Nationally representative sample of registered chiropractors practising in Australia. Participants: Chiropractors who participated in the Australian Chiropractic Research Network project and answered a question about practising in urban or rural or remote areas in the practitioner questionnaire. Main outcome measure: The demographics, practice characteristics and clinical management of chiropractors. Results: The majority of chiropractors indicated that they practise in urban areas only, while 22.8% (n = 435) practice in rural or remote areas only and 4.0% (n = 77) practice in both urban and rural or remote areas. Statistically significant predictors of chiropractors who practice in rural or remote areas, as compared to urban areas, included more patient visits per week, practising in more than one location, no imaging facilities on site, often treating degenerative spinal conditions or migraine, often treating people aged over 65 years, frequently treating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and frequently using biomechanical pelvic blocking or the sacro‐occipital technique. Conclusion: A substantial number of chiropractors practice in rural or remote Australia and these rural or remote‐based chiropractors are more likely to treat a wide range of musculoskeletal cases and include an Indigenously diverse group of patients than their urban‐located colleagues. Unique practice challenges for rural or remote chiropractors include a higher workload and a lack of diagnostic tools. Chiropractors should be acknowledged and considered within rural or remote health care policy and service provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 60% of people with low back pain also have associated leg pain symptoms. Guidelines for low back pain recommend non-pharmacological approaches, including spinal manipulation - a therapy provided by chiropractors. However, limited empirical data has examined the characteristics of chiropractors managing patients with low back-related leg pain (LBRLP). Our objective is to describe the prevalence, profile and practice characteristics of Australian chiropractors who often treat LBRLP, compared to those who do not often treat LBRLP. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative sample from the Australian Chiropractic Research Network (ACORN). This study investigated the demographic and practice characteristics as well as clinical management of chiropractors who 'often' treated patients with LBRLP compared to those who treated LBRLP 'never/rarely/sometimes'. Multiple logistic regression models identified independent factors associated with chiropractors who 'often' treated patients with LBRLP. Results: A total of 1907 chiropractors reported treating patients experiencing LBRLP, with 80.9% of them 'often' treating LBRLP. Chiropractors who 'often' treated LBRLP were more likely to manage patients with multi-site pain including axial low back pain (OR = 21.1), referred/radicular neck pain (OR = 10.8) and referred/radicular thoracic pain (OR = 3.1). While no specific management strategies were identified, chiropractors who 'often' treated LBRLP were more likely to discuss medication (OR = 1.8), manage migraine (OR = 1.7) and degenerative spine conditions (OR = 1.5), and treat women during pregnancy (OR = 1.6) and people with work-related injuries (OR = 1.5), compared to those not treating LBRLP frequently. Conclusions: Australian chiropractors frequently manage LBRLP, although the nature of specific management approaches for this condition remains unclear. Further research on the management of LBRLP can better inform policy makers and educators interested in upskilling chiropractors to deliver safe and effective treatment of LBRLP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]