Search

Abstract Introduction Primary care provides an important opportunity to detect unhealthy alcohol use and offer assistance but many barriers to this exist. In an Australian context, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS) are community-led and run health services, which provide holistic primary care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A recent cluster randomised trial conducted with ACCHS provided a service support model which showed a small but significant difference in provision of ‘any treatment’ for unhealthy alcohol use. However, it was not clear which treatment modalities were increased. Aims To test the effect of an ACCHS support model for alcohol on: (i) delivery of verbal alcohol intervention (alcohol advice or counselling); (ii) prescription of relapse prevention pharmacotherapies. Methods Intervention: 24-month, multi-faceted service support model. Design: cluster randomised trial; equal allocation to early-support (‘treatment’) and waitlist control arms. Participants: 22 ACCHS. Analysis: Multilevel logistic regression to compare odds of a client receiving treatment in any two-month period as routinely recorded on practice software. Results Support was associated with a significant increase in the odds of verbal alcohol intervention being recorded (OR = 7.60, [95% CI = 5.54, 10.42], p

Abstract Background While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are less likely to drink any alcohol than other Australians, those who drink are more likely to experience adverse alcohol-related health consequences. In a previous study, providing Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) with training and support increased the odds of clients receiving AUDIT-C alcohol screening. A follow-up study found that these results were maintained for at least two years, but there was large variability in the effectiveness of the intervention between services. In this study, we use services that previously received support as a comparison group to test whether training and support can improve alcohol screening and brief intervention rates among wait-list control ACCHSs. Methods Design: Cluster randomised trial using routinely collected health data. Setting: Australia. Cases: Twenty-two ACCHSs that see at least 1000 clients a year and use Communicare as their practice management software. Intervention and comparator: After initiating support, we compare changes in screening and brief intervention between wait-list control services and services that had previously received support. Measurement: Records of AUDIT-C screening and brief intervention activity in routinely collected data. Results During the reference period we observed 357,257 instances where one of 74,568 clients attended services at least once during a two-monthly data extraction period. Following the start of support, the odds of screening (OR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.67, 1.32], p = 0.74, $$B{F}_{10}$$ $$\approx$$ 0.002) and brief intervention (OR = 1.43 [95% CI 0.69, 2.95], p = 0.34, $$B{F}_{10}$$ $$\approx$$ 0.002) did not improve for the wait-list control group, relative to comparison services. Conclusions We did not replicate the finding that support and training improves AUDIT-C screening rates with wait-list control data. The benefits of support are likely context dependent. Coincidental policy changes may have sensitised services to the effects of support in the earlier phase of the study. Then the COVID-19 pandemic may have made services less open to change in this latest phase. Future efforts could include practice software prompts to alcohol screening and brief intervention, which are less reliant on individual staff time or resources. Trial registration Retrospectively registered on 2018-11-21: ACTRN12618001892202.

Background Breastfeeding protects against a range of conditions in the infant, including sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), diarrhoea, respiratory infections and middle ear infections [1, 2]. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends exclusive breastfeeding until six months of age, with continued breastfeeding recommended for at least two years and other complementary nutritious foods [3]. The 2017-18 National Health Survey (NHS) and 2018-19 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey (NATSIHS) reported that the proportion of breastfeeding in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants (0–2 years) were less than half that of non-Indigenous infants (21.2% vs. 45%, respectively)[4]. There is a lack of research on interventions supporting Aboriginal women to breastfeed, identifying an evaluation gap related to peer support interventions to encourage exclusive breastfeeding in Aboriginal women. Methods We will evaluate the effect of scheduled breastfeeding peer support for and by Aboriginal women, on breastfeeding initiation and the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding. This MRFF (Medical Research Future Fund) funded project is designed as a single-blinded cluster randomised controlled trial recruiting six sites across New South Wales, Australia, with three sites being randomised to employ a peer support worker or undertaking standard care. Forty pregnant women will be recruited each year from each of the six sites and will be surveyed during pregnancy, at six weeks, four and six months postnatally with a single text message at 12 months to ascertain breastfeeding rates. In-depth interviews via an Indigenous style of conversation and storytelling called ‘Yarning’ will be completed at pre- and post-intervention with five randomly recruited community members and five health professionals at each site” [5]. Yarns will be audio recorded, transcribed, coded and thematic analysis undertaken. Health economic analysis will be completed to assess the health system incremental cost and effects of the breastfeeding intervention relative to usual care. Discussion Evidence will be given on the effectiveness of Aboriginal peer support workers to promote the initiation and continuation of breastfeeding of Aboriginal babies. The findings of this study will provide evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of including peer support workers in postnatal care to promote breastfeeding practices. Trial Registration ACTRN12622001208796 The impact of breastfeeding peer support on nutrition of Aboriginal infants

Abstract Introduction International and national guidelines highlight the need for general practitioner involvement during and after active cancer treatment and throughout long-term follow-up care. This paper aimed to evaluate patients’ acceptance of radiation oncology shared follow-up care using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted at two cancer care centres in the Illawarra Shoalhaven region of Australia. A sample of patients scheduled for a radiation oncology follow-up consultation in 2021 were sent a 32-point self-complete paper-based survey. Data were analysed using descriptive, parametric and non-parametric statistical analysis. This paper followed the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). Results Of the 414 surveys returned (45% response rate), the acceptance for radiation oncology shared cancer follow-up care was high (80%). Patients treated with only radiotherapy were 1.7 times more likely to accept shared follow-up care than those treated with multiple modalities. Patients who preferred follow-up care for fewer than three years were 7.5 times more likely to accept shared care than those who preferred follow-up care for five years. Patients who travelled more than 20 minutes to their radiation oncologist or to the rural cancer centre were slightly more likely to accept shared care than those who travelled less than twenty minutes to the regional cancer centre. A high understanding of shared care (Intervention Coherence) and a positive feeling towards shared care (Affective Attitude) were significant predictive factors in accepting shared radiation oncology follow-up care. Conclusion Health services need to ensure patient preferences are considered to provide patient-centred cancer follow-up care. Shared cancer follow-up care implementation should start with patients who prefer a shorter follow-up period and understand the benefits of shared care. However, patients’ involvement needs to be considered alongside other clinical risk profiles and organisational factors. Future qualitative research using the TFA constructs is warranted to inform clinical practice change.

Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is commonly treated with opioid analgesics despite evidence that these medicines provide minimal or no benefit for LBP and have an established profile of harms. International guidelines discourage or urge caution with the use of opioids for back pain; however, doctors and patients lack practical strategies to help them implement the guidelines. This trial will evaluate a multifaceted intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) and their patients with LBP implement the recommendations in the latest opioid prescribing guidelines.Methods and analysis This is a cluster randomised controlled trial that will evaluate the effect of educational outreach visits to GPs promoting opioid stewardship alongside non-pharmacological interventions including heat wrap and patient education about the possible harms and benefits of opioids, on GP prescribing of opioids medicines dispensed. At least 40 general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention or control (no outreach visits; GP provides usual care). A total of 410 patient–participants (205 in each arm) who have been prescribed an opioid for LBP will be enrolled via participating general practices. Follow-up of patient–participants will occur over a 1-year period. The primary outcome will be the cumulative dose of opioid dispensed that was prescribed by study GPs over 1 year from the enrolment visit (in morphine milligram equivalent dose). Secondary outcomes include prescription of opioid medicines, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs by study GPs or any GP, health services utilisation and patient-reported outcomes such as pain, quality of life and adverse events. Analysis will be by intention to treat, with a health economics analysis also planned.Ethics and dissemination The trial received ethics approval from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/511). The results will be disseminated via publications in journals, media and conference presentations.Trial registration number ACTRN12622001505796.

Abstract Background Mutual support groups are a popular treatment for substance use and other addictive behaviours. However, little is known about the cultural utility of these programmes for Indigenous peoples. Methods A three-round Delphi study, utilising Indigenous research yarning methods was conducted to: (1) Obtain expert opinion regarding the cultural utility of an Indigenous SMART Recovery handbook; (2) Gain consensus on areas within the SMART Recovery programme that require cultural modification and; (3) Seek advice on how modifications could be implemented in future programme design and delivery. The panellists were 11 culturally, geographically, and professionally diverse Indigenous Australian health and wellbeing experts. A group consensus level of 80% was set prior to each survey round. Results There was 100% participant retention across all three Delphi rounds. The panel reached consensus on five key programme modifications (composition of a separate facilitator and group member handbook; culturally appropriate language, terminology, and literacy level; culturally meaningful programme activities; supplementary storytelling resources; and customisation for diverse community contexts). The panel also developed a series of practical implementation strategies to guide SMART Recovery through a modification process. Conclusion The findings highlight the importance of involving Indigenous peoples in the design, delivery and validation of mainstream mutual support programmes. Indigenous-led programme modifications could help improve accessibility and usefulness of mutual support groups for Indigenous peoples worldwide. This study is an example of how Indigenous research methods can be used alongside the Delphi technique. This approach demonstrated a way that Indigenous peoples from culturally and geographically diverse locations can participate in research anonymously, autonomously and without added burden on personal, community or professional obligations.

Abstract Introduction and aims Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) around Australia have been asked to standardise screening for unhealthy drinking. Accordingly, screening with the 3-item AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption) tool has become a national key performance indicator. Here we provide an overview of suitability of AUDIT-C and other brief alcohol screening tools for use in ACCHSs. Methods All peer-reviewed literature providing original data on validity, acceptability or feasibility of alcohol screening tools among Indigenous Australians was reviewed. Narrative synthesis was used to identify themes and integrate results. Results Three screening tools—full AUDIT, AUDIT-3 (third question of AUDIT) and CAGE (Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty and Eye-opener) have been validated against other consumption measures, and found to correspond well. Short forms of AUDIT have also been found to compare well with full AUDIT, and were preferred by primary care staff. Help was often required with converting consumption into standard drinks. Researchers commented that AUDIT and its short forms prompted reflection on drinking. Another tool, the Indigenous Risk Impact Screen (IRIS), jointly screens for alcohol, drug and mental health risk, but is relatively long (13 items). IRIS has been validated against dependence scales. AUDIT, IRIS and CAGE have a greater focus on dependence than on hazardous or harmful consumption. Discussion and conclusions Detection of unhealthy drinking before harms occur is a goal of screening, so AUDIT-C offers advantages over tools like IRIS or CAGE which focus on dependence. AUDIT-C’s brevity suits integration with general health screening. Further research is needed on facilitating implementation of systematic alcohol screening into Indigenous primary healthcare.