Connect
MJA
MJA

Menstrual pain in Australian adolescent girls and its impact on regular activities: a population‐based cohort analysis based on Longitudinal Study of Australian Children survey data

Lauren Cameron, Antonina Mikocka‐Walus, Emma Sciberras, Marilla Druitt, Katherine Stanley and Subhadra Evans
Med J Aust 2024; 220 (9): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52288
Published online: 20 May 2024

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the proportion of Australian adolescent girls who experience menstrual pain (dysmenorrhea); to assess associations of dysmenorrhea and period pain severity with adolescents missing regular activities because of their periods.

Study design: Prospective, population‐based cohort study; analysis of Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) survey data.

Setting, participants: Female adolescents in the nationally representative cross‐sequential sample of Australian children recruited in 2004 for the Kinder cohort (aged 4–5 years at enrolment). Survey data from waves 6 (mean age 14 years), wave 7 (16 years) and wave 8 (18 years) were analysed.

Main outcome measures: Severity of period pain during the preceding three months (very, quite, a little, or not at all painful); number of activity types missed because of periods; relationship between missing activities and period pain severity.

Results: Of the 1835 participating female members of the LSAC Kinder cohort at waves 6 to 8, 1600 (87%) responded to questions about menstruation during at least one of waves 6 to 8 of data collection. At wave 6 (14 years), 227 of 644 respondents (35%) reported dysmenorrhea, 675 of 1341 (50%) at wave 6 (16 years), and 518 of 1115 (46%) at wave 8 (18 years). Of the 366 participants who reported period pain severity at all three waves, 137 reported no dysmenorrhea at all three waves (37%), 66 reported dysmenorrhea at all three waves (18%), 89 reported increasing period pain over time (24%), and 38 reported declining pain (10%). At wave 6, 223 of 647 participants reported missing at least one activity because of their periods (34%), 454 of 1341 at wave 7 (34%), and 344 of 1111 at wave 8 (31%). Of the participants who experienced very painful periods, 72% (wave 6), 63% (wave 7), and 65% (wave 8) missed at least one activity type because of their periods, as did 45% (wave 6), 36% (wave 7), and 40% (wave 8) of those who experienced quite painful periods.

Conclusions: A large proportion of adolescent girls in Australia experience period pain that affects their engagement in regular activities, including school attendance. Recognising adolescent period pain is important not only for enhancing their immediate quality of life with appropriate support and interventions, but also as part of early screening for chronic health conditions such as endometriosis.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full


Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.


  • 1 Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC
  • 2 Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
  • 3 Deakin University, Geelong, VIC
  • 4 University Hospital Geelong, Geelong, VIC
  • 5 Endo Help Foundation, Point Lonsdale, VIC



Open access:

Open access publishing facilitated by Deakin University, as part of the Wiley – Deakin University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.


Acknowledgements: 

The study was funded by the Endo Help Foundation (https://endohelp.com.au), a not‐for‐profit advocacy organisation. This article uses unit record data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC), conducted by the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS) (doi: 10.26193/QR4L6Q). The findings and views reported in this article, however, are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Australian government, DSS, or any of contractors or partners of DSS.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Armour M, Parry K, Manohar N, et al. The prevalence and academic impact of dysmenorrhea in 21 573 young women: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Women's Health 2019; 28: 1161‐1171.
  • 2. Armour M, Ferfolja T, Curry C, et al. The prevalence and educational impact of pelvic and menstrual pain in Australia: a national online survey of 4202 young women aged 13–25 years. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2020; 33: 511‐518.
  • 3. Hillen TIJ, Grbavac SL, Hohnston PJ, et al. Primary dysmenorrhea in young Western Australian women: prevalence, impact, and knowledge of treatment. J Adolesc Health 1999; 25: 40‐45.
  • 4. Parker MA, Sneddon AE, Arbon P. The menstrual disorder of teenagers (MDOT) study: determining typical menstrual patterns and menstrual disturbance in a large population‐based study of Australian teenagers. BJOG 2010; 117: 185‐192.
  • 5. Subasinghe AK, Happo L, Jayasinghe YL, et al. Prevalence and severity of dysmenorrhea, and management options reported by young Australian women. Aust Fam Physician 2016; 45: 829‐834.
  • 6. Li A, Bellis EK, Girling JE, et al. Unmet needs and experiences of adolescent girls with heavy menstrual bleeding and dysmenorrhea: a qualitative study. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2020; 33: 278‐284.
  • 7. Chen CX, Draucker CB, Carpenter JS. What women say about their dysmenorrhea: a qualitative thematic analysis. BMC Womens Health 2018; 18: 47.
  • 8. De Sanctis V, Soliman ST, Elsedfy H, et al. Dysmenorrhea in adolescents and young adults: a review in different countries. Acta Biomed 2016; 87: 233–246.
  • 9. Treloar SA, Bell TA, Nagle CM, et al. Early menstrual characteristics associated with subsequent diagnosis of endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202: 534. e1‐e6.
  • 10. Knox B, Ong YC, Bakar MA, Grover SR. A longitudinal study of adolescent dysmenorrhea into adulthood. Eur J Ped 2019; 178: 1325‐1332.
  • 11. Soloff C, Lawrence D, Johnstone R. LSAC technical paper No. 1: sample design. Australian Institute of Family Studies, May 2005. https://growingupinaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/tp1.pdf (viewed Aug 2022).
  • 12. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e297.
  • 13. Australian Bureau of Statistics. IRSAD. In: Census of Population and Housing: Socio‐Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2016 (2033.0.55.001). 27 Mar 2018. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2033.0.55.001~2016~Main%20Features~IRSAD~20 (viewed Nov 2022).
  • 14. Gutman G, Nunez AT, Fisher M. Dysmenorrhea in adolescents. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 2022; 52: 101186.
  • 15. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Chronic pain in Australia (cat. no. PHE 267). 7 May 2020. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/chronic‐disease/chronic‐pain‐in‐australia/summary (viewed Nov 2022).
  • 16. Schindler AE. Non‐contraceptive benefits of oral hormonal contraceptives. Int J Endocrinol Metab 2013; 11: 41‐47.
  • 17. Harel Z. Dysmenorrhea in adolescents and young adults: etiology and management. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2006; 19: 363‐371.
  • 18. Finning K, Ukoumunne OC, Ford T, et al. The association between child and adolescent depression and poor attendance at school: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Affect Disord 2019; 245: 928‐938.
  • 19. Epstein S, Roberts E, Sedgwick R, et al. School absenteeism as a risk factor for self‐harm and suicidal ideation in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2019; 29: 1175‐1194.
  • 20. Belcher BR, Zink J, Azad A, et al. The roles of physical activity, exercise, and fitness in promoting resilience during adolescence: effects on mental well‐being and brain development. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging 2021; 6: 225‐237.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Lifestyle advice from general practitioners and changes in health‐related behaviour in Australia: secondary analysis of 2020–21 National Health Survey data

Loai Albarqouni, Hannah Greenwood, Caroline Dowsett and Paul P Glasziou
Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52285
Published online: 6 May 2024

Lifestyle factors — smoking, alcohol consumption, inadequate dietary levels of fruit and vegetables — are major risk factors for chronic medical conditions.1 The importance of clinicians encouraging people to modify their lifestyles is emphasised in many guidelines.2 A study that included 4716 American adults found that patient‐reported lifestyle advice from their doctors was associated with corresponding behavioural changes (weight reduction, increased physical activity).3 How often Australian general practitioners provide their patients with lifestyle advice and whether such advice is effective are unknown.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full


Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.


  • Institute for Evidence‐Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD


Correspondence: lalbarqo@bond.edu.au


Open access:

Open access publishing facilitated by Bond University, as part of the Wiley ‐ Bond University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.


Data sharing:

The data we analysed for this report are publicly available.


Acknowledgements: 

This study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (2008379). The funder played no role in the planning, writing, or publication of this study.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020; 396: 1223‐1249.
  • 2. US Preventive Services Task Force; Mangione CM, Barry MJ, Nicholson WK, et al. Behavioral counseling interventions to promote a healthy diet and physical activity for cardiovascular disease prevention in adults without cardiovascular disease risk factors: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2022; 328: 367‐374.
  • 3. Williams AR, Wilson‐Genderson M, Thomson MD. A cross‐sectional analysis of associations between lifestyle advice and behavior changes in patients with hypertension or diabetes: NHANES 2015–2018. Prev Med 2021; 145: 106426.
  • 4. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Data items. In: National Health Survey: first results methodology, 2020–21. 21 Mar 2022. https://www.abs.gov.au/methodologies/national‐health‐survey‐methodology/2020‐21 (viewed Oct 2023).
  • 5. Henry JA, Jebb SA, Aveyard P, et al. Lifestyle advice for hypertension or diabetes: trend analysis from 2002 to 2017 in England. Br J Gen Pract 2022; 72: e269‐e275.
  • 6. Albarqouni L, Montori V, Jørgensen KJ, et al. Applying the time needed to treat to NICE guidelines on lifestyle interventions. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023; 28: 354‐355.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Symptomatic cancer diagnosis in general practice: a critical perspective of current guidelines and risk assessment tools

Brent Venning and Jon D Emery
Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52287
Published online: 6 May 2024

On 2 November 2023, Cancer Australia unveiled the Australian Cancer Plan, emphasising a strategic commitment to “maximising cancer prevention and early detection”.1,2 This initiative holds particular significance for general practice, as most cancer diagnoses originate from symptomatic presentations to primary care, even when screening programs are available.3 For context, full‐time general practitioners on average diagnose up to 12 non‐cutaneous cancers annually, but they see patients consulting with symptoms associated with cancer almost daily.3,4

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full


Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.


  • Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC



Open access:

Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Melbourne, as part of the Wiley ‐ The University of Melbourne agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.


Acknowledgements: 

Brent Venning is supported by the Melbourne Academic Centre for Health (MACH) through the MACH‐Track program and by a University of Melbourne Research Training Program Scholarship. Jon Emery is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (APP1195302) and is an Associate Director of the CanTest Collaborative (funded by Cancer Research UK, C8640/A23385).

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Cancer Australia. Australian Cancer Plan [website]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2021. https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/australian‐cancer‐plan (viewed Nov 2023).
  • 2. Chaji D, Boltong A, Der Vartanian C, et al. Setting the policy agenda for cancer control reform: Australia's first national cancer control plan. Med J Aust 2023; 219: 451‐454. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2023/219/10/setting‐policy‐agenda‐cancer‐control‐reform‐australias‐first‐national‐cancer
  • 3. Emery JD. The challenges of early diagnosis of cancer in general practice. Med J Aust 2015; 203: 391‐393. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/203/10/challenges‐early‐diagnosis‐cancer‐general‐practice
  • 4. Hamilton W. Cancer diagnosis in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2010; 60: 121‐128.
  • 5. Rubin G, Berendsen A, Crawford SM, et al. The expanding role of primary care in cancer control. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 1231‐1272.
  • 6. Koo MM, Hamilton W, Walter FM, et al. Symptom signatures and diagnostic timeliness in cancer patients: a review of current evidence. Neoplasia 2018; 20: 165‐174.
  • 7. Stapley S, Peters TJ, Neal RD, et al. The risk of pancreatic cancer in symptomatic patients in primary care: a large case‐control study using electronic records. Br J Cancer 2012; 106: 1940‐1944.
  • 8. Jensen H, Tørring ML, Olesen F, et al. Cancer suspicion in general practice, urgent referral and time to diagnosis: a population‐based GP survey and registry study. BMC Cancer 2014; 14: 636.
  • 9. McGarvey N, Gitlin M, Fadli E, Chung KC. Increased healthcare costs by later stage cancer diagnosis. BMC Health Serv Res 2022; 22: 1155.
  • 10. Emery JD, Shaw K, Williams B, et al. The role of primary care in early detection and follow‐up of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2014; 11: 38‐48.
  • 11. Renzi C, Kaushal A, Emery J, et al. Comorbid chronic diseases and cancer diagnosis: disease‐specific effects and underlying mechanisms. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2019; 16: 746‐761.
  • 12. Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, et al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet 2017; 390: 156‐168.
  • 13. Lyratzopoulos G, Vedsted P, Singh H. Understanding missed opportunities for more timely diagnosis of cancer in symptomatic patients after presentation. Br J Cancer 2015; 112 (Suppl): S84‐S91.
  • 14. Banks J, Hollinghurst S, Bigwood L, et al. Preferences for cancer investigation: a vignette‐based study of primary‐care attendees. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 232‐240.
  • 15. Venning B, Pearce A, Lourenco RDA, et al. Patient preferences for investigating cancer‐related symptoms in australian general practice: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Gen Pract 2024; https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0583 [Epub ahead of print].
  • 16. Cancer Australia. Optimal Care Pathways. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2024. https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/optimal‐cancer‐care‐pathways (viewed Apr 2024).
  • 17. Cancer Australia. Optimal Care Pathways: for general practitioners and primary care staff — I‐PACED (Implementing Pathways for Cancer Early Diagnosis). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2024. https://www.cancervic.org.au/get‐support/for‐health‐professionals/optimal‐care‐pathways (viewed Apr 2024).
  • 18. Cancer Australia. GP guides and resources. https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/clinical‐best‐practice/gynaecological‐cancers/gp‐guides‐and‐resources. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2021. (viewed Apr 2024).
  • 19. Chiang PPC, Glance D, Walker J, et al. Implementing a QCancer risk tool into general practice consultations: an exploratory study using simulated consultations with Australian general practitioners. Br J Cancer 2015; 112 (Suppl): S77‐S83.
  • 20. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Suspected cancer: recognition and referral [NICE guideline NG12; updated Oct 2023]. Manchester (UK): NICE, 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12 (viewed Mar 2024).
  • 21. Conroy T, Pfeiffer P, Vilgrain V, et al. Pancreatic cancer: ESMO clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Ann Oncol 2023; 34: 987‐1002.
  • 22. Hamilton W. The CAPER studies: five case‐control studies aimed at identifying and quantifying the risk of cancer in symptomatic primary care patients. Br J Cancer 2009; 101 (Suppl): S80‐S86.
  • 23. Hamilton W, Green T, Martins T, et al. Evaluation of risk assessment tools for suspected cancer in general practice: a cohort study. Br J Gen Pract 2013; 63: e30‐e36.
  • 24. Price S, Spencer A, Medina‐Lara A, Hamilton W. Availability and use of cancer decision‐support tools: a cross‐sectional survey of UK primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2019; 69: e437‐e443.
  • 25. Hamilton W, Mounce L, Abel GA, et al. Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of Electronic RIsk‐assessment for CAncer for patients in general practice (ERICA). BMJ Open 2023; 13: e065232.
  • 26. Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Electronic clinical decision support in general practice [website]. Melbourne: RACGP, 2024. https://www.racgp.org.au/advocacy/position‐statements/view‐all‐position‐statements/clinical‐and‐practice‐management/electronic‐clinical‐decision‐support (viewed Mar 2024).
  • 27. Chima S, Reece JC, Milley K, et al. Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2019; 69: e809‐e818.
  • 28. Hunter B, Biezen R, Alexander K, et al. Future Health Today: codesign of an electronic chronic disease quality improvement tool for use in general practice using a service design approach. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e040228.
  • 29. Davies D, Morgan M, de Wet C. Supporting quality and safety in general practice: Response rates to computer decision support. Aust J Gen Pract 2022; 51: 884‐892.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

How should artificial intelligence be used in Australian health care? Recommendations from a citizens’ jury

Stacy M Carter, Yves Saint James Aquino, Lucy Carolan, Emma Frost, Chris Degeling, Wendy A Rogers, Ian A Scott, Katy JL Bell, Belinda Fabrianesi and Farah Magrabi
Med J Aust 2024; 220 (8): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52283
Published online: 6 May 2024

Abstract

Objective: To support a diverse sample of Australians to make recommendations about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology in health care.

Study design: Citizens’ jury, deliberating the question: “Under which circumstances, if any, should artificial intelligence be used in Australian health systems to detect or diagnose disease?”

Setting, participants: Thirty Australian adults recruited by Sortition Foundation using random invitation and stratified selection to reflect population proportions by gender, age, ancestry, highest level of education, and residential location (state/territory; urban, regional, rural). The jury process took 18 days (16 March – 2 April 2023): fifteen days online and three days face‐to‐face in Sydney, where the jurors, both in small groups and together, were informed about and discussed the question, and developed recommendations with reasons. Jurors received extensive information: a printed handbook, online documents, and recorded presentations by four expert speakers. Jurors asked questions and received answers from the experts during the online period of the process, and during the first day of the face‐to‐face meeting.

Main outcome measures: Jury recommendations, with reasons.

Results: The jurors recommended an overarching, independently governed charter and framework for health care AI. The other nine recommendation categories concerned balancing benefits and harms; fairness and bias; patients’ rights and choices; clinical governance and training; technical governance and standards; data governance and use; open source software; AI evaluation and assessment; and education and communication.

Conclusions: The deliberative process supported a nationally representative sample of citizens to construct recommendations about how AI in health care should be developed, used, and governed. Recommendations derived using such methods could guide clinicians, policy makers, AI researchers and developers, and health service users to develop approaches that ensure trustworthy and responsible use of this technology.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full


Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.


  • 1 University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW
  • 2 Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW
  • 3 Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW
  • 4 University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD
  • 5 Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD
  • 6 University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
  • 7 Australian Institute for Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW


Correspondence: stacyc@uow.edu.au


Open access:

Open access publishing facilitated by University of Wollongong, as part of the Wiley – University of Wollongong agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.


Data sharing:

Individual deidentified participant data will be partially shared. The ethics approval for the study stipulated that transcripts of recordings of the jurors’ deliberations would remain confidential because of the risk of individual identification. Our study did not involve data dictionaries. Extensive information about the study protocol, and data generated for and in the study (including descriptions of the process, the expert witness videos, questions generated by the jury, and answers provided by the experts) are available at https://uow.info/TAWSYN_JURY.


Acknowledgements: 

This study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (1181960).

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Towards national paediatric clinical practice guidelines

Mike Starr
Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52272
Published online: 15 April 2024

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are intended to improve the quality of clinical care by promoting evidence‐based care, reducing inappropriate variation, and producing optimal outcomes for patients.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full


Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.


  • 1 Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC
  • 2 University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC


Correspondence: mike.starr@rch.org.au


Open access:

Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Melbourne, as part of the Wiley ‐ The University of Melbourne agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.


Acknowledgements: 

The PIC CPG work is funded in part by Clinical Excellence Queensland, the NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation, Safer Care Victoria, RCH Melbourne, and the RCH Foundation. Kate Harding, Matthew O'Meara and Mike South have had an integral role in the work of the CPG committee and PIC steering committee.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Cohn SL, Gautam B, Preddy JS, et al. Barriers to the use of paediatric clinical practice guidelines in rural and regional New South Wales Australia. Aust J Rural Health 2016; 24, 23‐28.
  • 2. Braithwaite J, Hibbert PD, Jaffe A, et al. Quality of health care for children in Australia, 2012‐2013. JAMA 2018; 319: 1113‐1124.
  • 3. Duggan A, Koff E, Marshall V. Clinical variation: why it matters. Med J Aust 2016; 205: S3‐S4. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/205/10/clinical‐variation‐why‐it‐matters
  • 4. Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne. Clinical Practice Guidelines: CPG information. https://www.rch.org.au/clinicalguide/about_rch_cpgs/CPG_information/ (viewed July 2023).
  • 5. Rea CJ, Alvarez FJ, Tieder JS. The silent crisis of pediatric clinical practice guidelines. JAMA Pediatr 2021; 175: 1201‐1202.
  • 6. Flores G, Lee M, Bauchner H. Pediatricians’ attitudes, beliefs, and practices regarding clinical practice guidelines: a national survey. Pediatrics 2000; 105: 496‐501.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Mainstreaming genomic testing: pre‐test counselling and informed consent

Michaela Cormack, Kathryn B Irving, Fiona Cunningham and Andrew P Fennell
Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52254
Published online: 8 April 2024

There is unprecedented, increasing demand for genomic testing in Australia.1,2 Recent developments in paediatric neurology alone include Medical Benefits Schedule, industry and research sponsored testing for monogenic causes of epilepsy, neuromuscular disorders, and syndromic intellectual disability, among others. To be ethically and legally valid, patients must undergo pre‐test counselling before they consent to genomic testing.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full


Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.


  • 1 Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC
  • 2 Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC
  • 3 University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
  • 4 Monash University, Melbourne, VIC



Consent for publication:

Consent for publication of the case study described and discussed in this article was obtained from both parents on behalf of the child.


Open access:

Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley ‐ Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.


Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Fennell AP, Hunter MF, Corboy GP. The changing face of clinical genetics service delivery in the era of genomics: a framework for monitoring service delivery and data from a comprehensive metropolitan general genetics service. Genet Med 2020; 22: 210‐218.
  • 2. National Health and Medical Research Council. DNA genetic testing in the Australian context: a statement from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022‐10/dna‐genetic‐testing‐in‐the‐australian‐context.pdf (viewed Sept 2023).
  • 3. Blackburn HL, Schroeder B, Turner C, et al. Management of incidental findings in the era of next‐generation sequencing. Curr Genomics 2015; 16: 159‐174.
  • 4. Meiser B, Irle J, Lobb E, Barlow‐Stewart K. Assessment of the content and process of genetic counseling: a critical review of empirical studies. J Genet Couns 2008; 17: 434‐451.
  • 5. Pacyna JE, Radecki Breitkopf C, Jenkins SM, et al. Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study. J Med Genet 2019; 56: 317‐324.
  • 6. Chair SY, Law BMH, Zang Y, et al. The effects of decision aids for genetic counselling among people considering genetic testing: a systematic review. J Clin Nurs 2023; 32: 6796‐6810.
  • 7. Stark Z, Dolman L, Manolio TA, et al. Integrating genomics into healthcare: a global responsibility. Am J Hum Genet 2019; 104: 13‐20.
  • 8. Otlowski MF, Williamson R. Ethical and legal issues and the “new genetics”. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 582‐585. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2003/178/11/ethical‐and‐legal‐issues‐and‐new‐genetics
  • 9. Miller IO, Sotero de Menezes MA. SCN1A seizure disorders. 2007 [Updated 2022]. In: Adam MP, Mirzaa GM, Pagon RA, et al, editors. GeneReviews. Initial posting: 29 Nov 2007; last revision: 17 Feb 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1318/ (viewed Sept 2023).
  • 10. Li W, Schneider AL, Scheffer IE. Defining Dravet syndrome: an essential pre‐requisite for precision medicine trials. Epilepsia 2021; 62: 2205‐2217.
  • 11. Nisselle A, King E, Terrill B, et al. Investigating genomic medicine practice and perceptions amongst Australian non‐genetics physicians to inform education and implementation. NPJ Genom Med 2023; 8: 13.
  • 12. Uhlmann WR, Roberts JS. Ethical issues in neurogenetics. Handb Clin Neurol 2018; 147: 23‐36.
  • 13. Human Genetics Society of Australasia. Code of ethics for genetic counsellors. 2022. https://www.hgsa.org.au/documents/item/9589 (viewed Oct 2023).
  • 14. Tiller J, Lacaze P, Otlowski M. The Australian moratorium on genetics and life insurance: evaluating policy compared to Parliamentary recommendations regarding genetic discrimination. Public Health Res Pract 2022; 32: e3242235.
  • 15. Willcox D, Trent RJA, Lyons N, et al. Making good on the promise of genomics in healthcare: the NSW Health perspective. Aust Health Rev 2023; 47: 631‐633.
  • 16. King E, Halliday J, Archibald AD. et al. Development and use of the Australian reproductive genetic carrier screening decision aid. Eur J Hum Genet 2022; 30: 194‐202.
  • 17. Wright H, Zhao L, Birks M, Mills J. Genomic literacy of registered nurses, and midwives in Australia: a cross‐sectional survey. J Nurs Scholarsh 2019; 51: 40‐49.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Medicare‐funded reproductive genetic carrier screening in Australia has arrived: are we ready?

Alice P Rogers, Lara Fitzgerald, Jan Liebelt and Christopher Barnett
Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52261
Published online: 8 April 2024

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) is a preventive health strategy performed to identify healthy couples and individuals who are at increased chance of having a child affected by a serious, childhood onset autosomal recessive or X‐linked genetic condition (Box 1).

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full


Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.


  • 1 SA Clinical Genetics Service, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, SA
  • 2 University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA
  • 3 Repromed (Adelaide Fertility Centre), Adelaide, SA



Open access:

Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Adelaide, as part of the Wiley ‐ The University of Adelaide agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.


Competing interests:

Jan Liebelt and Lara Fitzgerald are employed by Repromed, whose laboratory offers preconception RGCS. They also provide genetic counselling services.

  • 1. Kaback MM, Nathan TJ, Greenwald S. Tay‐Sachs disease: heterozygote screening and prenatal diagnosis—US experience and world perspective. Prog Clin Biol Res 1977; 18: 13‐36.
  • 2. Watson EK, Mayall E, Chapple J, et al. Screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis through primary health care services. BMJ 1991; 303: 504‐507.
  • 3. Srinivasan BS, Evans EA, Flannick J, et al. A universal carrier test for the long tail of Mendelian disease. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21: 537‐551.
  • 4. Grody WW, Thompson BH, Gregg AR, et al. ACMG position statement on prenatal/preconception expanded carrier screening. Genet Med 2013; 15: 482‐483.
  • 5. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Genetic carrier screening. Mar 2019. https://ranzcog.edu.au/wp‐content/uploads/2022/05/Genetic‐carrier‐screeningC‐Obs‐63New‐March‐2019_1.pdf (viewed Nov 2023).
  • 6. Haque IS, Lazarin GA, Kang HP, et al. Modeled fetal risk of genetic diseases identified by expanded carrier screening. JAMA 2016; 316: 734‐742.
  • 7. Archibald AD, Smith MJ, Burgess T, et al. Reproductive genetic carrier screening for cystic fibrosis, fragile X syndrome, and spinal muscular atrophy in Australia: outcomes of 12,000 tests. Genet Med 2018; 20: 513‐523.
  • 8. Fridman H, Yntema HG, Mägi R, et al. The landscape of autosomal‐recessive pathogenic variants in European populations reveals phenotype‐specific effects. Am J Hum Genet 2021; 108: 608‐619.
  • 9. Best S, Long J, Theodorou T, et al. Health practitioners’ perceptions of the barriers and enablers to the implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: a systematic review. Prenat Diagn 2021; 41: 708‐719.
  • 10. Goldberg JD, Pierson S, Johansen Taber K. Expanded carrier screening: what conditions should we screen for? Prenat Diagn 2023; 43: 496‐505.
  • 11. Gregg AR, Aarabi M, Klugman S, et al. Screening for autosomal recessive and X‐linked conditions during pregnancy and preconception: a practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med 2021; 23: 1793‐1806.
  • 12. Henneman L, Borry P, Chokoshvili D, et al. Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2016; 24: e1‐e12.
  • 13. Committee Opinion No. 690 summary: Carrier screening in the age of genomic medicine. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 129: e35‐e40.
  • 14. Grody WW, Cutting GR, Klinger KW, et al. Laboratory standards and guidelines for population‐based cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Genet Med 2001; 3: 149‐154.
  • 15. Massie J, Petrou V, Forbes R, et al. Population‐based carrier screening for cystic fibrosis in Victoria: the first three years experience. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49: 484‐489.
  • 16. Kerem B, Rommens JM, Buchanan JA, et al. Identification of the cystic fibrosis gene: genetic analysis. Science 1989; 245: 1073‐1080.
  • 17. Savant A, Lyman B, Bojanowski C, Upadia J. Cystic fibrosis. In: Adam MP, Feldman J, Mirzaa GM, et al, editors. GeneReviews. Initial posting: 26 Mar 2001; last revision: 9 Mar 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1250/ (viewed Nov 2023).
  • 18. Prior TW, Leach ME, Finanger E. Spinal muscular atrophy. In: Adam MP, Feldman J, Mirzaa GM, et al, editors. GeneReviews. Initial posting: 24 Feb 2000; last revision: 3 Dec 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1352/ (viewed Nov 2023).
  • 19. D'Silva AM, Kariyawasam DST, Best S, et al. Integrating newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy into health care systems: an Australian pilot programme. Dev Med Child Neurol 2022; 64: 625‐632.
  • 20. Schofield D, Lee E, Parmar J, et al. Economic evaluation of population‐based, expanded reproductive carrier screening for genetic diseases in Australia. Genet Med 2023; 25: 100813.
  • 21. Delatycki MB, Laing NG, Moore SJ, et al. Preconception and antenatal carrier screening for genetic conditions: The critical role of general practitioners. Aust J Gen Pract 2019; 48: 106‐110.
  • 22. Sparks TN. Expanded carrier screening: counseling and considerations. Hum Genet 2020; 139: 1131‐1139.
  • 23. Archibald AD, McClaren BJ, Caruana J, et al. The Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission): design and implementation. J Pers Med 2022; 12: 1781.
  • 24. Mackenzie's Mission. Outcomes of the Mackenzie's Mission study. https://www.mackenziesmission.org.au/outcomes/ (viewed Nov 2023).

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

The 2023 report of the MJALancet Countdown on health and climate change: sustainability needed in Australia's health care sector

Paul J Beggs, Stefan Trueck, Martina K Linnenluecke, Hilary Bambrick, Anthony G Capon, Ivan C Hanigan, Nicolas Borchers Arriagada, Troy J Cross, Sharon Friel, Donna Green, Maddie Heenan, Ollie Jay, Harry Kennard, Arunima Malik, Celia McMichael, Mark Stevenson, Sotiris Vardoulakis, Tran N Dang, Gail Garvey, Raymond Lovett, Veronica Matthews, Dung Phung, Alistair J Woodward, Marina B Romanello and Ying Zhang
Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52245
Published online: 25 March 2024

Summary

  • The MJALancet Countdown on health and climate change in Australia was established in 2017 and produced its first national assessment in 2018 and annual updates in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. It examines five broad domains: health hazards, exposures and impacts; adaptation, planning and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co‐benefits; economics and finance; and public and political engagement. In this, the sixth report of the MJALancet Countdown, we track progress on an extensive suite of indicators across these five domains, accessing and presenting the latest data and further refining and developing our analyses.
  • Our results highlight the health and economic costs of inaction on health and climate change. A series of major flood events across the four eastern states of Australia in 2022 was the main contributor to insured losses from climate‐related catastrophes of $7.168 billion — the highest amount on record. The floods also directly caused 23 deaths and resulted in the displacement of tens of thousands of people.
  • High red meat and processed meat consumption and insufficient consumption of fruit and vegetables accounted for about half of the 87 166 diet‐related deaths in Australia in 2021. Correction of this imbalance would both save lives and reduce the heavy carbon footprint associated with meat production.
  • We find signs of progress on health and climate change. Importantly, the Australian Government released Australia's first National Health and Climate Strategy, and the Government of Western Australia is preparing a Health Sector Adaptation Plan. We also find increasing action on, and engagement with, health and climate change at a community level, with the number of electric vehicle sales almost doubling in 2022 compared with 2021, and with a 65% increase in coverage of health and climate change in the media in 2022 compared with 2021.
  • Overall, the urgency of substantial enhancements in Australia's mitigation and adaptation responses to the enormous health and climate change challenge cannot be overstated. Australia's energy system, and its health care sector, currently emit an unreasonable and unjust proportion of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As the Lancet Countdown enters its second and most critical phase in the leadup to 2030, the depth and breadth of our assessment of health and climate change will be augmented to increasingly examine Australia in its regional context, and to better measure and track key issues in Australia such as mental health and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full


Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.


  • 1 Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW
  • 2 University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW
  • 3 National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT
  • 4 Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
  • 5 Curtin University, Perth, WA
  • 6 Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS
  • 7 University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
  • 8 Australian National University, Canberra, ACT
  • 9 Climate Change Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, UNSW, Sydney, NSW
  • 10 Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sax Institute, Sydney, NSW
  • 11 The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW
  • 12 Thermal Ergonomics Laboratory, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
  • 13 Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
  • 14 University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
  • 15 Transport, Health and Urban Design (THUD) Research Lab, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
  • 16 University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
  • 17 University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD
  • 18 Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra, ACT
  • 19 University Centre for Rural Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
  • 20 University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ
  • 21 Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK


Correspondence: paul.beggs@mq.edu.au


Open access:

Open access publishing facilitated by Macquarie University, as part of the Wiley ‐ Macquarie University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.


Acknowledgements: 

We thank Robert Fawcett, Justin Peter, and John Nairn (all from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology) for indicators 1.1 Exposure of vulnerable populations to heatwaves and 2.2 Climate information for health. Ivan Hanigan's access to data for indicators 1.4 and 3.3 was supported by the Centre for Air Pollution, Energy, and Health Research Data Platform funded by the NHMRC Centre for Safe Air (https://www.car‐cre.org.au/; https://cardat.github.io), which received funding from the Australian Research Data Commons for the Integrated National Air Pollution and Health Data project (https://doi.org/10.47486/PS022), and he acknowledges the HEAL (Healthy Environments And Lives) National Research Network, which receives funding from the NHMRC (grant no. 2008937). The Bushfires indicator was generated with support from NASA Applied Sciences Program (grant no. 80NSSC21K0507) and we thank Yang Liu and Qiao Zhu (Emory University) as well as Yun Hang (now at University of Texas Health Science Center) for the Australian data used for this indicator (1.3). We also thank Fay Johnston for assistance with this indicator. We thank Carole Dalin (University College London) for assistance with indicator 3.5 Emissions from agricultural production and consumption. We thank the Lancet Countdown for providing the results for indicators 3.6 Diet and health co‐benefits, and 3.7 Health care sector emissions. We thank the NHMRC for providing the data for indicator 5.4 Health and climate change research funding.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Call to end shackling of hospitalised palliative prisoner patients

Lara Pemberton, Stacey Panozzo and Jennifer Philip
Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52240
Published online: 18 March 2024

In the face of an ageing prison population, there is growing pressure for correctional health staff to provide end‐of‐life care for the incarcerated.1 This article evaluates the literature and examines the practices surrounding the use of shackles and restraints in palliative prisoner patients cared for in the hospital setting. Although we recognise that the use of restraints is a reasonable strategy in certain circumstances to maintain community safety, it is not clear that age, illness or immobility are always factored into these decisions.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full


Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.


  • 1 Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
  • 2 St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
  • 3 University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC


Correspondence: stacey.panozzo@svha.org.au


Open access:

Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Melbourne, as part of the Wiley ‐ The University of Melbourne agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.


Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Expanding access to fracture liaison services in Australia for people with minimal trauma fractures: a system dynamics modelling study

Alicia R Jones, Danielle Currie, Cindy Peng, Peter R Ebeling, Jackie R Center, Gustavo Duque, Sean Lybrand, Greg Lyubomirsky, Rebecca J Mitchell, Sallie Pearson, Markus J Seibel and Jo‐An Occhipinti
Med J Aust 2024; 220 (5): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52241
Published online: 18 March 2024

Abstract

Objectives: To project how many minimal trauma fractures could be averted in Australia by expanding the number and changing the operational characteristics of fracture liaison services (FLS).

Study design: System dynamics modelling.

Setting, participants: People aged 50 years or more who present to hospitals with minimal trauma fractures, Australia, 2020–31.

Main outcome measures: Numbers of all minimal trauma fractures and of hip fractures averted by increasing the FLS number (from 29 to 58 or 100), patient screening rate (from 30% to 60%), and capacity for accepting new patients (from 40 to 80 per service per month), and reducing the proportion of eligible patients who do not attend FLS (from 30% to 15%); cost per fracture averted.

Results: Our model projected a total of 2 441 320 minimal trauma fractures (258 680 hip fractures; 2 182 640 non‐hip fractures) in people aged 50 years or older during 2020–31, including 1 211 646 second or later fractures. Increasing the FLS number to 100 averted a projected 5405 fractures (0.22%; $39 510 per fracture averted); doubling FLS capacity averted a projected 3674 fractures (0.15%; $35 835 per fracture averted). Our model projected that neither doubling the screening rate nor reducing by half the proportion of eligible patients who did not attend FLS alone would reduce the number of fractures. Increasing the FLS number to 100, the screening rate to 60%, and capacity to 80 new patients per service per month would together avert a projected 13 672 fractures (0.56%) at a cost of $42 828 per fracture averted.

Conclusion: Our modelling indicates that increasing the number of hospital‐based FLS and changing key operational characteristics would achieve only moderate reductions in the number of minimal trauma fractures among people aged 50 years or more, and the cost would be relatively high. Alternatives to specialist‐led, hospital‐based FLS should be explored.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full


Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.


  • 1 Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
  • 2 Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC
  • 3 Sax Institute, Sydney, NSW
  • 4 Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
  • 5 Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW
  • 6 St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Sydney, NSW
  • 7 Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AIMSS), University of Melbourne and Western Health, Melbourne, VIC
  • 8 Western Health, Melbourne, VIC
  • 9 Amgen Europe, Rotkreuz, Switzerland
  • 10 Healthy Bones Australia, Sydney, NSW
  • 11 Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW
  • 12 Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW
  • 13 Centre of Research Excellence in Medicines Intelligence, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW
  • 14 Concord Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
  • 15 ANZAC Research Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
  • 16 Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
  • 17 Computer Simulation and Advanced Research Technologies (CSART), Sydney, NSW


Correspondence: alicia.jones@monash.edu


Open access:

Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley – Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.


Acknowledgements: 

This investigation was funded by Amgen Australia. It was overseen by an expert advisory panel, including a representative from the funder, with an independent chair. The funder contributed to the scope and design of this study, and preparation and review of the manuscript, but did not influence the collation, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

We thank Janet Sluggett (University of South Australia, Adelaide), Cathie Sherrington (Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, Sydney), Matthew Jennings (Liverpool Hospital, Sydney), Henry Cutler (Centre for Health Economy, Macquarie University, Sydney), Jacqueline Close (Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney), and Mark Heffernan (Western Sydney University, Sydney) for their contributions to the advisory group and modelling.

Competing interests:

Jo‐An Occhipinti is managing director of Computer Simulation and Advanced Research Technologies. Alicia Jones holds a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) postgraduate research scholarship (1169192). Markus J Seibel holds an NHMRC Investigator Grant for research into secondary fracture prevention (APP1196062). Sean Lybrand is an employee of Amgen Australia.

  • 1. Consensus development conference: prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 1991; 90: 107‐110.
  • 2. Watts JJ, Abimanyi‐Ochom J, Sanders KM. Osteoporosis costing all Australians: a new burden of disease analysis 2012 to 2022. Melbourne: Osteoporosis Australia, 2013. https://healthybonesaustralia.org.au/wp‐content/uploads/2022/09/burden‐of‐disease‐analysis‐2012‐2022.pdf (viewed Feb 2021).
  • 3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Estimating the prevalence of osteoporosis in Australia (Cat. no. PHE 178). Canberra: AIHW, 2014. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/chronic‐musculoskeletal‐conditions/estimating‐the‐prevalence‐of‐osteoporosis‐in‐austr/summary (viewed Mar 2021).
  • 4. Akesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ, et al; IOF Fracture Working Group. Capture the fracture: a best practice framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int 2013; 24: 2135‐2152.
  • 5. McLellan AR, Gallacher SJ, Fraser M, McQuillian C. The fracture liaison service: success of a program for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int 2003; 14: 1028‐1034.
  • 6. Ganda K, Puech M, Chen JS, et al. Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Osteoporos Int 2013; 24: 393‐406.
  • 7. Redman A, Bartlett M; National Alliance for Secondary Fracture Prevention. Towards an integrated Australian osteoporosis secondary fracture prevention program [unpublished report]. Sydney: Sax Institute, 2019.
  • 8. Australian Department of Health. National Strategic Action Plan for Osteoporosis. 17 Oct 2019. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national‐strategic‐action‐plan‐for‐osteoporosis‐2019?language=en (viewed Mar 2021).
  • 9. Jones AR, Herath M, Ebeling PR, et al. Models of care for osteoporosis: a systematic scoping review of efficacy and implementation characteristics. eClinicalMedicine 2021; 38: 101022.
  • 10. Cooper MS, Palmer AJ, Seibel MJ. Cost‐effectiveness of the Concord Minimal Trauma Fracture Liaison service, a prospective, controlled fracture prevention study. Osteoporos Int 2012; 23: 97‐107.
  • 11. Yates CJ, Chauchard MA, Liew D, et al. Bridging the osteoporosis treatment gap: performance and cost‐effectiveness of a fracture liaison service. J Clin Densitom 2015; 18: 150‐156.
  • 12. Milat A, Lee K, Conte K, et al. Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool: a decision support tool for health policy makers and implementers. Health Res Policy Syst 2020; 18: 1.
  • 13. Koorts H, Cassar S, Salmon J, et al. Mechanisms of scaling up: combining a realist perspective and systems analysis to understand successfully scaled interventions. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2021; 18: 42.
  • 14. Homer JB, Hirsch GB. System dynamics modeling for public health: background and opportunities. Am J Public Health 2006; 96: 452‐458.
  • 15. Sterman JD. Learning from evidence in a complex world. Am J Public Health 2006; 96: 505‐514.
  • 16. Freebairn L, Rychetnik L, Atkinson J, et al. Knowledge mobilisation for policy development: implementing systems approaches through participatory dynamic simulation modelling. Health Res Policy Syst 2017; 15: 87.
  • 17. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Demographic Statistics, Mar 2019 (3101.0). 19 Sept 2019. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3101.0Main+Features1Mar%202019 (viewed Mar 2021).
  • 18. Drug Utilisation Sub‐Committee (Australian Department of Health). Denosumab for osteoporosis: utilisation analysis using PBS data. Oct 2020. https://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/participants/public‐release‐docs/2020‐10/denosumab‐analysis‐PBS‐and‐MI‐dusc‐prd‐2020‐10v2.PDF (viewed June 2021).
  • 19. Crandall CJ, Newberry SJ, Diamant A, et al. Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments to prevent fractures: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2014; 161: 711‐723.
  • 20. Reid IR. Efficacy, effectiveness and side effects of medications used to prevent fractures. J Intern Med 2015; 277: 690‐706.
  • 21. Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Taskforce. Second report from the Diagnostic Imaging Clinical Committee: bone densitometry. Aug 2016. https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/06/final‐clinical‐committee‐report‐for‐diagnostic‐imaging‐bone‐densitometry.pdf (viewed Mar 2021).
  • 22. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Osteoporosis web pages data tables. 2019. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/e28cc715‐5aef‐42a4‐9034‐14ebff0ef919/osteoporosis‐2019_1.xlsx.aspx (viewed Mar 2021).
  • 23. Little EA, Eccles MP. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to improve post‐fracture investigation and management of patients at risk of osteoporosis. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 80.
  • 24. Sale JEM, Beaton D, Posen J, et al. Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 2011; 22: 2067‐2082.
  • 25. Kolanu N, Brown AS, Beech A, et al. Natural language processing of radiology reports improves identification of patients with fracture. Arch Osteoporos 2021; 16: 6.
  • 26. Blaker K, Wijewardene A, White E, et al. Electronic search programs are effective in identifying patients with minimal trauma fractures. Osteoporos Int 2022; 33: 435‐441.
  • 27. Reid IR, Horne AM, Mihov B, et al. Fracture prevention with zoledronate in older women with osteopenia. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 2407‐2416.
  • 28. de Villiers TJ, Stevenson JC. The WHI: the effect of hormone replacement therapy on fracture prevention. Climacteric 2012; 15: 263‐266.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Pagination

Subscribe to