首页 > 最新文献

Medical Journal of Australia最新文献

英文 中文
Using generative artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a narrative review and proposed agenda for implementation 在临床实践中使用生成式人工智能:一个叙述性的回顾和提出的实施议程。
IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2025-10-06 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.70057
Ian A Scott, Sandeep Reddy, Tanya Kelly, Tim Miller, Anton van der Vegt
<p>Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is any computer system capable of generating text, images, or other types of content, often in response to a prompt or question entered through a chat interface. GenAI comprises large language models (LLMs) and other general-purpose foundation models powered mostly by generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) deep learning technology. Compared with traditional AI models using single data modalities for specific classification or prediction tasks, GenAI comprises task-agnostic, increasingly multimodal models that learn shared representations of different data types and, using suitable prompts, may perform never-before-seen tasks.<span><sup>1</sup></span> GenAI tools (also termed solutions or applications) are compelling because, unlike traditional AI, they are conversant, interacting directly with humans and generating human-like responses to prompts. These tools, in the form of ChatGPT and other GenAI chatbots, have very quickly captured the interest of researchers, clinicians and industry. Anecdotally, certain GenAI tools, such as ambient AI scribes and assistants, are already being used in many practice areas.<span><sup>2, 3</sup></span> In the UK, one in five general practitioners now routinely use GenAI for various tasks.<span><sup>4</sup></span> At the time of submission, this rapid uptake was occurring with little guidance on what use cases (tasks or clinical indications) are most amenable to GenAI, how GenAI tools intended for clinical practice should be used, evaluated and governed, and how to safeguard reliability, safety, privacy, and consent.</p><p>In addressing these issues, we undertook a narrative review of existing literature, and using this evidence, we propose a phased, risk-tiered approach to implementing GenAI tools, discuss risks and mitigations, and consider factors likely to influence adoption of GenAI by both clinicians and health services. Although GenAI encompasses both text and image generation, this review primarily focuses on text-based applications in clinical practice, with image-related applications limited to report generation rather than image generation. Box 1 contains a glossary of terms used when describing GenAI.</p><p>We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published between 1 January 2022 and 31 August 2024 using search terms “generative AI”, “large language models”, “clinical practice” or “health care”. We focused on review articles and grouped them into key application domains to inform our implementation framework: clinical documentation (16), operational efficiency (20), patient safety (11), clinical decision making (42), and patient self-care (4). Seven reviews covering all these domains were also retrieved.<span><sup>5-11</sup></span> From these reviews, we extracted references outlining the problem(s) being addressed and exemplars of implemented GenAI tools used to solve them. We noted considerable heterogeneity in study design and methodological
生成式人工智能(GenAI)是任何能够生成文本、图像或其他类型内容的计算机系统,通常是为了响应通过聊天界面输入的提示或问题。GenAI包括大型语言模型(llm)和其他通用基础模型,主要由生成预训练变压器(GPT)深度学习技术提供支持。与使用单一数据模式进行特定分类或预测任务的传统人工智能模型相比,GenAI包括任务不可知的、越来越多的多模态模型,这些模型学习不同数据类型的共享表示,并使用适当的提示,可能执行从未见过的任务基因人工智能工具(也称为解决方案或应用程序)之所以引人注目,是因为与传统的人工智能不同,它们熟悉人类,直接与人类互动,并对提示产生类似人类的反应。这些工具,以ChatGPT和其他GenAI聊天机器人的形式,很快就引起了研究人员、临床医生和工业界的兴趣。有趣的是,某些GenAI工具,如环境人工智能抄写员和助手,已经在许多实践领域得到了应用。在英国,五分之一的全科医生现在经常使用GenAI来完成各种任务在提交时,这种快速的采用几乎没有关于什么用例(任务或临床适应症)最适合GenAI的指导,如何使用、评估和管理用于临床实践的GenAI工具,以及如何保障可靠性、安全性、隐私性和同意性。为了解决这些问题,我们对现有文献进行了叙述性回顾,并利用这些证据,我们提出了一种分阶段、风险分层的方法来实施GenAI工具,讨论了风险和缓解措施,并考虑了可能影响临床医生和卫生服务采用GenAI的因素。虽然GenAI包括文本和图像生成,但本文主要关注临床实践中基于文本的应用,图像相关的应用仅限于报告生成,而不是图像生成。框1包含描述GenAI时使用的术语表。我们在PubMed和谷歌Scholar上搜索了2022年1月1日至2024年8月31日之间发表的文章,搜索词包括“生成式人工智能”、“大型语言模型”、“临床实践”或“医疗保健”。我们将重点放在综述文章上,并将其分为关键应用领域,以告知我们的实施框架:临床文档(16)、操作效率(20)、患者安全(11)、临床决策(42)和患者自我护理(4)。还检索了涵盖所有这些领域的7篇综述。5-11从这些综述中,我们提取了概述正在解决的问题的参考文献,以及用于解决这些问题的实现GenAI工具的示例。我们注意到在研究设计和方法的严谨性方面存在相当大的异质性,并且在几个领域中相对缺乏真实世界的实施。尽管现有证据存在上述局限性,但我们的综述表明,GenAI工具可以分五个阶段实施(框2)。根据患者风险水平、任务复杂性和实施力度的增加、当前技术成熟度水平的降低以及安全性和有效性的证据,对这些措施进行排序。分阶段的方法提供了对GenAI的谨慎引入,从主要提高管理效率(降低患者风险)的工具开始,逐步发展到直接影响临床决策和患者自我护理的工具(提高患者风险并需要监管部门批准)。对患者安全和护理质量的若干风险需要仔细考虑。这些问题涉及:可靠性(错误、幻觉);一致性(对同一问题的不同回答);可解释性(很少有回应的理由);对语境理解有限;训练数据不具代表性导致的偏差反应;滥用提示语;潜在的隐私泄露;对工具过程和输出缺乏可审核性;工作流程中断和工作岗位流失;使失去个性护理;临床医生对GenAI的过度依赖导致临床医生技能下降;有限的临床医生和患者接受;成本和碳足迹。然而,风险缓解战略已经存在,并将继续发展(方框3)。尽管这些风险中有许多是所有形式的人工智能所共有的,但某些风险,如幻觉、迅速滥用和无法审计,是GenAI所特有的。基因人工智能还不能进行高阶推理、语境理解、捕捉感官和非语言线索,或做出道德或伦理判断。决策支持法学硕士可能会对相同的查询产生不一致的建议,并且像人类一样容易产生认知偏差GenAI根据新的数据输入或其业务的更新或重新校准而改变其行为,这可能未经宣布。 重要的是,在执行几个不同的任务时,GenAI在一个“基准”任务上的可接受的表现不会转化为它没有受过训练的其他看似相关的任务这挑战了对具有大量潜在任务能力的不断发展的模型进行任何单个时间点评估的通用性。与在较小的目标数据集上训练的传统AI模型相比,确保用于训练GenAI模型的大量数据集的质量具有挑战性。尽管知道它们的技术架构,但无法理解具有数十亿个参数执行不同任务的极其复杂的llm的行为。对具有无限和不断变化的输入和输出阵列的GenAI工具进行评估和管理是一项巨大的挑战。对所有GenAI工具(如软件即医疗设备(SaMD))进行单一的、适合用途的部署前评估和批准,可能不足以使工具继续学习和适应。目前,美国药品管理局(TGA)将一些但不是所有旨在支持临床决策的人工智能工具作为SaMD进行监管,但豁免了仅提供文件或行政协助的工具,如GenAI抄写器。TGA在面向消费者的人工智能工具方面的职权范围仍未确定。目前的管理和认证程序76,加上对全社会法律(如隐私、消费者和反歧视法)的修订,可能足以涵盖许多基因人工智能应用。有两种可能的监管方法:以应用程序为中心的方法和以系统为中心的方法。在以应用程序为中心的方法中,根据任务的重要性和患者风险对单个工具进行评估。对于高风险的诊断或治疗应用(第4和第5阶段),该工具可能会在部署前被冻结,并使用实用的临床试验在标准途径(相对于快速途径)中进行评估(框4)。77-79如果获得批准,该工具随后可以被锁定、重新打开、重新培训(如果需要),如果发现功能有任何实质性变化或偏离基准任务,则可以重新评估以重新批准。美国食品和药物管理局呼吁人工智能开发人员提供一个算法更改协议,描述如何生成和验证修改风险较低的工具(阶段1和阶段2)可能通过快速途径,只需要观察性研究或部署后验证研究即可获得批准。需要一份标准化的、可操作的、基于风险的清单,从多个角度对GenAI进行评估,包括部署后对实际性能和临床影响的监测,以及用于识别和解决伦理问题的类似清单。84,85重要的是,任何GenAI工具都必须在当地使用当地数据进行标准化的临床验证过程,包括获得监管部门批准的工具。使用托管在本地服务器上的开源或开放权重工具可能是保护隐私的最佳选择,但需要内部数据科学家和技术人员进行模型培训和工具部署。一种补充性的以系统为中心的方法要求工具开发者和部署者(即大规模卫生服务)围绕其基因人工智能活动建立一个质量保证框架86,包括风险缓解(方框3)和生命周期监测和评估。该框架可包括统计过程控制分析,定义工具准确性的可接受范围,或分析对近端临床结果的下游影响(如不良事件、死亡率)。87还可以使用更多的工具使用代理度量,例如跟踪人类发起的对法学硕士创建的文档的更正的数量开发人员和部署人员可能会被指定的权威机构认可使用GenAI工具,这取决于他们测量、报告和满足这些参数的程度。89 .卫生服务部门可能需要建立专门的多学科临床人工智能单位来执行这些任务,并提供必要的人力专业知识和数字基础设施这些单位还可以在将特定应用程序部署到其他类似或附属服务之前专门进行验证和试点,因为某些服务承担它们可能希望部署的每个GenAI工具的这些任务的能力有限因此,需要在定制和更集中的评估之间取得平衡,后者更适合广泛使用、高价值、高风险或高影响的解决方案。由于其类似人类的交互性,GenAI正在迅速获得一线临床医生对某些任务(例如,环境抄写员)的接受,带来了医学实践的文化转
{"title":"Using generative artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a narrative review and proposed agenda for implementation","authors":"Ian A Scott,&nbsp;Sandeep Reddy,&nbsp;Tanya Kelly,&nbsp;Tim Miller,&nbsp;Anton van der Vegt","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70057","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.70057","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is any computer system capable of generating text, images, or other types of content, often in response to a prompt or question entered through a chat interface. GenAI comprises large language models (LLMs) and other general-purpose foundation models powered mostly by generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) deep learning technology. Compared with traditional AI models using single data modalities for specific classification or prediction tasks, GenAI comprises task-agnostic, increasingly multimodal models that learn shared representations of different data types and, using suitable prompts, may perform never-before-seen tasks.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; GenAI tools (also termed solutions or applications) are compelling because, unlike traditional AI, they are conversant, interacting directly with humans and generating human-like responses to prompts. These tools, in the form of ChatGPT and other GenAI chatbots, have very quickly captured the interest of researchers, clinicians and industry. Anecdotally, certain GenAI tools, such as ambient AI scribes and assistants, are already being used in many practice areas.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2, 3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; In the UK, one in five general practitioners now routinely use GenAI for various tasks.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; At the time of submission, this rapid uptake was occurring with little guidance on what use cases (tasks or clinical indications) are most amenable to GenAI, how GenAI tools intended for clinical practice should be used, evaluated and governed, and how to safeguard reliability, safety, privacy, and consent.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In addressing these issues, we undertook a narrative review of existing literature, and using this evidence, we propose a phased, risk-tiered approach to implementing GenAI tools, discuss risks and mitigations, and consider factors likely to influence adoption of GenAI by both clinicians and health services. Although GenAI encompasses both text and image generation, this review primarily focuses on text-based applications in clinical practice, with image-related applications limited to report generation rather than image generation. Box 1 contains a glossary of terms used when describing GenAI.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published between 1 January 2022 and 31 August 2024 using search terms “generative AI”, “large language models”, “clinical practice” or “health care”. We focused on review articles and grouped them into key application domains to inform our implementation framework: clinical documentation (16), operational efficiency (20), patient safety (11), clinical decision making (42), and patient self-care (4). Seven reviews covering all these domains were also retrieved.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5-11&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; From these reviews, we extracted references outlining the problem(s) being addressed and exemplars of implemented GenAI tools used to solve them. We noted considerable heterogeneity in study design and methodological","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 11","pages":"664-672"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70057","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145239094","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}
引用次数: 0
A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the economic impact of environmental risk factors on inpatient hospital separations in the Northern Territory 对北领地住院病人分离的环境风险因素的经济影响的回顾性横断面分析。
IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2025-09-30 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.70053
Geetanjali Lamba, Danielle Esler, Yuejen Zhao, Tracy Ward, Christine Connors, Michael Spry (Marranunggu)
<div> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>To quantify the cost of hospital separations attributable to environmental risk factors in the Northern Territory, including for Indigenous and remote subgroups.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Study design</h3> <p>A retrospective cross-sectional secondary data analysis of hospital separations data. Data collection, analysis and presentation were guided by our Indigenous Steering Committee.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Setting and participants</h3> <p>All episodes of care from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 with an inpatient separation (discharge, transfer, death) from NT public hospitals were included. Non-inpatient episodes of care (outpatient, emergency department and primary care presentations) were excluded.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Major outcome measures</h3> <p>Individual hospital separations were classified as environmentally attributable if the International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th revision, Australian modification (ICD-10-AM) code for their primary diagnosis matched an included disease. Included diseases were based on environmental attributable fractions previously generated for the Kimberley region, contextualised to the NT. Costs were assigned to individual hospital separations based on activity-based funding allocations.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>Environmental risk factors contributed more than $72 million to inpatient hospital costs in the NT over 1 year. Environmental risks disproportionately affected children aged 0–4 years ($10.9 million), Indigenous people ($47.2 million) and those in remote areas ($41.7 million). Skin disease made up the largest contribution by a single disease ($26.4 million). The two largest categories of environmental risk were “water quality, sanitation and hygiene” and “home condition”, together contributing $37.3 million in costs.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclusions</h3> <p>Quantifying the economic impact of preventable environmental risk in the NT bolsters the argument for strengthening environmental health initiatives. Health disparities between groups reflect the interconnectedness of environmental, social and cultural determinants of health. Targeted interventions to reduce inequities in housing, sanitation and water quality are needed. Delivering on existing environmental health commitmen
目标:量化北领地因环境风险因素导致的住院分离费用,包括土著和偏远亚群体的费用。研究设计:对医院分离资料进行回顾性横断面二次资料分析。数据的收集、分析和介绍由我们的土著指导委员会指导。环境和参与者:包括从2021年7月1日至2022年6月30日在北领地公立医院住院分离(出院、转院、死亡)的所有护理事件。非住院患者的护理(门诊、急诊和初级保健)被排除在外。主要结局指标:如果国际疾病和相关健康问题统计分类第10版澳大利亚修订版(ICD-10-AM)代码的初步诊断与纳入的疾病相匹配,则个别医院分离被归类为环境归因。纳入的疾病以以前在金伯利地区产生的环境归因部分为基础,以北部地区为背景。费用根据以活动为基础的资金分配分配给各个医院。结果:环境风险因素对北领地1年住院费用的贡献超过7200万美元。环境风险对0-4岁儿童(1090万美元)、土著居民(4720万美元)和偏远地区儿童(4170万美元)的影响尤为严重。皮肤病是单一疾病中贡献最大的疾病(2 640万美元)。两类最大的环境风险是“水质、环境卫生和个人卫生”和“家庭条件”,共造成3 730万美元的费用。结论:对北部地区可预防的环境风险的经济影响进行量化,支持了加强环境卫生倡议的论点。群体之间的健康差异反映了健康的环境、社会和文化决定因素之间的相互联系。有必要采取有针对性的干预措施,减少住房、卫生和水质方面的不平等现象。通过有意义的伙伴关系和跨部门的协调行动,如住房和教育,履行现有的环境卫生承诺至关重要,特别是在《北领地缩小差距执行计划》范围内。
{"title":"A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the economic impact of environmental risk factors on inpatient hospital separations in the Northern Territory","authors":"Geetanjali Lamba,&nbsp;Danielle Esler,&nbsp;Yuejen Zhao,&nbsp;Tracy Ward,&nbsp;Christine Connors,&nbsp;Michael Spry (Marranunggu)","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70053","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.70053","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Objectives&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;To quantify the cost of hospital separations attributable to environmental risk factors in the Northern Territory, including for Indigenous and remote subgroups.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Study design&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;A retrospective cross-sectional secondary data analysis of hospital separations data. Data collection, analysis and presentation were guided by our Indigenous Steering Committee.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Setting and participants&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;All episodes of care from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 with an inpatient separation (discharge, transfer, death) from NT public hospitals were included. Non-inpatient episodes of care (outpatient, emergency department and primary care presentations) were excluded.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Major outcome measures&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Individual hospital separations were classified as environmentally attributable if the International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th revision, Australian modification (ICD-10-AM) code for their primary diagnosis matched an included disease. Included diseases were based on environmental attributable fractions previously generated for the Kimberley region, contextualised to the NT. Costs were assigned to individual hospital separations based on activity-based funding allocations.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Environmental risk factors contributed more than $72 million to inpatient hospital costs in the NT over 1 year. Environmental risks disproportionately affected children aged 0–4 years ($10.9 million), Indigenous people ($47.2 million) and those in remote areas ($41.7 million). Skin disease made up the largest contribution by a single disease ($26.4 million). The two largest categories of environmental risk were “water quality, sanitation and hygiene” and “home condition”, together contributing $37.3 million in costs.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Conclusions&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Quantifying the economic impact of preventable environmental risk in the NT bolsters the argument for strengthening environmental health initiatives. Health disparities between groups reflect the interconnectedness of environmental, social and cultural determinants of health. Targeted interventions to reduce inequities in housing, sanitation and water quality are needed. Delivering on existing environmental health commitmen","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 10","pages":"533-540"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70053","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145191973","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}
引用次数: 0
The importance of universal child and family health services for equitable early development 普及儿童和家庭保健服务对公平的早期发展的重要性。
IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2025-09-30 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.70067
Anna MH Price, Elodie O’Connor, Sharon R Goldfeld
<p>In Australia, growing political interest in the first 2000 days of life (from conception to five years) reflects the profound impact of early childhood on long term health, development and eventual societal participation.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Recent national initiatives (eg, Early Years Strategy,<span><sup>2</sup></span> Measuring What Matters framework<span><sup>3</sup></span>) and state-level efforts (eg, New South Wales First 2000 Days Framework,<span><sup>4</sup></span> Putting Queensland Kids First Plan<span><sup>5</sup></span>) seek a coordinated health and education system, prioritising prevention and early intervention. Broader early years advocacy includes a guarantee ensuring all children and families have access to the holistic supports necessary for optimal health and development.<span><sup>6</sup></span></p><p>The best way to support children and families to thrive is by promoting positive experiences and preventing negative ones. Across Australian jurisdictions, child and family health (CFH; also abbreviated as CaFHS, or known as Child Health and Parenting Service [CHaPS], or as Maternal and Child Health [MCH]) services provide free, high quality, non-stigmatising, well child health care from birth to school entry. As universal primary health care, they have a critical role in health promotion, prevention, and early identification, and should be accessible regardless of geographic location or socio-economic status (Box 1).</p><p>Despite growing political recognition of the importance of early childhood, Australia has primarily focused on early childhood education and care (ECEC); specifically, universal preschool at three and four years.<span><sup>7</sup></span> CFH services are essential for engaging and supporting families from birth but have received less attention. Although a national framework was developed by state and territory representatives in 2011, it was not subsequently endorsed.<span><sup>8</sup></span> As such, the sector lacks nationally consistent guidelines, as well as training and delivery standards.</p><p>This perspective article highlights CFH services as the health backbone — alongside ECEC — of a universal early childhood development system. It emphasises the importance of monitoring and equity in CFH services, and presents a pragmatic conceptual model for delivering universal, equitable CFH services in Australia.</p><p>For 30 years, the Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH) has worked with families, communities, practitioners and policy makers to improve children’s health and development. As research and evaluation partners of CFH services, the authors are committed to strengthening CFH capacity and impact. CCCH partnerships include developing and evaluating CFH practice frameworks, supporting CFH providers in identifying early developmental risks, and supporting the implementation and evaluation of models of care that address the social determinants of health, such as sustained home visiting and Ch
在澳大利亚,对生命最初2000天(从受孕到5岁)日益增长的政治关注反映了幼儿期对长期健康、发展和最终的社会参与的深远影响最近的国家倡议(如“早期战略”、“衡量重要事项框架”)和州一级的努力(如“新南威尔士州第一个2000天框架”、“昆士兰儿童优先计划”)寻求建立一个协调的卫生和教育系统,优先考虑预防和早期干预。更广泛的早期宣传包括一项保障,确保所有儿童和家庭都能获得最佳健康和发展所需的全面支持。支持孩子和家庭茁壮成长的最好方法是促进积极的经历,防止消极的经历。在澳大利亚各司法管辖区,儿童和家庭保健(CFH;也缩写为CaFHS,或称为儿童保健和养育服务[CHaPS],或称为妇幼保健[MCH])服务提供从出生到入学的免费、高质量、无污名化的良好儿童保健。作为普遍的初级卫生保健,它们在促进健康、预防和早期识别方面发挥着关键作用,无论地理位置或社会经济地位如何,都应能够获得(方框1)。尽管越来越多的政治认识到幼儿的重要性,澳大利亚主要侧重于幼儿教育和护理(ECEC);具体来说,是三岁和四岁的普遍学前教育家庭健康服务从出生起就对家庭的参与和支持至关重要,但受到的关注较少。虽然2011年州和地区代表制定了一个国家框架,但随后没有得到认可因此,该部门缺乏全国一致的指导方针,以及培训和交付标准。这篇前瞻性文章强调了儿童早期保健服务作为一个普遍的儿童早期发展系统的健康支柱——与ECEC一起。它强调了监测和公平的CFH服务的重要性,并提出了在澳大利亚提供普遍、公平的CFH服务的实用概念模型。30年来,社区儿童保健中心一直与家庭、社区、从业人员和决策者合作,以改善儿童的健康和发展。作为CFH服务的研究和评估伙伴,作者致力于加强CFH的能力和影响。儿童健康中心的伙伴关系包括制定和评估儿童健康中心的实践框架,支持儿童健康中心提供者识别早期发育风险,并支持实施和评估解决健康的社会决定因素的护理模式,如持续家访和儿童和家庭中心。尽管州和地区政府收集了有关CFH服务提供的数据,但公众监测和数据共享仍然有限。少数已发表的研究强调了摄取的实质性变化。2024年的一项研究使用2014年出生的1.8万名儿童的数据分析了新南威尔士州CFH服务的使用情况。尽管指南建议儿童在头2000天内进行8次就诊,但17%的儿童没有就诊,36%的儿童就诊1-7次,31%的儿童就诊8-20次,17%的儿童就诊超过20次,有些儿童就诊超过100次。维多利亚的CFH服务系统是最全面的,提供从出生到入学的十次预约。年度报告数据(发布至2018年)显示,超过99%的家庭在出生后两周内接受了家访,前六个月的五次预约就诊率超过95%通过立法将出生通知从产科服务转移到家庭保健服务,促进了这种几乎普遍的覆盖。墨尔本的一项队列研究通过母亲的日常日记追踪健康服务的使用情况,发现98%的首次父母参与了CFH服务,在产后第一年平均14次CFH和10次全科就诊来自学校入学健康问卷的维多利亚州最新数据(2019-21)显示,即使在COVID-19大流行期间,约70%的回应父母也参加了孩子3.5年的CFH检查。15尽管CFH的设计是通用的,但它的服务并没有得到一致或公平的实施,这反映了相反的护理法,即那些从最高质量的服务中受益最多的人获得这些服务的机会最少在维多利亚州和塔斯马尼亚州,怀孕期间面临至少两种社会经济或社会心理逆境的妇女,如精神健康状况不佳或吸烟,在孩子两岁生日之前平均有7.6次家庭健康中心就诊,与中等收入人群相似。同样,新南威尔士州2024年的研究发现,家庭健康院就诊与心理社会风险之间没有相关性维多利亚州的研究还显示,尽管低收入家庭的暴力发生率较高,但家庭收入与护士对家庭暴力的筛查呈反比关系。 土著和/或托雷斯海峡岛民家庭的参与度低于非土著家庭。13,18随着澳大利亚儿童人口的增长,儿童在全科就诊中所占的比例越来越小,19而在急诊科就诊中所占的比例却越来越高由于大多数CFH数据是在COVID-19大流行之前收集的,因此很难评估服务范围的近期趋势。在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,CFH服务面临重大限制,特别是在维多利亚州和新南威尔士州,长期封锁导致严重依赖远程医疗,并优先考虑8周以下的婴儿和处境不利的家庭墨尔本皇家儿童医院的一项审查发现,与大流行前的水平相比,因儿童健康问题(如生长不良、喂养问题、易怒和母亲心理健康问题)就诊的婴儿数量增加了三倍,这些问题通常由CFH服务管理。22 .儿童健康服务对于在生命最初2000天促进公平的健康和发展成果至关重要。它们与教育(ECEC)一起为普遍的儿童早期发展系统提供健康支柱。尽管它们具有普遍的意图,但在澳大利亚各地获取机会的不平等和执行的不一致限制了它们的影响。分层、按比例普及模式提供了一条途径,可以更好地支持各种家庭能力和优势,从基于诊所的常规健康促进到持续的家访。通过优化现有投资和利用澳大利亚强大的普遍基础,我们可以加强儿童健康服务,改善所有儿童及其家庭的结果。开放获取出版由墨尔本大学促进,作为Wiley -墨尔本大学协议的一部分,通过澳大利亚大学图书馆员理事会。无相关披露。不是委托;外部同行评审。安娜·普莱斯:概念化,写作-原稿,写作-审查和编辑。Elodie O 'Connor:可视化,写作-原稿,写作-审查和编辑。Sharon Goldfeld:概念化,监督,写作-审查和编辑。
{"title":"The importance of universal child and family health services for equitable early development","authors":"Anna MH Price,&nbsp;Elodie O’Connor,&nbsp;Sharon R Goldfeld","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70067","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.70067","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;In Australia, growing political interest in the first 2000 days of life (from conception to five years) reflects the profound impact of early childhood on long term health, development and eventual societal participation.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; Recent national initiatives (eg, Early Years Strategy,&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; Measuring What Matters framework&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;) and state-level efforts (eg, New South Wales First 2000 Days Framework,&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; Putting Queensland Kids First Plan&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;) seek a coordinated health and education system, prioritising prevention and early intervention. Broader early years advocacy includes a guarantee ensuring all children and families have access to the holistic supports necessary for optimal health and development.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The best way to support children and families to thrive is by promoting positive experiences and preventing negative ones. Across Australian jurisdictions, child and family health (CFH; also abbreviated as CaFHS, or known as Child Health and Parenting Service [CHaPS], or as Maternal and Child Health [MCH]) services provide free, high quality, non-stigmatising, well child health care from birth to school entry. As universal primary health care, they have a critical role in health promotion, prevention, and early identification, and should be accessible regardless of geographic location or socio-economic status (Box 1).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Despite growing political recognition of the importance of early childhood, Australia has primarily focused on early childhood education and care (ECEC); specifically, universal preschool at three and four years.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; CFH services are essential for engaging and supporting families from birth but have received less attention. Although a national framework was developed by state and territory representatives in 2011, it was not subsequently endorsed.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; As such, the sector lacks nationally consistent guidelines, as well as training and delivery standards.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This perspective article highlights CFH services as the health backbone — alongside ECEC — of a universal early childhood development system. It emphasises the importance of monitoring and equity in CFH services, and presents a pragmatic conceptual model for delivering universal, equitable CFH services in Australia.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;For 30 years, the Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH) has worked with families, communities, practitioners and policy makers to improve children’s health and development. As research and evaluation partners of CFH services, the authors are committed to strengthening CFH capacity and impact. CCCH partnerships include developing and evaluating CFH practice frameworks, supporting CFH providers in identifying early developmental risks, and supporting the implementation and evaluation of models of care that address the social determinants of health, such as sustained home visiting and Ch","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 8","pages":"387-390"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70067","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145191993","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}
引用次数: 0
NOTIFICATION: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 报告:慢性疲劳综合征。
IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2025-09-29 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.70066

NOTIFICATION: V. Toulkidis, " Chronic Fatigue Syndrome," The Medical Journal of Australia 176, no. S9 (2002): S17-S55, https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04499.x.

This notification is for the above guidelines, published online on 6 May 2002 in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA; AMPCo Pty Ltd) and in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), and has been issued by agreement between the MJA and John Wiley & Sons Australia. The notification has been issued to inform readers of concerns that the information contained therein is outdated.

通知:V. Toulkidis,“慢性疲劳综合征”,《澳大利亚医学杂志》176期。S9 (2002): S17-S55, https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04499.x。上述指南于2002年5月6日在线发表在《澳大利亚医学杂志》(MJA; AMPCo Pty Ltd)和《威利在线图书馆》(wileyonlinelibrary.com)上,并由MJA与澳大利亚约翰·威利父子公司达成协议发布。发出该通知是为了告知读者,其中所包含的信息已过时。
{"title":"NOTIFICATION: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome","authors":"","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70066","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.70066","url":null,"abstract":"<p>\u0000 <b>NOTIFICATION:</b> <span>V. Toulkidis</span>, \" <span>Chronic Fatigue Syndrome</span>,\" <i>The Medical Journal of Australia</i> <span>176</span>, no. <span>S9</span> (<span>2002</span>): <span>S17</span>-<span>S55</span>, https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04499.x.\u0000 </p><p>This notification is for the above guidelines, published online on 6 May 2002 in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA; AMPCo Pty Ltd) and in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), and has been issued by agreement between the MJA and John Wiley &amp; Sons Australia. The notification has been issued to inform readers of concerns that the information contained therein is outdated.</p>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70066","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145186249","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}
引用次数: 0
The forgotten pandemic: Hong Kong influenza in Australia (1968–1970) 被遗忘的大流行:澳大利亚的香港流感(1968-1970)。
IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2025-09-28 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.70039
Matthew Brown, Alan W Hampson, John Gerrard

As Australia emerges from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and H5 avian influenza approaches global spread, it is instructive to reflect on past Australian pandemic experiences. This is underscored by the recent Australian Government’s COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report.1

Within just over a century Australia has been affected by five respiratory virus pandemics: four influenza pandemics and the recent coronavirus pandemic. The deadliest was the Spanish influenza pandemic (1918), followed by the moderately severe Asian (1957) and Hong Kong (1968) influenza pandemics, the mild influenza pandemic originating in North America (2009), and then the COVID-19 pandemic (2020).

The Hong Kong influenza pandemic arose midway between the Spanish influenza and COVID-19 pandemics, during the momentous events of the late 1960s. It spanned Vietnam War protests and Woodstock, and affected United States presidents and Apollo astronauts. However, there are relatively few published accounts of Australia’s experiences. This article reviews historical literature and contemporaneous news reports to extract insights for future pandemic responses. This forgotten pandemic has some notable similarities and differences to Australian experiences of the Spanish influenza and COVID-19 pandemics (Box 1).

Only type A viruses cause pandemic influenza, and they are defined by the two surface antigens haemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). Both undergo antigenic variation, which sustains virus epidemic potential, and serve as targets for the protective antibody response, with haemagglutinin being the major and more significant antigen. Pandemic influenza is associated with a virus possessing a novel haemagglutinin. Influenza A viruses were initially subtyped as A0, A1 and A2 (H0, H1 and H2) based on haemagglutination-inhibition tests.

The revised 1971 World Health Organization nomenclature recognised distinct antigenic forms of neuraminidase, retrospectively designating the Hong Kong virus as A(H3N2) and its A2 predecessor as A(H2N2), with distinct haemagglutinin but shared neuraminidase. Genomic sequencing now supplements antigenic tests in characterising these viruses. Antigenic variants of the initial A(H3N2) virus continue to circulate alongside A(H1N1) and type B viruses and result in the highest rates of influenza-related morbidity and mortality.2, 3

The Hong Kong influenza virus probably originated in China in early 1968 during the Cultural Revolution, with unclear reports of an epidemic involving Chinese cities including Wuhan, Shanghai and Guiyang.4 In July 1968, a respiratory illness outbreak was identified in Hong Kong, with about half a million cases reported by the end of that month.5

On 16 August 1968, the Hong Kong epidemic was attributed to an influenza virus significantly different from previous strains. Init

随着澳大利亚从2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行中走出来,H5禽流感接近全球传播,反思澳大利亚过去的大流行经验是有益的。澳大利亚政府最近发布的《2019冠状病毒病应对调查报告》强调了这一点。1在短短一个多世纪内,澳大利亚遭受了五次呼吸道病毒大流行的影响:四次流感大流行和最近的冠状病毒大流行。最致命的是西班牙流感大流行(1918年),其次是中度严重的亚洲流感大流行(1957年)和香港流感大流行(1968年),源自北美的轻度流感大流行(2009年),然后是COVID-19大流行(2020年)。香港流感大流行发生在西班牙流感和COVID-19大流行之间,发生在20世纪60年代末的重大事件期间。它跨越了越南战争抗议和伍德斯托克音乐节,并影响了美国总统和阿波罗宇航员。然而,有关澳大利亚经历的报道相对较少。本文回顾了历史文献和当时的新闻报道,以提取对未来大流行应对的见解。这次被遗忘的大流行与澳大利亚应对西班牙流感和COVID-19大流行的经历有一些显著的相似之处,也有一些显著的不同之处(方框1)。只有A型病毒引起大流行性流感,它们由两种表面抗原血凝素(H)和神经氨酸酶(N)定义。两者都经历抗原变异,这维持了病毒的流行潜力,并作为保护性抗体反应的靶点,血凝素是主要和更重要的抗原。大流行性流感与一种具有新型血凝素的病毒有关。根据血凝抑制试验,甲型流感病毒最初亚型为A0、A1和A2 (H0、H1和H2)。1971年修订的世界卫生组织命名法承认不同的神经氨酸酶抗原形式,回顾性地将香港病毒命名为A(H3N2),将其A2前身命名为A(H2N2),具有不同的血凝素,但共享神经氨酸酶。基因组测序现在补充了抗原测试,以确定这些病毒的特征。初始甲型H3N2病毒的抗原变异继续与甲型H1N1和乙型病毒一起传播,并导致与流感相关的最高发病率和死亡率。2,3香港流感病毒可能起源于1968年初文化大革命期间的中国,当时有关武汉、上海和贵阳等中国城市爆发流感的报道并不明确。4 1968年7月,香港爆发呼吸道疾病,到当月月底报告的病例约为50万例。51968年8月16日,香港流感大流行被认为是由一种与以往流感病毒明显不同的流感病毒引起的。最初的抗原测试表明,该病毒与先前存在的A2亚洲流感病毒家族有较低的亲缘关系,并被认为是该病毒的主要变种然而,随后的测试表明一个不同的血凝素亚型。6,7到1968年8月底,病毒已传播到新加坡、越南、台湾、菲律宾和澳大利亚。6,8在澳大利亚,1968年冬季季节性流感在悉尼尤为严重。在1968年8月11日的一份报纸报道中,H Kramer博士(Lidcombe临床病理研究所所长)将病因确定为亚洲A2菌株,RW Lane博士(英联邦血清实验室主任)将其描述为“自1957年以来最严重的爆发”在维多利亚州、南澳大利亚州、11州和西澳大利亚州也记录了亚洲A2病毒的爆发,其中包括总理、副总理和两名州部长据说,世界上最后一次分离出亚洲流感是在1968年8月在澳大利亚发生的。1968年8月30日,澳大利亚首例香港流感确诊病例发生,当时CSL从一名从香港返回的北领地病人身上分离并鉴定出该病毒株。Peter Arnold医生(位于Bellevue Hill的悉尼全科医生)与临床病理研究所合作,发现五宗确诊为香港流感的个案。其中4例是从新南威尔士州的鲍瓦尔回来的,报告称“他们住的酒店普遍爆发了类似流感的疾病”奇怪的是,1968年新的香港流感病毒并没有在澳大利亚引起大规模的流行浪潮。1968年9月至10月期间,一艘从悉尼驶往檀香山(美国)、北美大陆、日本和香港的游轮上,共有295例香港流感临床诊断病例。 BD·阿普索普医生描述了这次疫情,他报告说,“几乎所有病例的发病都是一样的”,都是头痛,患者经常描述说“感觉好像我的头顶都要掉下来了”。尽管有这些观察结果,但只有少数患者出现肺炎迹象,提交人没有报告任何死亡。15 . 1968年,澳大利亚拥有在CSL大规模生产流感疫苗的自主能力。到11月,它开始向英国运送130万剂香港流感疫苗,以帮助应对预期的冬季流感高峰CSL认为这种新型流感病毒将遵循传统的季节性模式,澳大利亚在几个月内不需要疫苗——鉴于其他流感大流行爆发的不可预测性,按照目前的标准,这是一场重大的赌博随后,CSL为1969年冬季在澳大利亚生产了600多万剂疫苗。16,18美国的第一例病例是1968年9月初从越南返回的一名士兵身上发现的。随后在加利福尼亚、夏威夷和阿拉斯加的军事基地发现了病例。19在美国1968-69年的冬天,这种病毒迅速传播,影响了林登·约翰逊总统、休伯特·汉弗莱副总统和当选总统理查德·尼克松。阿波罗8号的宇航员和肯尼迪角的1200名工作人员都接种了疫苗,以减少对明年计划的登月的干扰。1969年2月,美国宣布第一波香港流感结束,死亡人数超过10万人到1969年年中,伍德斯托克音乐节和“暂停游行”(美国历史上最大的反战抗议活动)等大规模集会在没有明显提及疫情的情况下发生。21与美国不同的是,香港流感对世界大部分地区的影响是滞后的。与1968年澳大利亚的经验一样,这归因于近期接触H2N2亚洲流感的人群免疫,并由共同N2神经氨酸酶抗体介导虽然英国和欧洲大陆在1968-69年的北部冬季爆发了这种疾病,但与美国不同的是,这种疾病大多被报道为轻微的北美以外的许多北半球国家在接下来的1969-70年冬天经历了最糟糕的季节。例如,在英格兰和威尔士,尽管香港流感病毒早在1968年就已抵达,但在1969至1970年的大流行季节,所有死因的死亡率(每10万人中77.0人)几乎是前一个季节(每10万人中43.0人)的两倍。由于最近一次有记录的亚洲A2 (H2N2)亚型和香港新病毒的流行同时发生,对新病毒早期流行病学的追踪变得复杂。最初将新病毒标记为A2变体也可能影响了报告。与英国和欧洲其他地区一样,1969年澳大利亚的大流行浪潮相对温和。流感死亡率(每10万人中有17人)大大低于1968年A2流行期间的死亡率(每10万人中有27人)然而,1969年香港流感对新几内亚的影响是毁灭性的。至少有2000人死亡,死亡人数可能多达1万人。陆军和空军被调来协助应对,其中包括200名太平洋岛屿团的士兵。23与欧洲的经验一样,1970年是香港流感在澳大利亚最严重的一年。值得注意的是,在该病毒首次抵达两年后,澳大利亚的死亡率达到每10万人64人这是自亚洲流感大流行以来最高的流感死亡率。1970年的流行病似乎于6月在昆士兰州开始,在约克角和托雷斯海峡的土著和托雷斯海峡岛民中爆发,蔓延到布里斯班,然后蔓延到澳大利亚其他地区。24新南威尔士州总理生病了,乔治·约翰逊(《我的兄弟杰克》的作者)死于此病,学校与教职员工的疾病和拥挤的班级作斗争,墨尔本的城市太平间挤满了人。与美国的经历相呼应,1970年5月至9月,全国有20多万人参加了反战抗议活动,但没有明显提到大流行。我们查阅了本地和国际医学文献,并检索了媒体印刷出版物,发现有关香港流感在澳大利亚的流行病学、公共卫生和社会影响的描述有限。香港流感确立了典型的12个月的季节周期,不同年份和地点的高峰程度各不相同。对于西班牙流感,在采用季节性模式之前,在12个月内出现了三波,而COVID-19在出现欧
{"title":"The forgotten pandemic: Hong Kong influenza in Australia (1968–1970)","authors":"Matthew Brown,&nbsp;Alan W Hampson,&nbsp;John Gerrard","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70039","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.70039","url":null,"abstract":"<p>As Australia emerges from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and H5 avian influenza approaches global spread, it is instructive to reflect on past Australian pandemic experiences. This is underscored by the recent Australian Government’s <i>COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report</i>.<span><sup>1</sup></span></p><p>Within just over a century Australia has been affected by five respiratory virus pandemics: four influenza pandemics and the recent coronavirus pandemic. The deadliest was the Spanish influenza pandemic (1918), followed by the moderately severe Asian (1957) and Hong Kong (1968) influenza pandemics, the mild influenza pandemic originating in North America (2009), and then the COVID-19 pandemic (2020).</p><p>The Hong Kong influenza pandemic arose midway between the Spanish influenza and COVID-19 pandemics, during the momentous events of the late 1960s. It spanned Vietnam War protests and Woodstock, and affected United States presidents and Apollo astronauts. However, there are relatively few published accounts of Australia’s experiences. This article reviews historical literature and contemporaneous news reports to extract insights for future pandemic responses. This forgotten pandemic has some notable similarities and differences to Australian experiences of the Spanish influenza and COVID-19 pandemics (Box 1).</p><p>Only type A viruses cause pandemic influenza, and they are defined by the two surface antigens haemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). Both undergo antigenic variation, which sustains virus epidemic potential, and serve as targets for the protective antibody response, with haemagglutinin being the major and more significant antigen. Pandemic influenza is associated with a virus possessing a novel haemagglutinin. Influenza A viruses were initially subtyped as A0, A1 and A2 (H0, H1 and H2) based on haemagglutination-inhibition tests.</p><p>The revised 1971 World Health Organization nomenclature recognised distinct antigenic forms of neuraminidase, retrospectively designating the Hong Kong virus as A(H3N2) and its A2 predecessor as A(H2N2), with distinct haemagglutinin but shared neuraminidase. Genomic sequencing now supplements antigenic tests in characterising these viruses. Antigenic variants of the initial A(H3N2) virus continue to circulate alongside A(H1N1) and type B viruses and result in the highest rates of influenza-related morbidity and mortality.<span><sup>2, 3</sup></span></p><p>The Hong Kong influenza virus probably originated in China in early 1968 during the Cultural Revolution, with unclear reports of an epidemic involving Chinese cities including Wuhan, Shanghai and Guiyang.<span><sup>4</sup></span> In July 1968, a respiratory illness outbreak was identified in Hong Kong, with about half a million cases reported by the end of that month.<span><sup>5</sup></span></p><p>On 16 August 1968, the Hong Kong epidemic was attributed to an influenza virus significantly different from previous strains. Init","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 8","pages":"400-403"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70039","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145186241","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}
引用次数: 0
Concurrent use of hormonal long-acting reversible contraception by women of reproductive age dispensed teratogenic medications, Australia, 2013–2021 育龄妇女同时使用激素长效可逆避孕的情况,配用致畸药物,澳大利亚,2013-2021。
IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2025-09-24 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.70058
Aaron E Boyce, Tony Caccetta, Jo-Ann See, Rosemary L Nixon AM
{"title":"Concurrent use of hormonal long-acting reversible contraception by women of reproductive age dispensed teratogenic medications, Australia, 2013–2021","authors":"Aaron E Boyce,&nbsp;Tony Caccetta,&nbsp;Jo-Ann See,&nbsp;Rosemary L Nixon AM","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70058","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.70058","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145138021","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}
引用次数: 0
Concurrent use of hormonal long-acting reversible contraception by women of reproductive age dispensed teratogenic medications, Australia, 2013–2021 育龄妇女同时使用激素长效可逆避孕的情况,配用致畸药物,澳大利亚,2013-2021。
IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2025-09-24 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.70063
Michelle KY Chen, Adrian Lim, Deshan F Sebaratnam
{"title":"Concurrent use of hormonal long-acting reversible contraception by women of reproductive age dispensed teratogenic medications, Australia, 2013–2021","authors":"Michelle KY Chen,&nbsp;Adrian Lim,&nbsp;Deshan F Sebaratnam","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70063","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.70063","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145138114","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}
引用次数: 0
Changes in patient management after preoperative MRI for newly diagnosed breast cancer: a multicentre prospective observational study 新诊断乳腺癌术前MRI后患者管理的变化:一项多中心前瞻性观察研究
IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2025-09-24 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.70051
Michael L Marinovich, Nehmat Houssami, Andrew Spillane, Gregory B Mann, Donna Taylor, Michelle Reintals, Nadine Phillips, Max K Bulsara, Patsy Siok Hwa Soon, Tracey Dickens, Christobel M Saunders
<div> <section> <h3> Objectives</h3> <p>To understand whether and how breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at cancer diagnosis influences treatment planning, and whether subpopulations of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer benefit in terms of most appropriate management.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Design</h3> <p>Multicentre prospective observational study.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Setting</h3> <p>Seven centres across New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia during the period 15 September 2020 to 14 July 2022.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Participants</h3> <p>Patients with newly diagnosed early breast cancer meeting predefined criteria for whom multidisciplinary team normal practice deemed MRI would aid treatment planning.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Intervention</h3> <p>Preoperative contrast-enhanced MRI.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main outcome measures</h3> <p>Reasons for requesting MRI; pre-MRI versus post-MRI changes in treatment plans; changes justified by pathology findings.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>387 eligible participants were enrolled. MRI was most frequently requested for dense breasts (252 [65%]), clinical and/or radiological size discrepancy (161 [42%]), multifocality (108 [28%]) and young age (105 [27%]). Change in treatment plan after MRI occurred for 198 participants (51% [95% CI, 46–56%]), including a change in breast surgery plan for 119 participants (31% [95% CI, 26–36%]). More mastectomies were planned after MRI (15% <i>v</i> 28%; absolute risk difference [RD], 13 percentage points [95% CI, 9–17]; <i>P</i> < 0.001), including unilateral mastectomy (14% <i>v</i> 24%; RD, 10 percentage points [95% CI, 6–14]; <i>P</i> < 0.001) and bilateral mastectomy (1% <i>v</i> 4%; RD, 3 percentage points [95% CI, 1–5]; <i>P</i> < 0.001). No increases in planned mastectomies occurred for women aged ≥ 70 years (RD, –3 percentage points [95% CI, –15 to 9]; or in those for whom neoadjuvant therapy was planned (RD, 2 percentage points [95% CI, –11 to 14]). Change in surgery was deemed justified by pathology findings in 75 of 88 women who experienced a change (85% [95% CI, 75–91%]).</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclus
目的:了解乳房磁共振成像(MRI)对癌症诊断是否以及如何影响治疗计划,以及新诊断的乳腺癌患者亚群是否在最适当的治疗方面受益。设计:多中心前瞻性观察研究。地点:2020年9月15日至2022年7月14日期间,在新南威尔士州、维多利亚州和西澳大利亚州的七个中心。参与者:符合预定义标准的新诊断早期乳腺癌患者,多学科团队通常认为MRI有助于治疗计划。干预:术前MRI增强。主要结局指标:要求MRI的原因;mri前与mri后治疗方案的变化;病理结果证明这些变化是合理的。结果:387名符合条件的受试者入组。致密性乳房(252例[65%])、临床和/或放射学大小差异(161例[42%])、多灶性(108例[28%])和年轻(105例[27%])最常要求MRI检查。198名参与者(51% [95% CI, 46-56%])在MRI后改变了治疗计划,其中119名参与者(31% [95% CI, 26-36%])改变了乳房手术计划。MRI后计划更多的乳房切除术(15% vs 28%;绝对风险差[RD], 13个百分点[95% CI, 9-17]; P结论:术前MRI检查结果导致三分之一的早期乳腺癌患者改变手术方法,增加了乳房切除术率。在大多数情况下,这些变化被认为是适当的。在年龄≥70岁的患者中,MRI检查结果未改变原计划的乳房切除术,这表明这些女性在进行此类检查后可能不会改变手术计划。
{"title":"Changes in patient management after preoperative MRI for newly diagnosed breast cancer: a multicentre prospective observational study","authors":"Michael L Marinovich,&nbsp;Nehmat Houssami,&nbsp;Andrew Spillane,&nbsp;Gregory B Mann,&nbsp;Donna Taylor,&nbsp;Michelle Reintals,&nbsp;Nadine Phillips,&nbsp;Max K Bulsara,&nbsp;Patsy Siok Hwa Soon,&nbsp;Tracey Dickens,&nbsp;Christobel M Saunders","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70051","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.70051","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Objectives&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;To understand whether and how breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at cancer diagnosis influences treatment planning, and whether subpopulations of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer benefit in terms of most appropriate management.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Design&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Multicentre prospective observational study.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Setting&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Seven centres across New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia during the period 15 September 2020 to 14 July 2022.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Participants&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Patients with newly diagnosed early breast cancer meeting predefined criteria for whom multidisciplinary team normal practice deemed MRI would aid treatment planning.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Intervention&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Preoperative contrast-enhanced MRI.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Main outcome measures&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Reasons for requesting MRI; pre-MRI versus post-MRI changes in treatment plans; changes justified by pathology findings.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;387 eligible participants were enrolled. MRI was most frequently requested for dense breasts (252 [65%]), clinical and/or radiological size discrepancy (161 [42%]), multifocality (108 [28%]) and young age (105 [27%]). Change in treatment plan after MRI occurred for 198 participants (51% [95% CI, 46–56%]), including a change in breast surgery plan for 119 participants (31% [95% CI, 26–36%]). More mastectomies were planned after MRI (15% &lt;i&gt;v&lt;/i&gt; 28%; absolute risk difference [RD], 13 percentage points [95% CI, 9–17]; &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt; &lt; 0.001), including unilateral mastectomy (14% &lt;i&gt;v&lt;/i&gt; 24%; RD, 10 percentage points [95% CI, 6–14]; &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt; &lt; 0.001) and bilateral mastectomy (1% &lt;i&gt;v&lt;/i&gt; 4%; RD, 3 percentage points [95% CI, 1–5]; &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt; &lt; 0.001). No increases in planned mastectomies occurred for women aged ≥ 70 years (RD, –3 percentage points [95% CI, –15 to 9]; or in those for whom neoadjuvant therapy was planned (RD, 2 percentage points [95% CI, –11 to 14]). Change in surgery was deemed justified by pathology findings in 75 of 88 women who experienced a change (85% [95% CI, 75–91%]).&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Conclus","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 11","pages":"602-610"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70051","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145138041","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}
引用次数: 0
Non-technical errors associated with deaths in surgical care, Australia, 2012–2019, by surgical specialty (Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality): a retrospective cohort study 澳大利亚,2012-2019年,按外科专业分类(澳大利亚和新西兰手术死亡率审计):一项回顾性队列研究。
IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2025-09-23 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.70055
Jesse Ey, Victoria Kollias, Octavia Lee, Kelly Hou, Matheesha Herath, John B North, Ellie Treloar, Suzanne Edwards, Martin Bruening, Adam J Wells, Guy J Maddern
<div> <section> <h3> Objective</h3> <p>To compare the frequency of non-technical errors in cases of surgical care-related deaths in Australia, by surgical specialty.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Study design</h3> <p>Retrospective cohort study; analysis of Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality (ANZASM) data.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Setting, participants</h3> <p>All surgical care-related deaths in Australia (except New South Wales), 1 January 2012 – 31 December 2019, that were flagged in ANZASM as associated with adverse events or areas of concern.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Main outcome measures</h3> <p>Proportions of surgical care-related deaths associated with non-technical errors, overall and by domain (communication/teamwork, decision making, situational awareness, leadership); paired comparisons of likelihood of errors by specialty; change in error proportions during 2012–2019; influence of patient and admission factors on likelihood of non-technical errors.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>Of 30 971 surgical care-related deaths reported to ANZASM during 2012–2019, 3695 were flagged with adverse events or areas of concern, including 3422 cases (92.6%) in five surgical specialties: general surgery (1570 deaths), cardiothoracic surgery (626), orthopaedic surgery (510), vascular surgery (385), and neurosurgery (331). The proportions of surgical care-related deaths associated with non-technical errors differed by specialty (range, 52.2% to 68.5%), as did those errors in the domains decision making (range, 52.6% to 66.3%) and situational awareness errors (range, 44.4% to 62.5%). The probability of any non-technical error was greater for cardiothoracic than orthopaedic surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37–2.28), and for general than orthopaedic surgery (aOR, 1.97, 95% CI, 1.59–2.44) or neurosurgery (aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.14–1.90); the probability was lower for orthopaedic than vascular surgery (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41–0.72). The proportion of deaths associated with non-technical errors declined over time for general surgery, but not the other four specialties. Differences by patient and admission characteristics in the proportions of cases including non-technical errors were not statistically significant.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclusion</h3> <p>At least 50% of sur
目的:比较澳大利亚不同外科专科外科护理相关死亡病例中非技术差错的发生频率。研究设计:回顾性队列研究;澳大利亚和新西兰手术死亡率审计(ANZASM)数据分析。背景,参与者:2012年1月1日至2019年12月31日期间澳大利亚(新南威尔士州除外)所有与外科护理相关的死亡,这些死亡在ANZASM中被标记为与不良事件或关注领域相关。主要结果测量:与非技术错误相关的手术护理相关死亡的比例,总体和按领域(沟通/团队合作、决策、态势感知、领导力);专业错误可能性的配对比较;2012-2019年误差比例的变化;患者和入院因素对非技术差错可能性的影响。结果:在2012-2019年向ANZASM报告的30971例外科护理相关死亡中,有3695例被标记为不良事件或关注领域,其中包括五个外科专业的3422例(92.6%):普通外科(1570例死亡)、心胸外科(626例)、骨科手术(510例)、血管外科(385例)和神经外科(331例)。与非技术错误相关的外科护理相关死亡的比例因专业而异(范围,52.2%至68.5%),决策领域的错误(范围,52.6%至66.3%)和态势感知错误(范围,44.4%至62.5%)也是如此。心胸外科非技术错误的概率大于骨科手术(校正优势比[aOR], 1.76; 95%可信区间[CI], 1.37-2.28),普通外科非技术错误的概率大于骨科手术(aOR, 1.97, 95% CI, 1.59-2.44)或神经外科(aOR, 1.47, 95% CI, 1.14-1.90);骨科手术的概率低于血管手术(aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.72)。随着时间的推移,普通外科与非技术失误相关的死亡比例有所下降,而其他四个专科则没有。患者和入院特征在包括非技术错误的病例比例上的差异无统计学意义。结论:在5个外科专科中,至少50%的手术护理相关死亡与非技术差错有关,并且这一比例在2012-2019年期间没有实质性变化。不同专业致命非技术错误发生频率的差异表明,需要有针对性的改进策略,但所有专业持续的高频率表明,系统范围的改进是至关重要的。
{"title":"Non-technical errors associated with deaths in surgical care, Australia, 2012–2019, by surgical specialty (Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality): a retrospective cohort study","authors":"Jesse Ey,&nbsp;Victoria Kollias,&nbsp;Octavia Lee,&nbsp;Kelly Hou,&nbsp;Matheesha Herath,&nbsp;John B North,&nbsp;Ellie Treloar,&nbsp;Suzanne Edwards,&nbsp;Martin Bruening,&nbsp;Adam J Wells,&nbsp;Guy J Maddern","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70055","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.70055","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Objective&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;To compare the frequency of non-technical errors in cases of surgical care-related deaths in Australia, by surgical specialty.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Study design&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Retrospective cohort study; analysis of Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality (ANZASM) data.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Setting, participants&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;All surgical care-related deaths in Australia (except New South Wales), 1 January 2012 – 31 December 2019, that were flagged in ANZASM as associated with adverse events or areas of concern.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Main outcome measures&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Proportions of surgical care-related deaths associated with non-technical errors, overall and by domain (communication/teamwork, decision making, situational awareness, leadership); paired comparisons of likelihood of errors by specialty; change in error proportions during 2012–2019; influence of patient and admission factors on likelihood of non-technical errors.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Of 30 971 surgical care-related deaths reported to ANZASM during 2012–2019, 3695 were flagged with adverse events or areas of concern, including 3422 cases (92.6%) in five surgical specialties: general surgery (1570 deaths), cardiothoracic surgery (626), orthopaedic surgery (510), vascular surgery (385), and neurosurgery (331). The proportions of surgical care-related deaths associated with non-technical errors differed by specialty (range, 52.2% to 68.5%), as did those errors in the domains decision making (range, 52.6% to 66.3%) and situational awareness errors (range, 44.4% to 62.5%). The probability of any non-technical error was greater for cardiothoracic than orthopaedic surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37–2.28), and for general than orthopaedic surgery (aOR, 1.97, 95% CI, 1.59–2.44) or neurosurgery (aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.14–1.90); the probability was lower for orthopaedic than vascular surgery (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41–0.72). The proportion of deaths associated with non-technical errors declined over time for general surgery, but not the other four specialties. Differences by patient and admission characteristics in the proportions of cases including non-technical errors were not statistically significant.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;At least 50% of sur","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 11","pages":"617-625"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145123983","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}
引用次数: 0
From words to action: time for Australia to take shared decision making implementation seriously 从言语到行动:澳大利亚是时候认真对待共同决策的实施了。
IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2025-09-22 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.70065
Tammy C Hoffmann, Kirsten J McCaffery, France Légaré, Mina Bakhit, Marguerite Tracy, the Australian Shared Decision Making Research Network
<p>Why is embedding shared decision making within the Australian health care system essential and urgent? Shared decision making is a process of engagement and partnership between a patient and their clinician that enables a collaborative decision to be made based on the best evidence, individual circumstances, and what matters most to the patient.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Patient involvement in making informed health decisions is a fundamental right<span><sup>2</sup></span> and is central to safe and quality health care. Shared decision making represents the highest standard of informed consent<span><sup>3</sup></span> and is a cornerstone of value-based health care. As well as benefitting individual patients and clinicians, shared decision making also has an important role in addressing unwarranted variations in health care and has the potential to contribute to health system sustainability by reducing the overuse of low-value care (where the benefits do not, or hardly, outweigh the harms) and increasing the uptake of care that is known to be effective but is underutilised.<span><sup>4, 5</sup></span></p><p>Shared decision making can contribute to achieving the quintuple aim of health care improvement,<span><sup>6</sup></span> by improving patient care experiences, informed decision-making, care efficiency, the wellbeing of clinical teams, and contributing towards reducing health inequities.<span><sup>7-12</sup></span> However, shared decision making is not widely adopted in practice in Australia and requires urgent scaling up so that more individuals and the health system can benefit from it.</p><p>In 2013, the inaugural national Shared Decision Making Symposium was hosted by the Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (now the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare) at Bond University, in collaboration with the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). One outcome of the symposium was identifying that clinicians’ low awareness of shared decision making, misperceptions about it, and limited training opportunities were among the barriers hindering its implementation in Australia. Following the symposium, we published an article in the <i>Medical Journal of Australia</i><span><sup>1</sup></span> (<i>MJA</i>) to increase broad awareness about shared decision making, providing a brief explanation and example of the process, and refuting some of the common misperceptions. To address the barrier of limited training opportunities, the ACSQHC developed an online training module in shared decision making for clinicians (Box 1).</p><p>The 2014 <i>MJA</i> article noted that “In the absence of a coordinated national effort, we encourage individual clinicians to begin incorporating shared decision making into their consultations…”.<span><sup>1</sup></span> In the eleven years since the article’s publication, numerous initiatives led by local champions across Australia have promoted and facilitated implementation of shared
为什么在澳大利亚卫生保健系统中嵌入共同决策是必要和紧迫的?共同决策是病人和他们的临床医生之间的一个参与和合作的过程,可以根据最佳证据、个人情况和对病人最重要的事情做出协作决策患者参与做出知情的卫生决定是一项基本权利,对安全和高质量的卫生保健至关重要。共同决策代表了知情同意的最高标准,是基于价值的卫生保健的基石。除了使个体患者和临床医生受益外,共同决策在解决卫生保健中不合理的变化方面也发挥着重要作用,并有可能通过减少低价值护理的过度使用(其益处不能或几乎不能超过危害)和增加对已知有效但未充分利用的护理的吸收来促进卫生系统的可持续性。4,5共同决策可以通过改善患者护理经验、知情决策、护理效率、临床团队的福祉,并有助于减少卫生不公平现象,从而有助于实现改善卫生保健的五项目标6。7-12然而,共同决策在澳大利亚的实践中并没有被广泛采用,迫切需要扩大规模,以便更多的个人和卫生系统能够从中受益。2013年,首届全国共同决策研讨会由邦德大学循证实践研究中心(现为循证医疗保健研究所)与澳大利亚卫生保健安全和质量委员会(ACSQHC)合作主办。研讨会的一个结果是确定临床医生对共同决策的认识不高,对其存在误解,培训机会有限,这些都是阻碍澳大利亚实施共同决策的障碍。研讨会结束后,我们在《澳大利亚医学杂志》(MJA)上发表了一篇文章,以提高人们对共同决策的广泛认识,对这一过程进行了简要解释和举例,并驳斥了一些常见的误解。为了解决培训机会有限的障碍,ACSQHC为临床医生开发了一个共享决策的在线培训模块(框1)。2014年MJA文章指出,“在缺乏协调的国家努力的情况下,我们鼓励个体临床医生开始将共同决策纳入他们的咨询……”自这篇文章发表以来的11年里,澳大利亚各地的地方领袖领导了许多倡议,促进和促进了共同决策的实施。框1列出了其中一些倡议的例子。虽然这代表了一些进步,但是实施是特别的,主要是由支持其实施的个人或团队驱动的,并且一些计划仅通过研究资助13或试点项目来资助,这限制了持续的实践变化。在澳大利亚,这种促进共同决策的特别方法是有问题的。令人关切的问题包括工作和资源开发的重复,从其他国家的经验中学习的机会有限,在许多卫生服务中,资源获取普遍不一致,没有认识到或无法获得资源,过度依赖个别倡导者的热情和宣传,缺乏对影响的监测,以及可扩展性和可持续性方面的挑战。澳大利亚唯一的共同决策的国家政策领导来自ACSQHC。值得注意的是,2017年发布的第二版澳大利亚国家安全和质量卫生服务标准中包含了共同决策。8项标准中的2项包括与共同决策相关的项目:标准2(“与消费者合作”)和标准5(“临床医生协同工作,规划和提供全面护理”)。同样,2019年发布的第二版《澳大利亚医疗权利宪章》明确提到了共同决策的核心组成部分。14 .总的来说,现在共同决策的可见度更高了,在卫生政策文件和卫生服务网站上出现的频率也更高了。然而,将其纳入文件还不足以在临床实践中进行共同决策。必须有积极的大规模实施战略和协调和资源充足的计划,以确保在澳大利亚各地接受任何医疗服务的患者有机会与他们的临床医生合作和根据证据作出决定。 由于缺乏衡量临床实践中共同决策的协调努力,我们还没有关于患者在会诊期间共同决策的频率的可靠和具体的卫生服务数据。患者经验调查中的问题通常不够敏感,无法提供关于是否发生了共同决策的准确信息。澳大利亚表现的一些一般指标来自对十个国家卫生系统表现的分析,在护理过程领域(其中包含与共同决策相关的两个要素:患者参与和对患者偏好的敏感性),澳大利亚不被认为是高绩效国家之一澳大利亚的一些小型研究项目专门测量了共同决策的程度,或收集了临床医生或患者自我报告的信息,这些研究项目的数据表明,这一水平很低。16,17关于澳大利亚大学医学和保健课程中共同决策的教学和评估的数据也缺乏,而且很难收集,这妨碍了确定教学中的差距和改进教学的机会。11年过去了,但令人失望的是,在这方面进展甚微。在这些国家,通常采用针对患者、临床医生和卫生系统的综合行动。例如,荷兰的举措包括为临床医生提供经认证的共享决策电子学习;在全国范围内向患者推广“问3个问题”(包括预约门诊时的电子邮件);患者决策辅助工具的国家治理、这些辅助工具的质量标准以及与指南的整合;引入特定的计费代码,为共享决策对话提供资金;赋予患者权力的立法,例如录音谈话权,以及知情同意必须涵盖放弃治疗的权利;以及荷兰政府和卫生部的明确支持和资助。19,20越来越多的证据基础可以指导共同决策的实施,其中大部分是在其他国家产生的。21-27 .由澳大利亚共同决策网络和循证保健研究所主办的关于促进共同决策的全国研讨会于2024年9月举行。研讨会包括领导实施活动的国际和国家发言人的发言,并有来自各州和联邦卫生组织和部门的研究人员、临床研究人员和代表参加。提出和讨论的主题包括澳大利亚目前共同决策的障碍、从其他国家获得的经验(特别是关于大规模/国家层面实施的经验),以及可用于推进吸收的实际战略(方框2)。实施共同决策的障碍发生在个体患者和临床医生以及卫生组织和系统层面。患者可能面临诸如低健康素养、文化期望、情绪困扰或缺乏参与信心等挑战。在临床医生层面,一些已知的障碍包括对共享决策工具和资源的认识和获取不足、时间限制、培训不足、对专业自主权的担忧、对共享决策与临床实践指南兼容性的认识有限,以及仅仅提供决策辅助就足以促进共享决策的错误信念。39,40实施共同决策的系统层面障碍包括获得决策辅助工具的机会有限、绩效激励措施不一致、分散的护理以及政策或法律的不确定性。1,39框2中建议的策略主要旨在帮助减轻这些系统和临床层面的一些障碍。然而,人们承认,对于某些情况(例如,慢性疼痛),信息和决策的复杂性,以及证据的差距,意味着共同决策过程可能更加复杂。41、42在这种情况下,解决障碍需要包括确保建立一种更广泛的关怀、关心、支助性交流和信任的气氛;目标设定是整合的;在临床、组织和政策领域都有协调的努力。 实施共同决策需要采取一种普遍的办法,以确保公平和有机会参与决策,而不仅仅是那些具有较高卫生知识和获得保健的人识字率较低的成年人可以使用工具来支持共同决策,并愿意参与卫生决策共同决策在支持弱势群体方面是最有效的在澳大利亚,已经制定了改善特定社区共同决策的项目46,在经过深思熟虑的执行和国家支持下,可以避免不平等的扩大。在澳大利亚,过去十年发生了显著变化,“共同决策”一词现在被广泛使用,并经常出现在卫生政策文件中。但这还不够,也不足以确保共同决策成为澳大利亚卫生保健的标准做法。许多国家已经认识到积极实施大规模共同决策的重要性。这些国际例子证明了缩小政策和行动之间差距的可行性,并为澳大利亚提供了向其他国家学习的机会。在其他地方使用了各种战略,例如制定国家指导和战略,建立一个以实施为重点的中心,创建一个国家门户网站以方便获取共享决策资源,制定有针对性的立法(特别是在知情同意方面),要求培训和评估临床医生在共享决策方面的能力,资助实施研究和项目,促进指导方针和临床途径的共同决策。对澳大利亚来说,不积极利用这种关于共同决策的知识是一个错失的机会。过去20年来,澳大利亚在共同决策研究和政策方面一直处于领先地位;然而,我们在临床实践中仍然落后。需要广泛实施共
{"title":"From words to action: time for Australia to take shared decision making implementation seriously","authors":"Tammy C Hoffmann,&nbsp;Kirsten J McCaffery,&nbsp;France Légaré,&nbsp;Mina Bakhit,&nbsp;Marguerite Tracy,&nbsp;the Australian Shared Decision Making Research Network","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70065","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.70065","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Why is embedding shared decision making within the Australian health care system essential and urgent? Shared decision making is a process of engagement and partnership between a patient and their clinician that enables a collaborative decision to be made based on the best evidence, individual circumstances, and what matters most to the patient.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; Patient involvement in making informed health decisions is a fundamental right&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; and is central to safe and quality health care. Shared decision making represents the highest standard of informed consent&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; and is a cornerstone of value-based health care. As well as benefitting individual patients and clinicians, shared decision making also has an important role in addressing unwarranted variations in health care and has the potential to contribute to health system sustainability by reducing the overuse of low-value care (where the benefits do not, or hardly, outweigh the harms) and increasing the uptake of care that is known to be effective but is underutilised.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4, 5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shared decision making can contribute to achieving the quintuple aim of health care improvement,&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; by improving patient care experiences, informed decision-making, care efficiency, the wellbeing of clinical teams, and contributing towards reducing health inequities.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7-12&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; However, shared decision making is not widely adopted in practice in Australia and requires urgent scaling up so that more individuals and the health system can benefit from it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 2013, the inaugural national Shared Decision Making Symposium was hosted by the Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (now the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare) at Bond University, in collaboration with the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). One outcome of the symposium was identifying that clinicians’ low awareness of shared decision making, misperceptions about it, and limited training opportunities were among the barriers hindering its implementation in Australia. Following the symposium, we published an article in the &lt;i&gt;Medical Journal of Australia&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;i&gt;MJA&lt;/i&gt;) to increase broad awareness about shared decision making, providing a brief explanation and example of the process, and refuting some of the common misperceptions. To address the barrier of limited training opportunities, the ACSQHC developed an online training module in shared decision making for clinicians (Box 1).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The 2014 &lt;i&gt;MJA&lt;/i&gt; article noted that “In the absence of a coordinated national effort, we encourage individual clinicians to begin incorporating shared decision making into their consultations…”.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; In the eleven years since the article’s publication, numerous initiatives led by local champions across Australia have promoted and facilitated implementation of shared","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 8","pages":"391-396"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70065","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145113343","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}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Medical Journal of Australia
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1