Topics
Environmental health
Proposals to waive intellectual property rights for pandemic response products in the World Health Organization pandemic accord need Australia's support
Deborah Gleeson · James Scheibner · Dianne Nicol
The impact of COVID‐19 on consultations at an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care service: a retrospective observational study
There were fewer long consultations, Indigenous health assessments, and practice nurse/Aboriginal health worker consultations during the first year of the pandemic
Geoffrey K Spurling · Deborah A Askew · Noel E Hayman
Health care service use by people diagnosed with invasive melanoma in Queensland: a benefit incidence analysis
Residential location does not markedly influence access to health services for Queenslanders with melanoma
Daniel Lindsay · David C Whiteman · Catherine M Olsen · Louisa G Gordon
Advancing accessible kidney transplantation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: the National Indigenous Kidney Transplantation Taskforce
For tens of thousands of years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have operated and thrived within sovereign societies. The sustained and systematic effects of colonisation — which enabled the combined denial of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's self‐determination, autonomy, leadership, and capability to mobilise health‐benefiting resources — have created the situation in which we find ourselves today of poor health and systemic differences in health care access and outcomes.1 For kidney health in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, this situation is illustrated through the persistent inequities in kidney failure incidence rates, health system access, and treatment outcomes.2 Recorded rates of kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplantation among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have risen progressively over the past 40 years, remaining consistently higher than rates for non‐Indigenous Australians (Box 1). This difference is even more marked for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in rural and remote areas.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have age‐adjusted incidence rates of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) — dialysis or transplantation — eight to nine times higher than those of non‐Indigenous Australians, with the median age of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who experience kidney failure being nearly 30 years younger than non‐Indigenous people.3 Furthermore, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people receiving KRT, incidence rates vary considerably between location and age (Box 2), as well as sex (Box 3), with people in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, and Queensland experiencing higher rates.2 Finally, the modality with which KRT is delivered differs, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people predominantly accessing dialysis through facility‐based haemodialysis, with lower rates of home‐based therapies (peritoneal and home haemodialysis).2 Access to kidney transplantation is substantially lower, reflecting lower waitlisting rates.2 Combined, these disparities mean that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with kidney failure are likely to spend substantially longer (typically years longer) on facility‐based dialysis, away from Country, community, and supportive networks. This dislocation serves to prolong and compound the disconnection, disempowerment and disruption felt by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when seeking kidney care in Australia.4 Why transplantation mattersFor people with kidney failure, kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment option where possible. Not only is transplantation associated with lower mortality, and a substantial improvement in quality of life,5 it is also less expensive in the long term, particularly when considering the cost of dialysis for rural or remote patients.6 Transplantation therefore provides direct clinical benefits to patients and financial benefits to health systems. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kidney transplant recipients and family members — like nearly all other transplant recipients — also affirm the many health and wellbeing benefits of transplantation,7,8 and numerous community consultations have shown that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want a better understanding of, and access to, transplantation.9,10,11,12 Disparity in access to transplantation has been recognised for many years.13,14,15,16,17,18 Although absolute rates of waitlisting and transplantation have increased among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, substantial inequity remains in rates of waitlisting and transplantation compared with non‐Indigenous populations, as well as age at diagnosis, pre‐transplant treatment modality, and transplantation outcomes.2 Furthermore, the reasons behind the inequity remain. Studies have consistently shown that inequity in access to transplantation cannot be explained by patient‐ or disease‐related factors,14,15 and that the principal block is on getting onto the waiting list, rather than receiving a kidney once on the list.15 Receiving a kidney transplant requires patients to not just meet specific medical requirements, but also to navigate a complex process that includes multiple investigations, appointments, and ongoing reviews (Box 4). Each stage of this pathway can become a barrier to both waitlisting and transplantation. The difference in waitlisting highlights an important need to focus on the gaps in processes and the barriers within the health system, or more specifically, within clinical services caring for people with kidney disease. To better understand these systemic gaps, in 2018 the Australian Government funded an Expert Panel, through the Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ), to undertake a comprehensive review into the hurdles, service gaps, and practical challenges faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people receiving treatment for kidney disease. The report recommended 35 high priority actions and mapped responsible agencies, identifying where the federal government could strategically enable cross‐jurisdictional consumer‐ and health service‐partnered approaches.19 From there, in March 2019, the then‐federal Minister for Health and the Minister for Indigenous Australians accepted the report, announcing a $2.3 million award for TSANZ to oversee a two‐year project to coordinate cross‐jurisdictional activity.20 This award established a national Taskforce whose overarching aim was to improve access to, and outcomes of, kidney transplantation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Establishing the TaskforceThe National Indigenous Kidney Transplantation Taskforce (NIKTT) was created to drive the development and implementation of initiatives that targeted knowledge and service delivery gaps identified by the TSANZ report, facilitating improved access to the kidney transplant waitlist and better post‐transplant outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients. As this supplement will go on to describe, the Taskforce set out to accomplish this through key objectives around: designing and implementing enhanced data collection and reporting processes on pre‐ and post‐transplant outcomes;improving the equity and accessibility of transplantation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients by trialling a range of multidisciplinary service models and protocols; andreviewing existing initiatives that target cultural bias in health services to facilitate best practice care and support. To best inform Taskforce action on these objectives, the NIKTT also created a national network of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander consumers and established Indigenous Reference Groups at transplant units around the country. The development of a national Taskforce was critical to provide a focal point. Although many clinicians, researchers, patients and advocates have worked over the years to improve kidney health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, there has not been a cohesive or coordinated approach to these challenges, nor has there been an opportunity to share and collaborate around service development. Led by an appointed Chair and Deputy Chair, the Taskforce was comprised of 24 other expert members including nephrologists, nurses, policy makers, researchers and, crucially, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with a lived experience of kidney transplantation and dialysis, as well as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander health workers. Although originally scheduled to be completed within two years, the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic predictably altered the timeline of project implementation and the NIKTT was granted an extension until June 2023. A strategic focus of the Taskforce was embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's self‐determination and authority into designing models of care that aimed to improve access to kidney transplantation. The NIKTT set out to intentionally consolidate collaboration, partnership and leadership of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as before the onset of the NIKTT, there was extremely limited systematic input of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander consumers into the processes of care in renal units and none in kidney transplant units. This supplement outlines the recommendations of the Taskforce through describing the outcomes and findings of each objective. We highlight the need for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patient engagement and leadership, the importance of co‐designing models of care unique to local circumstances, and the challenges we still face as a community and health care system seeking to overcome cultural bias and institutional racism. We end this supplement with an overview of the Taskforce's recommendations for next steps and suggest direct actions that systems and services can take to build on the momentum established. The members of the Taskforce are privileged to be part of this foundational work with health communities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia. As we progress equity from here, we look forward to working in partnership with patients, communities, health professionals, governments, health organisations, and research institutions to continue to improve access to kidney transplantation. We begin this supplement with a call to action for readers to join us in improving transplantation equity for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with kidney disease. We, as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, know what is best for our health and wellbeing. While our people and cultures are strong and resilient, we continue to see harmful policies and practices implemented by government. While this can be difficult to hear, true change exists within discomfort, and progress is made when all parties are open to listening and responding. (Donna Murray, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2021–203121) Box 1 – Unadjusted incidence rate of kidney replacement therapy in Australia2 Reproduced with permission of the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry. Box 2 – Age‐specific incidence rates of treated kidney failure among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, by state and age at kidney replacement therapy start, 2016–20212 NSW = New South Wales; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Vic = Victoria; WA = Western Australia. Note the y‐axis scales vary between panels. Figure reproduced with permission of the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry. Box 3 – Relative incidence rate of treated kidney failure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, by sex, compared with non‐Indigenous Australians, 2016–20212 Reproduced with permission of the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry. Box 4 – Generalised pathway to kidney transplantation, including key clinical milestones, for an Australian adult19 Adapted with permission from Garrard and McDonald.19
Jaquelyne T Hughes · Katie Cundale · Kelli J Owen · Stephen P McDonald
Psychosocial outcomes and health service use after notifying women participating in population breast screening when they have dense breasts: a BreastScreen Queensland randomised controlled trial
Robust evidence is needed for future mammography population screening practice and policy
Brooke Nickel · Nick Ormiston‐Smith · Lisa Hammerton · Erin Cvejic · Paul Vardon · Zoe Mcinally · Paula Legerton · Karen Baker · Jennifer Isautier · Emma Larsen · Michelle Giles · Meagan E Brennan · Kirsten J McCaffery · Nehmat Houssami
Recommendations for culturally safe clinical kidney care for First Nations Australians: a guideline summary
The incidence, prevalence and burden of chronic kidney disease in First Nations Australians is one of the highest in the world, which is reflective of the social gradient of disadvantage
David J Tunnicliffe · Samantha Bateman · Melissa Arnold‐Chamney · Karen M Dwyer · Martin Howell · Azaria Gebadi · Shilpa Jesudason · Janet Kelly · Kelly Lambert · Sandawan William Majoni · Dora Oliva · Kelli J Owen · Odette Pearson · Elizabeth Rix · Ieyesha Roberts · Ro‐Anne Stirling‐Kelly · Kimberly Taylor · Gary A Wittert · Katherine Widders · Adela Yip · Jonathan Craig · Richard K Phoon
Child abuse and premature mortality: disrupting the harm cascade
The health, social, and monetary costs of child abuse and neglect are indefensible on ethical, medical, and financial grounds
Leonie Segal · Harriet Hiscock
Preventive health checks in Australian general practice for women during mid‐life
GPs proactively provide preventive health care to those most in need, partly because of sufficiently high rebate levels
Louise F Wilson · Annette J Dobson · Gita D Mishra · Jenny A Doust
Is BCG vaccination of possums the solution to the Buruli ulcer epidemic in south‐eastern Australia?
Vaccinating possums in the wild with oral bait BCG could provide an acceptable, safe and feasible intervention benefiting human and possum populations
Daniel P O'Brien · Kim Blasdell · Stephen Muhi · Ben J Marais · Bryce Buddle · Bridgette McNamara · Eugene Athan
Fallibility and flaviviruses: a diagnostic lesson in Japanese encephalitis
Accurate diagnosis requires careful interpretation of laboratory results, with repeat serology over time and using a range of different assays
Kate Proudmore · Vicki L Krause · Bart J Currie · Rob Baird
Pharmaceutical company sponsorship of doctors: is gender equity a concern?
If female doctors receive less pharmaceutical industry funding, gender-based differences in prescribing patterns could result
Barbara Mintzes · David B Menkes
Sexual abuse during childhood and all‐cause mortality into middle adulthood: an Australian cohort study
Supporting children after sexual abuse is also essential for the adults they become
Nina Papalia · Benjamin L Spivak · Linda Ashford · Ahona Guha · Stefan Luebbers · James RP Ogloff · Nina Papalia · Benjamin L Spivak · Linda Ashford · Ahona Guha · Stefan Luebbers · James RP Ogloff
Prevalence, patterns of use, and socio‐demographic features of e‐cigarette use by Australian adolescents: a survey
Strategies for preventing the uptake and reducing the use of e-cigarettes by Australian adolescents are needed
Lauren A Gardner · Siobhan O'Dean · Katrina E Champion · Emily Stockings · Amy‐Leigh Rowe · Maree Teesson · Nicola C Newton · Lauren A Gardner · Siobhan O'Dean · Katrina E Champion · Emily Stockings · Amy‐Leigh Rowe · Maree Teesson · Nicola C Newton
Carbapenemase‐producing Enterobacterales: a profound threat to Australian public health
Nationally coordinated action is needed to contain the threat of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in Australia
Erin Flynn · Lito E Papanicolas · Nicholas Anagnostou · Morgyn S Warner · Geraint B Rogers · Erin Flynn · Lito E Papanicolas · Nicholas Anagnostou · Morgyn S Warner · Geraint B Rogers
Aldosterone and renin concentrations and blood pressure in young Indigenous and non‐Indigenous adults in the Northern Territory: a cross‐sectional study
Screening test results for primary aldosteronism were positive for about one-quarter of urban Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants
Elisabeth Ng · Stella M Gwini · Michael Stowasser · Morag J Young · Peter J Fuller · Gurmeet R Singh · Jun Yang
Getting to grips with invasive group A streptococcal infection surveillance in Australia: are we experiencing an epidemic?
New national iGAS surveillance highlights uncertain epidemiology and the need for synthesised health priorities
Thel K Hla · Jeffrey W Cannon · Asha C Bowen · Rosemary Wyber
Meningococcal B septic shock, reactive pericarditis and public health
A 19-year-old male student with a history of asthma and nut anaphylaxis was taken by ambulance to hospital when he was found unresponsive with vomitus and faecal soiling after one day of lethargy and sore throat
Gary Louie · Romeo Torres · Anthea L Katelaris · Courtney McGregor · Victor Lai · Robert Stevens · Richard Sullivan · Pamela Konecny
Ethical implications of changing the eligibility criteria for the proposed National Lung Cancer Screening Program
To the Editor: The incidence of lung cancer and the five‐year survival of patients diagnosed with lung cancer reflect the social gradient within the Australian society. Most notably, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are twice as likely to develop lung cancer and half as likely to survive lung cancer.1 Reducing inequity in lung cancer outcomes was a key objective of Cancer Australia when it proposed a National Lung Cancer Screening Program (NLCSP) in 2020, following an enquiry that consulted both medical experts and the broader community.1 The Department of Health sought funding for Cancer Australia's proposed NLCSP in the 2021–2022 Budget but was required by the Department of Finance to refer the proposal to the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) for review.2 So, when MSAC recently announced its support for the creation of the NLCSP, there was great relief within the lung cancer community. However, what few people seemed to realise was that MSAC had in fact designed, then endorsed, their own alternative model for an NLCSP.3 MSAC's model is fundamentally different to Cancer Australia's model in terms of who is eligible to be screened and, therefore, who can benefit from the screening program. Whereas Cancer Australia intended using an individual's risk of lung cancer (as estimated by the PLCOm2012 risk calculator, which combines sociodemographic data and smoking history),4 MSAC recommended using fixed cut‐offs for age and smoking history. This is problematic in terms of both the evidence base that should have guided MSAC's decision and the ethical implications of the decision. MSAC's approach aligns with the design of historical lung cancer screening trials but it ignores an extensive body of evidence, including both a priori and post hoc analyses of trial data that consistently demonstrate that risk calculators are more efficient than fixed criteria.5 Furthermore, it also ignores international trends in the design of lung cancer screening trials and the implementation of lung cancer screening programs.1 But more importantly, the inevitable consequence of applying MSAC's eligibility criteria will be that fewer socially disadvantaged individuals will be eligible to participate in the NLCSP. This has the potential to exacerbate the existing inequity.
Jonathon B Ryan
Elective spinal surgery in New South Wales adults, 2001–20, by procedure funding type: a cross‐sectional study
Differences in procedure rates suggest that too many private or too few publicly funded spinal procedures are undertaken
Duong Thuy Tran · Adriane M Lewin · Louisa Jorm · Ian A Harris
Hepatitis C treatment hesitancy among people with heroin dependence in Australia. A prospective cohort study
Testing for HCV infection should be better integrated into opioid treatment programs
Chris Tremonti · Maree Teesson · Christina Marel · Katherine Mills · Paul S Haber
Defibrillator access across Australia: the first step in avoiding a chain of fatality
To survive a sudden cardiac arrest, you need to be in the “right place at the right time”; but should someone’s chance of surviving a sudden cardiac arrest really come down to a roll of the dice?
Elizabeth Paratz · Gregory J Page · Garry LR Jennings
Hospital utilisation in Australia, 1993–2020, with a focus on use by people over 75 years of age: a review of AIHW data
Containing hospital costs by limiting bed availability and reducing length of stay may no longer be a viable strategy
Natasha Reid · Thakeru Gamage · Stephen J Duckett · Leonard C Gray
Supporting health care providers in cancer screening: the role of the National Cancer Screening Register
The NCSR improves health care provider engagement in cancer screening through better access to patient screening records and by facilitating safety net follow up of screen-detected abnormalities, which could influence better health outcomes through early detection and treatment
Dorota Gertig · John Lee
The effectiveness of vaccination for preventing hospitalisation with COVID‐19 in regional Queensland: a data linkage study
Maintaining good vaccination coverage effectively reduces the hospital burden associated with COVID-19
Nicolas R Smoll · Mahmudul Hassan Al Imam · Connie Shulz · Robert Booy · Gulam Khandaker
Consistent mask use and SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology: a simulation modelling study
Higher mask wearing rates across all ages would reduce the cumulative infection and mortality burden in Victoria
Joshua Szanyi · Samantha Howe · Tim Wilson · Tony Blakely