Search

: Objectives: We assessed access to vaping products and types of products used and the factors associated with vaping and smoking among young people in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Methods: A cross‐sectional survey was conducted with a sample of 721 young people aged 14 to 17 years from NSW recruited through online panels. Poisson regression with robust variance was used to estimate relative risks of ever‐vaping and ever‐smoking. Results: Almost one‐third of the sample (32%, n=233) reported being an ever‐vaper, of which more than half (54%) had never smoked prior to starting vaping. Ever‐vaping was independently associated with age and being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, and ever‐smoking was independently associated with being male. Ever‐smokers were seven times more likely to be ever‐vapers than those who had never smoked, and ever‐vapers were 18 times more likely to be ever‐smokers than those who had never vaped. Among ever‐vapers who reported which type of device they were using, 86% reported the use of disposable products. “Flavourings and taste” was rated as the most important characteristic of vapes. More than half of ever‐vapers reported getting the last vape they used from their friends (55%, n=130). More than half of ever‐vapers had used a vape that they knew contained nicotine (53%, n=123). Conclusions: Vaping was the strongest risk factor for smoking, and vice versa, suggesting there is not a straightforward, unidirectional relationship between vaping and smoking in young people. Young people appear to be readily accessing nicotine vaping products, which are often disposable and flavoured, through both social and commercial channels. Implications for public health: Stronger enforcement of federal and state policies designed to protect young people from vaping products is urgently needed., The use of vaping products, also known as electronic cigarettes or e‐cigarettes, is a rapidly evolving area of public health research and policy development. Compared to other nations with a [...]

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre‐existing cancer diagnosis and COVID‐19‐related death, most early studies did not distinguish long‐term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher‐quality evidence on risk of COVID‐19‐related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre‐COVID‐19‐vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID‐19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk‐of‐bias assessment was based on the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse‐variance random‐effects models. Random‐effects meta‐regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID‐19‐related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36‐1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID‐19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41‐1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID‐19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34‐2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4‐4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68‐2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta‐regression suggested risk of COVID‐19‐related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37‐1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80‐1.20) at 5 years post‐cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID‐19‐vaccination, risk of COVID‐19‐related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Equitable elimination of cervical cancer in Australia within the next decade will require high National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) participation by all subgroups of women. The aim of this study was to examine the participation of immigrants compared to Australian-born women. Methods: Participation in the NCSP (≥1cytology test) over a 3-year (2010–2012) and 5-year (2008–2012) period, by place of birth and time since immigration was examined using individually linked data of 67,350 New South Wales (NSW) women aged ≥45 enrolled in the 45 and Up Study. Results: Three-year cervical screening participation was 77.0% overall. Compared to Australian-born women (77.8%), 3-year participation was lower for women born in New Zealand (adjusted odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.69–0.87), Oceania (0.67, 0.51–0.89), Middle East/North Africa (0.76, 0.60–0.97), South-East Asia (0.72, 0.60–0.87), Chinese Asia (0.82, 0.69–0.97), Japan/South Korea (0.68, 0.50–0.94), and Southern/Central Asia (0.54, 0.43–0.67), but higher for women from Malta (2.85, 1.77–4.58) and South America (1.33, 1.01–1.75). Non-English-speaking-at-home women were less likely to be screened than English-speaking-at-home women (0.85, 0.78–0.93). Participation increased with years lived in Australia but remained lower in immigrant groups compared to Australian-born women, even after ≥20 years living in Australia. Similar results were observed for 5-year participation. Conclusions: Women born in New Zealand, Oceania, and parts of Asia and the Middle East had lower NCSP participation, which persisted for ≥20 years post-immigration. The NCSP transition to primary HPV screening, and the introduction of the universal self-collection option in 2022, will offer new opportunities for increasing screening participation for these groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]