Search

Background: Refugee and migrant women are at higher risk of childbirth complications and generally poorer pregnancy outcomes. They also report lower satisfaction with pregnancy care because of language barriers, perceived negative attitudes among service providers, and a lack of understanding of refugee and migrant women's needs. This study juxtaposes health policy expectations in New South Wales (NSW), Australia on pregnancy and maternity care and cultural responsiveness and the experiences of maternal healthcare providers in their day-to-day work with refugee and migrant women from non-English speaking backgrounds., Methods: This study used a qualitative framework method to allow for a comparison of providers' experiences with the policy expectations. Sixteen maternal health service providers who work with refugee and migrant women were recruited from two local health districts in New South Wales, Australia and interviewed (November 2019 to August 2020) about their experiences and the challenges they faced. In addition, a systematic search was conducted for policy documents related to the provision of maternal health care to refugee and migrant women on a state and federal level and five policies were included in the analysis., Results: Framework analysis revealed structural barriers to culturally responsive service provision and the differential impacts of implementation gaps that impede appropriate care resulting in moral distress. Rather than being the programmatic outcome of well-resourced policies, the enactment of cultural responsiveness in the settings studied relied primarily on the intuitions and personal responses of individual service providers such as nurses and social workers., Conclusion: Authentic culturally responsive care requires healthcare organisations to do more than provide staff training. To better promote service user and staff satisfaction and wellbeing, organisations need to embed structures to respond to the needs of refugee and migrant communities in the maternal health sector and beyond., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The 2019-2020 Australian bushfires followed by the COVID-19 pandemic brought the significant mental health implications of working in healthcare to the fore. The importance of appropriate support services to ensure the resilience and recovery of healthcare workers has been highlighted. In response to healthcare staff experiences during the bushfires, the SEED Wellness Program was created in 2020 in the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District in New South Wales, Australia. SEED used a participant-led design to engage healthcare staff in workplace-based restorative activities. Guided by practice theory, this study aimed to identify and describe SEED wellness practices that supported healthcare staff. Thirty-three healthcare workers participated in focus groups or individual interviews between June 2021 and March 2022. The analysis involved inductive thematic individual and collective exploration of SEED practices, including co-analysis with participants. Eight core practices that supported participants' wellbeing were identified, including responsive and compassionate leading, engaging staff at every stage of the recovery process, creating a sense of connection with others, and collective caring. The study found that workplace wellness initiatives are optimised when they are place-based and grounded in local knowledge, needs, and resources incorporating a collective and supportive team approach. Moreover, to ensure engagement in, and sustainability of these initiatives, both bottom-up and top-down commitment is required.

Background: Outbreaks of infectious disease cause serious and costly health and social problems. Two new technologies - pathogen whole genome sequencing (WGS) and Big Data analytics - promise to improve our capacity to detect and control outbreaks earlier, saving lives and resources. However, routinely using these technologies to capture more detailed and specific personal information could be perceived as intrusive and a threat to privacy., Method: Four community juries were convened in two demographically different Sydney municipalities and two regional cities in New South Wales, Australia (western Sydney, Wollongong, Tamworth, eastern Sydney) to elicit the views of well-informed community members on the acceptability and legitimacy of: making pathogen WGS and linked administrative data available for public health researchusing this information in concert with data linkage and machine learning to enhance communicable disease surveillance systems Fifty participants of diverse backgrounds, mixed genders and ages were recruited by random-digit-dialling and topic-blinded social-media advertising. Each jury was presented with balanced factual evidence supporting different expert perspectives on the potential benefits and costs of technologically enhanced public health research and communicable disease surveillance and given the opportunity to question experts., Results: Almost all jurors supported data linkage and WGS on routinely collected patient isolates for the purposes of public health research, provided standard de-identification practices were applied. However, allowing this information to be operationalised as a syndromic surveillance system was highly contentious with three juries voting in favour, and one against by narrow margins. For those in favour, support depended on several conditions related to system oversight and security being met. Those against were concerned about loss of privacy and did not trust Australian governments to run secure and effective systems., Conclusions: Participants across all four events strongly supported the introduction of data linkage and pathogenomics to public health research under current research governance structures. Combining pathogen WGS with event-based data surveillance systems, however, is likely to be controversial because of a lack of public trust, even when the potential public health benefits are clear. Any suggestion of private sector involvement or commercialisation of WGS or surveillance data was unanimously rejected.

Objective: To elicit informed views from Australian women aged 70-74 regarding the acceptability of ceasing to invite women their age to participate in government-funded mammography screening (BreastScreen)., Design: Two community juries held in 2017., Setting: Greater Sydney, a metropolis of 4.5 million people in New South Wales, Australia., Participants: 34 women aged 70-74 with no personal history of breast cancer, recruited by random digit dialling and previously randomly recruited list-based samples., Main Outcomes and Measures: Jury verdict and rationale in response to structured questions. We transcribed audio-recorded jury proceedings and identified central reasons for the jury's decision., Results: The women's average age was 71.5 years. Participants were of diverse sociocultural backgrounds, with the sample designed to include women of lower levels of educational attainment. Both juries concluded by majority verdict (16-2 and 10-6) that BreastScreen should continue to send invitations and promote screening to their age group. Reasons given for the majority position include: (1) sending the invitations shows that society still cares about older women, empowers them to access preventive health services and recognises increasing and varied life expectancy; (2) screening provides women with information that enables choice and (3) if experts cannot agree, the conservative approach is to maintain the status quo until the evidence is clear. Reasons for the minority position were the potential for harms through overdiagnosis and misallocation of scarce health resources., Conclusions: Preventive programmes such as mammography screening are likely to have significant symbolic value once they are socially embedded. Arguments for programme de-implementation emphasising declining benefit because of limited life expectancy and the risks of overdiagnosis seem unlikely to resonate with healthy older women. In situations where there is no consensus among experts on the value of established screening programmes, people may strongly prefer receiving information about their health and having the opportunity make their own choices., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objectives: To elicit the views of well informed community members on the ethical obligations of general practitioners regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, and what should be required before a man undergoes a PSA test., Design and Setting: Three community juries held at the University of Sydney over 6 months in 2014., Participants: Forty participants from New South Wales, of diverse social and cultural backgrounds and with no experience of prostate cancer, recruited through public advertising: two juries of mixed gender and ages; one all-male jury of PSA screening age., Results: In contrast to Royal Australian College of General Practitioners guidelines, the three juries concluded that GPs should initiate discussions about PSA testing with asymptomatic men over 50 years of age. The mixed juries voted for GPs offering detailed information about all potential consequent benefits and harms before PSA testing, and favoured a cooling-off period before undertaking the test. The all-male jury recommended a staggered approach to providing information. They recommended that written information be available to those who wanted it, but eight of the 12 jurors thought that doctors should discuss the benefits and harms of biopsy and treatment only after a man had received an elevated PSA test result., Conclusions: Informed jury participants preferred that GPs actively supported individual men in making decisions about PSA testing, and that they allowed a cooling-off period before testing. However, men of screening age argued that uncertain and detailed information should be communicated only after receiving an elevated PSA test result.