{"title":"Is it time to retire the label \"CALD\" in public health research and practice?","authors":"Ikram Abdi, Adeline Tinessia, Abela Mahimbo, Meru Sheel, Julie Leask","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52608","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143425821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Management challenges and prognostic uncertainties in heat-induced acute liver failure.","authors":"Nicholas Smith, Richard Skoien, Melita Andelkovic","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52606","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52606","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143414655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Brendan Clifford, Amy Peacock, Krista J Siefried, John Gobeil, Jennifer L Smith, Nadine Ezard
{"title":"Responding to reports of nitazene toxicity in Australia.","authors":"Brendan Clifford, Amy Peacock, Krista J Siefried, John Gobeil, Jennifer L Smith, Nadine Ezard","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52605","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143408836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jessica Shipley, James Beharry, Wei Yeh, Nabil Seery, Yi Chao Foong, Darshini Ayton, Pakeeran Siriratnam, Tracie Tan, Heidi Beadnall, Joshua Barton, Francesca Bridge, Robb Wesselingh, Lisa Taylor, Louise Rath, Jodi Haartsen, Mohammad Gadi, Cassie Nesbitt, Michael Zhong, Victoria Cushing, Fiona McKay, Julia Morahan, Benjamin Peter Trewin, Izanne Roos, Mark Marriott, Ai-Lan Nguyen, Emma Downey, Joanne Crosby, Julian Bosco, Jennifer Taylor, Lauren Giles, Nevin John, Ernest Butler, Anneke van der Walt, Helmut Butzkueven, Stefan Blum, Marion Simpson, Mark Slee, Sudarshini Ramanathan, Todd Hardy, Richard A L Macdonell, Katherine Buzzard, Deborah F Mason, Jeannette Lechner-Scott, Trevor J Kilpatrick, Tomas Kalincik, Bruce V Taylor, Simon A Broadley, Stephen Reddel, Douglas Johnson, Mastura Monif
Introduction: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory demyelinating and degenerative disease of the central nervous system. There were 33 335 people with MS in Australia in 2021 and 2917 in New Zealand in 2006 and the prevalence and incidence are increasing with time. Although new treatments have substantially improved outcomes in recent decades, the treatment landscape has become increasingly complex due to the expanding number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) and associated safety considerations.
Main recommendations: A total of 80 consensus recommendations were developed on the current best-practice management of MS in Australia and New Zealand. Part 1 of these guidelines outlines the consensus recommendations covering domains including DMT counselling and selection, pre-DMT assessments, monitoring disease activity on DMT, switching DMT, and discontinuing DMT. The remaining recommendations are outlined in Part 2, encompassing risk mitigation strategies during treatment with DMT, managing DMT in special situations (including pregnancy, postpartum, breastfeeding, active infection including COVID-19, and malignancy), general lifestyle measures, acute MS relapses, and symptomatic treatments for MS.
Changes in management as a result of the guidelines: This two-part position statement provides a practical resource for clinicians on current best-practice consensus recommendations for managing adults (≥ 18 years old) with MS in the Australian and New Zealand health care settings. It outlines the 14 DMTs currently available through the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and eight through the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Schedule, including the unique efficacy, safety and monitoring considerations of each. Through these guidelines, we aim to support safe, timely and effective management of patients with MS in Australia and New Zealand.
{"title":"Consensus recommendations on multiple sclerosis management in Australia and New Zealand: part 1.","authors":"Jessica Shipley, James Beharry, Wei Yeh, Nabil Seery, Yi Chao Foong, Darshini Ayton, Pakeeran Siriratnam, Tracie Tan, Heidi Beadnall, Joshua Barton, Francesca Bridge, Robb Wesselingh, Lisa Taylor, Louise Rath, Jodi Haartsen, Mohammad Gadi, Cassie Nesbitt, Michael Zhong, Victoria Cushing, Fiona McKay, Julia Morahan, Benjamin Peter Trewin, Izanne Roos, Mark Marriott, Ai-Lan Nguyen, Emma Downey, Joanne Crosby, Julian Bosco, Jennifer Taylor, Lauren Giles, Nevin John, Ernest Butler, Anneke van der Walt, Helmut Butzkueven, Stefan Blum, Marion Simpson, Mark Slee, Sudarshini Ramanathan, Todd Hardy, Richard A L Macdonell, Katherine Buzzard, Deborah F Mason, Jeannette Lechner-Scott, Trevor J Kilpatrick, Tomas Kalincik, Bruce V Taylor, Simon A Broadley, Stephen Reddel, Douglas Johnson, Mastura Monif","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52578","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory demyelinating and degenerative disease of the central nervous system. There were 33 335 people with MS in Australia in 2021 and 2917 in New Zealand in 2006 and the prevalence and incidence are increasing with time. Although new treatments have substantially improved outcomes in recent decades, the treatment landscape has become increasingly complex due to the expanding number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) and associated safety considerations.</p><p><strong>Main recommendations: </strong>A total of 80 consensus recommendations were developed on the current best-practice management of MS in Australia and New Zealand. Part 1 of these guidelines outlines the consensus recommendations covering domains including DMT counselling and selection, pre-DMT assessments, monitoring disease activity on DMT, switching DMT, and discontinuing DMT. The remaining recommendations are outlined in Part 2, encompassing risk mitigation strategies during treatment with DMT, managing DMT in special situations (including pregnancy, postpartum, breastfeeding, active infection including COVID-19, and malignancy), general lifestyle measures, acute MS relapses, and symptomatic treatments for MS.</p><p><strong>Changes in management as a result of the guidelines: </strong>This two-part position statement provides a practical resource for clinicians on current best-practice consensus recommendations for managing adults (≥ 18 years old) with MS in the Australian and New Zealand health care settings. It outlines the 14 DMTs currently available through the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and eight through the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Schedule, including the unique efficacy, safety and monitoring considerations of each. Through these guidelines, we aim to support safe, timely and effective management of patients with MS in Australia and New Zealand.</p>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143374331","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Maggie Kirkman, Tomoko Honda, Steve J McDonald, Sally Green, Karen Walker-Bone, Ingrid Winship, Jane R W Fisher
Objective
To assess Australian clinical guidelines for their inclusion of sex and gender.
Design, setting
Survey of all clinical guidelines published in Australia from 1 January 2014 to 31 April 2024 that employed methods such as Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations, or were endorsed, approved or acknowledged by the National Health and Medical Research Council or another major national body, or concerned marginalised groups.
Main outcome measures
Use of the terms “sex”, “gender”, “female”, “male”, “women”, “men”, “girl” and “boy”; definitions of “sex” and “gender”; and incorporation of sex- and gender-relevant guidance.
Results
The 80 eligible guidelines were from 51 organisations and covered 27 areas of practice. No sex- or gender-related terms were found in 12 of the guidelines. Of the remaining 68 guidelines, most used some of these terms only a few times, with 34 of them using “gender” to mean “sex”. “Sex” and “gender” were defined to some extent in four guidelines. There was no reference to clinical practice concerning sex in 15 of the guidelines. A total of 46 guidelines made no mention of clinical practice concerning gender, only 12 included gender-relevant practice in any detail, and the remaining 22 either implied aspects of gender awareness without stating this or mentioned “psychosocial” or “cultural” considerations. Guidelines drew on heterogeneous research, some of which provided no sex-disaggregated data.
Conclusions
Guideline development bodies should be encouraged to assess evidence for its treatment of sex and gender, to enable strategies to counter inequity and discrimination.
{"title":"Consideration of sex and gender: an analysis of Australian clinical guidelines","authors":"Maggie Kirkman, Tomoko Honda, Steve J McDonald, Sally Green, Karen Walker-Bone, Ingrid Winship, Jane R W Fisher","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52602","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.52602","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess Australian clinical guidelines for their inclusion of sex and gender.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design, setting</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Survey of all clinical guidelines published in Australia from 1 January 2014 to 31 April 2024 that employed methods such as Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations, or were endorsed, approved or acknowledged by the National Health and Medical Research Council or another major national body, or concerned marginalised groups.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Use of the terms “sex”, “gender”, “female”, “male”, “women”, “men”, “girl” and “boy”; definitions of “sex” and “gender”; and incorporation of sex- and gender-relevant guidance.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The 80 eligible guidelines were from 51 organisations and covered 27 areas of practice. No sex- or gender-related terms were found in 12 of the guidelines. Of the remaining 68 guidelines, most used some of these terms only a few times, with 34 of them using “gender” to mean “sex”. “Sex” and “gender” were defined to some extent in four guidelines. There was no reference to clinical practice concerning sex in 15 of the guidelines. A total of 46 guidelines made no mention of clinical practice concerning gender, only 12 included gender-relevant practice in any detail, and the remaining 22 either implied aspects of gender awareness without stating this or mentioned “psychosocial” or “cultural” considerations. Guidelines drew on heterogeneous research, some of which provided no sex-disaggregated data.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Guideline development bodies should be encouraged to assess evidence for its treatment of sex and gender, to enable strategies to counter inequity and discrimination.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 4","pages":"205-209"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52602","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143382765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jessica Shipley, James Beharry, Wei Yeh, Nabil Seery, Yi Chao Foong, Darshini Ayton, Pakeeran Siriratnam, Tracie Tan, Heidi Beadnall, Joshua Barton, Francesca Bridge, Robb Wesselingh, Lisa Taylor, Louise Rath, Jodi Haartsen, Mohammad Gadi, Cassie Nesbitt, Michael Zhong, Victoria Cushing, Fiona McKay, Julia Morahan, Benjamin Peter Trewin, Izanne Roos, Mark Marriott, Ai-Lan Nguyen, Emma Downey, Joanne Crosby, Julian Bosco, Jennifer Taylor, Lauren Giles, Nevin John, Ernest Butler, Anneke van der Walt, Helmut Butzkueven, Stefan Blum, Marion Simpson, Mark Slee, Sudarshini Ramanathan, Todd Hardy, Richard A L Macdonell, Katherine Buzzard, Deborah F Mason, Jeannette Lechner-Scott, Trevor J Kilpatrick, Tomas Kalincik, Bruce V Taylor, Simon A Broadley, Stephen Reddel, Douglas Johnson, Mastura Monif
Introduction: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system with rapidly evolving treatment options and strategies. An iterative modified Delphi process was used to develop 80 consensus recommendations for the management of MS in Australia and New Zealand. Part 1 of these guidelines includes recommendations related to selection of initial disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for MS, assessments before commencing DMT, monitoring disease activity on DMT, switching DMT, and discontinuing DMT.
Main recommendations: This article, Part 2, covers recommendations related to risk mitigation during treatment with DMT, managing DMT in special situations (including pregnancy, postpartum, breastfeeding, active infection including COVID-19, and malignancy), general lifestyle measures for MS, acute MS relapses, and symptomatic treatments.
Changes in management as a result of the guidelines: Together with Part 1, this consensus statement provides practical guidance for clinicians involved in the care of adults (≥ 18 years old) with MS in Australia and New Zealand. A safe, effective and comprehensive approach to managing MS is crucial for improving long term outcomes and quality of life in individuals affected by MS.
{"title":"Consensus recommendations on multiple sclerosis management in Australia and New Zealand: part 2.","authors":"Jessica Shipley, James Beharry, Wei Yeh, Nabil Seery, Yi Chao Foong, Darshini Ayton, Pakeeran Siriratnam, Tracie Tan, Heidi Beadnall, Joshua Barton, Francesca Bridge, Robb Wesselingh, Lisa Taylor, Louise Rath, Jodi Haartsen, Mohammad Gadi, Cassie Nesbitt, Michael Zhong, Victoria Cushing, Fiona McKay, Julia Morahan, Benjamin Peter Trewin, Izanne Roos, Mark Marriott, Ai-Lan Nguyen, Emma Downey, Joanne Crosby, Julian Bosco, Jennifer Taylor, Lauren Giles, Nevin John, Ernest Butler, Anneke van der Walt, Helmut Butzkueven, Stefan Blum, Marion Simpson, Mark Slee, Sudarshini Ramanathan, Todd Hardy, Richard A L Macdonell, Katherine Buzzard, Deborah F Mason, Jeannette Lechner-Scott, Trevor J Kilpatrick, Tomas Kalincik, Bruce V Taylor, Simon A Broadley, Stephen Reddel, Douglas Johnson, Mastura Monif","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52577","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system with rapidly evolving treatment options and strategies. An iterative modified Delphi process was used to develop 80 consensus recommendations for the management of MS in Australia and New Zealand. Part 1 of these guidelines includes recommendations related to selection of initial disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for MS, assessments before commencing DMT, monitoring disease activity on DMT, switching DMT, and discontinuing DMT.</p><p><strong>Main recommendations: </strong>This article, Part 2, covers recommendations related to risk mitigation during treatment with DMT, managing DMT in special situations (including pregnancy, postpartum, breastfeeding, active infection including COVID-19, and malignancy), general lifestyle measures for MS, acute MS relapses, and symptomatic treatments.</p><p><strong>Changes in management as a result of the guidelines: </strong>Together with Part 1, this consensus statement provides practical guidance for clinicians involved in the care of adults (≥ 18 years old) with MS in Australia and New Zealand. A safe, effective and comprehensive approach to managing MS is crucial for improving long term outcomes and quality of life in individuals affected by MS.</p>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143374384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jean Spinks, Gabor Mihala, Warren Jennings, Robert S Ware, Lisa M Kalisch Ellett, Elizabeth E Roughead, Daniel Williamson
<div> <section> <h3> Objective</h3> <p>To identify the proportion of hospitalisations (inpatient admissions and emergency department presentations) of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Queensland that were medication-related and potentially preventable for nine clinical indicators of cardiovascular disease (CVD).</p> </section> <section> <h3> Study design</h3> <p>Retrospective cohort study; analysis of linked hospitalisations and emergency department presentations data and administrative records of medical services, pharmaceuticals, and deaths.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Setting, participants</h3> <p>Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander adults (18 years or older) admitted to Queensland public and private hospitals, 1 January 2013 – 31 December 2017.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main outcome measures</h3> <p>Potentially preventable medication-related hospitalisations (PPMRHs), defined by a set of clinical indicators describing CVD; deaths within 30 days of PPMRHs; hospital costs.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>We identified 31 472 CVD-related hospitalisations, of which 11 469 were of people with medical histories suggesting harm that was foreseeable and preventable with appropriate treatment. Of the 7886 hospitalisations with congestive heart failure, 4350 (55%) were of people with prior CVD diagnoses; 681 (16%) were associated with use of medicines known to exacerbate congestive heart failure, and 1488 (34%) were associated with underuse of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors. Of the 1089 hospitalisations with myocardial infarction of people who had previously experienced myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome events, 809 (74%) were not receiving recommended treatment at the time of hospitalisation. Of the 5417 hospitalisations with ischaemic events of people with histories including diabetes and earlier ischaemic events, 3343 (62%) were not receiving antiplatelet or lipid-lowering therapy. The median cost associated with PPMRHs for the time period (2013–2017) was $4352 (interquartile range, $8742), and 136 (3%) of CVD-related deaths within 30 days of hospital discharge followed PPMRH events.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclusions</h3> <p>Interventions supporting targeted and timely medication safety services for Aborigin
{"title":"Potentially preventable medication-related hospitalisations with cardiovascular disease of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Queensland, 2013–2017: a retrospective cohort study","authors":"Jean Spinks, Gabor Mihala, Warren Jennings, Robert S Ware, Lisa M Kalisch Ellett, Elizabeth E Roughead, Daniel Williamson","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52600","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.52600","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To identify the proportion of hospitalisations (inpatient admissions and emergency department presentations) of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Queensland that were medication-related and potentially preventable for nine clinical indicators of cardiovascular disease (CVD).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Study design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Retrospective cohort study; analysis of linked hospitalisations and emergency department presentations data and administrative records of medical services, pharmaceuticals, and deaths.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Setting, participants</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander adults (18 years or older) admitted to Queensland public and private hospitals, 1 January 2013 – 31 December 2017.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Potentially preventable medication-related hospitalisations (PPMRHs), defined by a set of clinical indicators describing CVD; deaths within 30 days of PPMRHs; hospital costs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 31 472 CVD-related hospitalisations, of which 11 469 were of people with medical histories suggesting harm that was foreseeable and preventable with appropriate treatment. Of the 7886 hospitalisations with congestive heart failure, 4350 (55%) were of people with prior CVD diagnoses; 681 (16%) were associated with use of medicines known to exacerbate congestive heart failure, and 1488 (34%) were associated with underuse of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors. Of the 1089 hospitalisations with myocardial infarction of people who had previously experienced myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome events, 809 (74%) were not receiving recommended treatment at the time of hospitalisation. Of the 5417 hospitalisations with ischaemic events of people with histories including diabetes and earlier ischaemic events, 3343 (62%) were not receiving antiplatelet or lipid-lowering therapy. The median cost associated with PPMRHs for the time period (2013–2017) was $4352 (interquartile range, $8742), and 136 (3%) of CVD-related deaths within 30 days of hospital discharge followed PPMRH events.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Interventions supporting targeted and timely medication safety services for Aborigin","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 4","pages":"198-204"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52600","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143365240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022,<span><sup>1</sup></span> people have had easy access to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) application that can provide answers to most health-related questions. Although ChatGPT could massively increase access to tailored health information, the risk of inaccurate information is also recognised, particularly with early ChatGPT versions, and its accuracy varies by task and topic.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Generative AI tools could be a further problem for health services and clinicians, adding to the already large volume of medical misinformation.<span><sup>3</sup></span> Discussions of the benefits and risks of the new technology for health equity, patient engagement, and safety need reliable information about who is using ChatGPT, and the types of health information they are seeking.</p><p>To examine the use of ChatGPT in Australia for obtaining health information, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of adults (18 years or older) drawn from the June 2024 wave of the Life in Australia panel.<span><sup>4</sup></span> Participants who completed the Life in Australia survey online or by telephone were asked how often they used ChatGPT for health information purposes during the preceding six months, the type of questions they asked, and their trust in the responses. Participants who were aware of ChatGPT but had not used it for health information purposes were asked about their intentions to do so in the following six months. Health literacy was assessed using a validated single-item screener: “If you need to go to the doctor, clinic or hospital, how confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?“<span><sup>5</sup></span> Demographic information was derived from previously collected panel data. Residential postcode-based socio-economic standing was classified according to the Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD; by quintile).<span><sup>6</sup></span> Participant responses were weighted to the Australian population using propensity scores. Associations between respondent characteristics and survey responses were assessed using simple logistic regression; we report odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analyses were conducted in SPSS 26. Unless otherwise stated, we report unweighted results (further study details: Supporting Information, part 1). Our study was approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2024/HE000247).</p><p>Of 2951 invited panellists, 2034 completed the three ChatGPT and the health literacy survey items (68.9%). The demographic characteristics of the sample were similar to those of the Australian population (data not shown). The weighted proportion of participants who had heard of ChatGPT was 84.7% (95% CI, 83.0–86.3%). The weighted proportion of participants who had used ChatGPT to obtain health-related information during the preceding six months was 9.9% (95% CI, 8.5–11.4%). The proportion of
{"title":"Use of ChatGPT to obtain health information in Australia, 2024: insights from a nationally representative survey","authors":"Julie Ayre, Erin Cvejic, Kirsten J McCaffery","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52598","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.52598","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022,<span><sup>1</sup></span> people have had easy access to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) application that can provide answers to most health-related questions. Although ChatGPT could massively increase access to tailored health information, the risk of inaccurate information is also recognised, particularly with early ChatGPT versions, and its accuracy varies by task and topic.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Generative AI tools could be a further problem for health services and clinicians, adding to the already large volume of medical misinformation.<span><sup>3</sup></span> Discussions of the benefits and risks of the new technology for health equity, patient engagement, and safety need reliable information about who is using ChatGPT, and the types of health information they are seeking.</p><p>To examine the use of ChatGPT in Australia for obtaining health information, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of adults (18 years or older) drawn from the June 2024 wave of the Life in Australia panel.<span><sup>4</sup></span> Participants who completed the Life in Australia survey online or by telephone were asked how often they used ChatGPT for health information purposes during the preceding six months, the type of questions they asked, and their trust in the responses. Participants who were aware of ChatGPT but had not used it for health information purposes were asked about their intentions to do so in the following six months. Health literacy was assessed using a validated single-item screener: “If you need to go to the doctor, clinic or hospital, how confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?“<span><sup>5</sup></span> Demographic information was derived from previously collected panel data. Residential postcode-based socio-economic standing was classified according to the Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD; by quintile).<span><sup>6</sup></span> Participant responses were weighted to the Australian population using propensity scores. Associations between respondent characteristics and survey responses were assessed using simple logistic regression; we report odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analyses were conducted in SPSS 26. Unless otherwise stated, we report unweighted results (further study details: Supporting Information, part 1). Our study was approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2024/HE000247).</p><p>Of 2951 invited panellists, 2034 completed the three ChatGPT and the health literacy survey items (68.9%). The demographic characteristics of the sample were similar to those of the Australian population (data not shown). The weighted proportion of participants who had heard of ChatGPT was 84.7% (95% CI, 83.0–86.3%). The weighted proportion of participants who had used ChatGPT to obtain health-related information during the preceding six months was 9.9% (95% CI, 8.5–11.4%). The proportion of ","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 4","pages":"210-212"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52598","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143123203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Felicity Collis, Kade Booth, Jamie Bryant, Tanika Ridgeway, Catherine Chamberlain, Jaquelyne Hughes, Kalinda E Griffiths, Mark Wenitong, Peter O'Mara, Alex Brown, Sandra J Eades, Kelvin M Kong, Michelle Kennedy
<div> <section> <h3> Objective</h3> <p>To describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities’ processes, positioning and experiences of health and medical research and their recommendations.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Design</h3> <p>A cross-sectional online and paper-based survey.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Setting, participants</h3> <p>Representatives from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services and community-controlled organisations in Australia.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main outcome measures</h3> <p>Responses to a 33-item mixed methods survey that explored communities’ positioning and processes relating to health and medical research and their experiences of health and medical research in the previous 5 years. Recommendations for improving health and medical research were elicited via two open-ended questions.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>Fifty-one community representatives nationally responded to the survey. Most representatives reported feeling slightly or very positive about research (37, 73%). More than half (33, 65%) reported having formal governance processes, and two-thirds of those without governance processes were interested in establishing such processes (12, 67%). Almost half reported that research has sometimes or never had benefit (25, 49%). Ethical principles that were most often reported as essential included those relating to sharing results back with community (45, 88%), translating research into policy and practice (37, 73%), employing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff (37, 73%), Indigenous data sovereignty and governance (36, 71%) and research agreements (35, 69%). Community representatives reported being approached frequently and in the later stages of research, with little input during the development and design stages of research. Most representatives reported that their communities had participated in Indigenous-led research (39, 76%). Community representatives highlighted the need for appropriate resourcing and funding to drive and lead their own research agendas.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclusion</h3> <p>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities continue to have negative experiences of research despite four decades of advocating for control, ownership and leadership of health and medical research. Researchers, funding bodies and institutions must
{"title":"Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community experiences and recommendations for health and medical research: a mixed methods study","authors":"Felicity Collis, Kade Booth, Jamie Bryant, Tanika Ridgeway, Catherine Chamberlain, Jaquelyne Hughes, Kalinda E Griffiths, Mark Wenitong, Peter O'Mara, Alex Brown, Sandra J Eades, Kelvin M Kong, Michelle Kennedy","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52571","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.52571","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities’ processes, positioning and experiences of health and medical research and their recommendations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A cross-sectional online and paper-based survey.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Setting, participants</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Representatives from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services and community-controlled organisations in Australia.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Responses to a 33-item mixed methods survey that explored communities’ positioning and processes relating to health and medical research and their experiences of health and medical research in the previous 5 years. Recommendations for improving health and medical research were elicited via two open-ended questions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Fifty-one community representatives nationally responded to the survey. Most representatives reported feeling slightly or very positive about research (37, 73%). More than half (33, 65%) reported having formal governance processes, and two-thirds of those without governance processes were interested in establishing such processes (12, 67%). Almost half reported that research has sometimes or never had benefit (25, 49%). Ethical principles that were most often reported as essential included those relating to sharing results back with community (45, 88%), translating research into policy and practice (37, 73%), employing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff (37, 73%), Indigenous data sovereignty and governance (36, 71%) and research agreements (35, 69%). Community representatives reported being approached frequently and in the later stages of research, with little input during the development and design stages of research. Most representatives reported that their communities had participated in Indigenous-led research (39, 76%). Community representatives highlighted the need for appropriate resourcing and funding to drive and lead their own research agendas.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities continue to have negative experiences of research despite four decades of advocating for control, ownership and leadership of health and medical research. Researchers, funding bodies and institutions must ","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 S2","pages":"S6-S15"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52571","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143074848","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jamie Bryant, Kade Booth, Felicity Collis, Catherine Chamberlain, Jaquelyne Hughes, Breanne Hobden, Kalinda E Griffiths, Mark Wenitong, Peter O'Mara, Alex Brown, Sandra J Eades, Kelvin M Kong, Raymond W Lovett, Michelle Kennedy
<div> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>To examine self-reported practices for obtaining ethics approval and reflections on ethics application processes among researchers who have conducted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Study design</h3> <p>Cross-sectional online survey.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Setting and participants</h3> <p>Australian-based researchers who conducted research that included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or their data.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main outcome measures</h3> <p>Results from a 74-item online survey that participants completed, which included questions on demographics, ethics processes, perceptions of engagement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research, and barriers to and enablers of conducting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>Of 553 eligible researchers who commenced the survey, 439 (79.4%) answered all of the questions and were included in the analysis. A total of 327 participants (74.5%) had obtained ethics approval from an Aboriginal human research ethics committee (AHREC), 254 (57.9%) had obtained multistate ethics approvals and 270 (61.5%) had not participated in ethics training specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Participants were significantly more likely to report being very or extremely confident in managing the ethics application process if they had ≥ 6 years of research experience, had participated in training, had obtained ethics approval from an AHREC, or dedicated > 50% of their time to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Participants acknowledged the importance of ethics approval processes in improving research practices, however they identified time and costs as barriers. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants identified that ethics processes do not always uphold Indigenous approaches or methodologies.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclusions</h3> <p>Processes for obtaining ethics approval for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research do not meet contemporary research needs and would be strengthened by streamlining ethics application processes, reducing time and cost barriers, and enhancing cultural appropriateness. We join calls for the establishment of state-base
{"title":"Reported processes and practices of researchers applying for human research ethics approval for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research: a mixed methods study","authors":"Jamie Bryant, Kade Booth, Felicity Collis, Catherine Chamberlain, Jaquelyne Hughes, Breanne Hobden, Kalinda E Griffiths, Mark Wenitong, Peter O'Mara, Alex Brown, Sandra J Eades, Kelvin M Kong, Raymond W Lovett, Michelle Kennedy","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52565","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.52565","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To examine self-reported practices for obtaining ethics approval and reflections on ethics application processes among researchers who have conducted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Study design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Cross-sectional online survey.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Setting and participants</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Australian-based researchers who conducted research that included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or their data.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Results from a 74-item online survey that participants completed, which included questions on demographics, ethics processes, perceptions of engagement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research, and barriers to and enablers of conducting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of 553 eligible researchers who commenced the survey, 439 (79.4%) answered all of the questions and were included in the analysis. A total of 327 participants (74.5%) had obtained ethics approval from an Aboriginal human research ethics committee (AHREC), 254 (57.9%) had obtained multistate ethics approvals and 270 (61.5%) had not participated in ethics training specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Participants were significantly more likely to report being very or extremely confident in managing the ethics application process if they had ≥ 6 years of research experience, had participated in training, had obtained ethics approval from an AHREC, or dedicated > 50% of their time to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Participants acknowledged the importance of ethics approval processes in improving research practices, however they identified time and costs as barriers. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants identified that ethics processes do not always uphold Indigenous approaches or methodologies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Processes for obtaining ethics approval for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research do not meet contemporary research needs and would be strengthened by streamlining ethics application processes, reducing time and cost barriers, and enhancing cultural appropriateness. We join calls for the establishment of state-base","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 S2","pages":"S25-S33"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52565","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143074955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号