MJA
MJA

    Shortages of benzathine benzylpenicillin G in Australia highlight the need for new sovereign manufacturing capability

    Rosemary Wyber, Glenn Pearson and Laurens Manning
    Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52590
    Published online: 24 February 2025

    Benzathine benzylpenicillin G (BPG) is the most effective treatment for syphilis and prevention of rheumatic heart disease (RHD), both of which disproportionately affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The ongoing syphilis epidemic in Australia1 highlights the importance of a reliable supply of high quality BPG in achieving Australia's commitments to ending RHD and preventing new cases of congenital syphilis.2

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

    LOGIN
    CREATE AN ACCOUNT

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

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

      Use of ChatGPT to obtain health information in Australia, 2024: insights from a nationally representative survey

      Julie Ayre, Erin Cvejic and Kirsten J McCaffery
      Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52598
      Published online: 17 February 2025

      Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022,1 people have had easy access to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) application that can provide answers to most health‐related questions. Although ChatGPT could massively increase access to tailored health information, the risk of inaccurate information is also recognised, particularly with early ChatGPT versions, and its accuracy varies by task and topic.2 Generative AI tools could be a further problem for health services and clinicians, adding to the already large volume of medical misinformation.3 Discussions of the benefits and risks of the new technology for health equity, patient engagement, and safety need reliable information about who is using ChatGPT, and the types of health information they are seeking.

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

      LOGIN
      CREATE AN ACCOUNT

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

      View on Wiley Online Library

      • The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW


      Correspondence: julie.ayre@sydney.edu.au


      Open access:

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


      Data Sharing:

      The data underlying this report are available on reasonable request.

      Acknowledgements: 

      Julie Ayre and Kirsten McCaffery are supported by National Health and Medical Research Council fellowships (APP2017278, APP2016719). The funders were not involved in study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, reporting or publication. We acknowledge the contribution of Tara Haynes (Sydney Health Literacy Lab, University of Sydney) to the preparation of the ethics application for this study.

      Competing interests:

      No relevant disclosures.

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

        Putting international practice into action: the first case of lung transplantation for COVID‐19 in Victoria, Australia

        Melanie Wong, Bradley Gardiner, Rob Stirling, Golsa Adabi, Brooke Riley, Jyotika D Prasad and Gregory I Snell
        Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52597
        Published online: 17 February 2025

        A 61‐year‐old previously healthy man presented to hospital with acute type 1 respiratory failure after five days of coryzal symptoms and a positive coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) rapid antigen test. Within 24 hours, the patient became progressively hypoxic, was rapidly intubated and transferred to Alfred Health in December 2022, a tier one Victorian extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) service site, for veno‐venous ECMO (Avalon Elite bi‐caval dual lumen catheter).


        • 1 Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC
        • 2 Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
        • 3 Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC


        Correspondence: me.wong@alfred.org.au


        Patient consent:

        The patient provided written consent for publication.

        Competing interests:

        No relevant disclosures.

        • 1. Cypel M, Keshavjee S. When to consider lung transplantation for COVID‐19. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 944‐946.
        • 2. D'Cunha M, Jenkins JA, Wilson R, et al. Lung transplantation in the United States for COVID‐19 related lung disease during the pandemic. Lung 2024; 202: 723‐737.
        • 3. Bharat A, Querrey M, Markov NS, et al. Lung transplantation for patients with severe COVID‐19. Sci Transl Med 2020; 12: eabe4282.
        • 4. Leard LE, Holm AM, Valapour M, et al. Consensus document for the selection of lung transplant candidates: an update from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2021; 40: 1349‐1379.
        • 5. Bharat A, Machuca TN, Querrey M, et al. Early outcomes after lung transplantation for severe COVID‐19: a series of the first consecutive cases from four countries. Lancet Respir Med 2021; 9: 487‐497.
        • 6. Kanne JP, Little BP, Schulte JJ, et al. Long‐term lung abnormalities associated with COVID‐19 pneumonia. Radiology 2023; 306: e221806.
        • 7. Lang C, Ritschl V, Augustin F, et al. Clinical relevance of lung transplantation for COVID‐19 ARDS: a nationwide study. Eur Respir J 2022; 60: 2102404.
        • 8. Bermudez C, Bermudez F, Courtwright A, et al. Lung transplantation for COVID‐2019 respiratory failure in the United States: outcomes 1‐year posttransplant and the impact of preoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2024; 167: 384‐395.
        • 9. King CS, Mannem H, Kukreja J, et al. Lung transplantation for patients with COVID‐19. Chest 2022; 161: 169‐178.
        • 10. Young KA, Ali HA, Beermann KJ, et al. Lung transplantation and the era of the sensitized patient. Front Immunol 2021; 12: 689420.
        • 11. Weinstock C, Schnaidt M. Human leucocyte antigen sensitisation and its impact on transfusion practice. Transfus Med Hemother 2019; 46: 356‐369.
        • 12. Rees L, Kim JJ. HLA sensitisation: can it be prevented? Pediatr Nephrol 2015; 30: 577‐587.
        Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

          Genetic counsellors: facilitating the integration of genomics into health care

          Tatiane Yanes, Eliza Courtney, Mary‐Anne Young, Amy Pearn, Aideen McInerney‐Leo and Jodie Ingles
          Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52568
          Published online: 3 February 2025

          Genomic testing is integral across all areas of health care and is a cornerstone of modern medicine. Beyond diagnosing rare conditions, genomic testing is routinely used to inform reproductive and prenatal care, augment risk assessments, guide therapies and inform management at the individual and public health level. There are over 25 conditions with federally funded Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) item numbers to deliver germline diagnostic genomic testing, including cancers, cardiac conditions, renal conditions and childhood hearing loss. Additional genomic testing is funded by state and territory public health departments and private out‐of‐pocket payments. The exponential growth of genomics knowledge and use in health care is likely to continue. Given its clinical value, genomic testing is increasingly offered by clinicians who do not have genetics subspecialty qualifications (referred to as non‐genetics clinicians), which has necessitated further education and upskilling of these clinicians. Although mainstreaming has been successful in some settings,1 most health services and clinicians are insufficiently prepared or resourced to address the complexities of genomic medicine.2,3


          • 1 Frazer Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD
          • 2 Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, QLD
          • 3 Children's Cancer Institute, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW
          • 4 Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Sydney, NSW
          • 5 Clinical Engagement and Translational Platform, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW
          • 6 Genomics and Inherited Disease Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW
          • 7 University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW
          • 8 The Gene Council, Perth, WA


          Correspondence: t.yanes@uq.edu.au
          Competing interests:

          No relevant disclosures.

          • 1. Jayasinghe K, Biros E, Harris T, et al. Implementation and evaluation of a national multidisciplinary kidney genetics clinic network over ten years. Kidney Int Rep 2024; 9: 2372‐2385.
          • 2. Crellin E, McClaren B, Nisselle A, et al. Preparing medical specialists to practice genomic medicine: education an essential part of a broader strategy. Front Genet 2019; 10: 789.
          • 3. O'Shea R, Ma AS, Jamieson RV, Rankin NM. Precision medicine in Australia: now is the time to get it right. Med J Aust 2022; 217: 559‐563. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2022/217/11/precision‐medicine‐australia‐now‐time‐get‐it‐right
          • 4. Mordaunt DA, Dalziel K, Goranitis I, Stark Z. Uptake of funded genomic testing for syndromic and non‐syndromic intellectual disability in Australia. Eur J Hum Genet 2023; 31: 977‐979.
          • 5. Watts GF, Sullivan DR, Hare DL, et al. Integrated guidance for enhancing the care of familial hypercholesterolaemia in Australia. Heart Lung Circ 2021; 30: 324‐349.
          • 6. Morrow A, Steinberg J, Chan P, et al. In person and virtual process mapping experiences to capture and explore variability in clinical practice: application to genetic referral pathways across seven Australian hospital networks. Transl Behav Med 2023; 13: 561‐570.
          • 7. Shaw T, Fok R, Courtney E, et al. Missed diagnosis or misdiagnosis: common pitfalls in genetic testing. Singapore Med J 2023; 64: 67‐73.
          • 8. Farmer MB, Bonadies DC, Pederson HJ, et al. Challenges and errors in genetic testing: the fifth case series. Cancer J 2021; 27: 417‐422.
          • 9. Ackerman JP, Bartos DC, Kapplinger JD, et al. The promise and peril of precision medicine: phenotyping still matters most. Mayo Clin Proc 2016: S0025‐6196(16)30463‐3.
          • 10. Ray T. Genetic testing challenges in oncology: immigrant mislabeled as BRCA‐Positive, regrets ovary removal. May 2021. Precision Medicine Online. https://www.precisionmedicineonline.com/molecular‐diagnostics/genetic‐testing‐challenges‐oncology‐immigrant‐mislabeled‐brca‐positive (viewed Oct 2024).
          • 11. Bhatia A, Kliff S. When they warn of rare disorders, these prenatal tests are usually wrong. The New York Times, 1 Jan 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/01/upshot/pregnancy‐birth‐genetic‐testing.html (viewed Oct 2024).
          • 12. Bennett C. Ambiguous genetic test results can be unsettling. Worse, they can lead to needless surgeries. The Washington Post, 7 Feb 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/genetic‐tests‐uncertain‐results/2021/02/05/80a06d9a‐65a2‐11eb‐8468‐21bc48f07fe5_story.html (viewed Oct 2024).
          • 13. Ma A, Newing TP, O'Shea R, et al. Genomic multidisciplinary teams: a model for navigating genetic mainstreaming and precision medicine. J Paediatr Child Health 2024; 60: 118‐124.
          • 14. Kohut K, Limb S, Crawford G. The changing role of the genetic counsellor in the genomics era. Current Genetic Medicine Reports 2019; 7: 75‐84.
          • 15. Austin J. 2020 Vision: genetic counselors as acknowledged leaders in integrating genetics and genomics into healthcare. J Genet Couns 2016; 25: 1‐5.
          • 16. Smerecnik CM, Mesters I, Verweij E, et al. A systematic review of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy. J Genet Couns 2009; 18: 217‐228.
          • 17. Rutherford S, Zhang X, Atzinger C, et al. Medical management adherence as an outcome of genetic counseling in a pediatric setting. Genet Med 2014; 16: 157‐163.
          • 18. Athens BA, Caldwell SL, Umstead KL, et al. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials to assess outcomes of genetic counseling. J Genet Couns 2017; 26: 902‐933.
          • 19. Kentwell M, Dow E, Antill Y, et al. Mainstreaming cancer genetics: a model integrating germline BRCA testing into routine ovarian cancer clinics. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 145: 130‐136.
          • 20. Semaka A, Austin J. Patient perspectives on the process and outcomes of psychiatric genetic counseling: an “empowering encounter”. J Genet Couns 2019; 28: 856‐868.
          • 21. Miller CE, Krautscheid P, Baldwin EE, et al. Genetic counselor review of genetic test orders in a reference laboratory reduces unnecessary testing. Am J Med Genet A 2014; 164A: 1094‐1101.
          • 22. Haidle JL, Sternen DL, Dickerson JA, et al. Genetic counselors save costs across the genetic testing spectrum. Am J Manag Care 2017; 23: Sp428‐Sp430.
          • 23. Yanes T, Sullivan A, Barbaro P, et al. Evaluation and pilot testing of a multidisciplinary model of care to mainstream genomic testing for paediatric inborn errors of immunity. Eur J Hum Genet 2023; 31: 1125‐1132.
          • 24. Coleman TF, Pugh J, Kelley WV, et al. Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: a randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non‐genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors. Genet Med 2024; 26: 101198.
          • 25. McInerney‐Leo AM, Schmidts M, Cortés CR, et al. Short‐rib polydactyly and Jeune syndromes are caused by mutations in WDR60. Am J Hum Genet 2013; 93: 515‐523.
          • 26. Tiller J, Bakshi A, Dowling G, et al. Community concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance persist in Australia: a survey of consumers offered genetic testing. Eur J Hum Genet 2024; 32: 286‐294.
          • 27. Leslie F, Avis SR, Bagnall RD, et al. The New South Wales Sudden Cardiac Arrest Registry: a data linkage cohort study. Heart Lung Circ 2023; 32: 1069‐1075.
          • 28. Human Genetics Society of Australasia. Genetic counselling training and accreditation 2024 [website]. https://hgsa.org.au/Web/Web/ET/Genetic‐Counselling.aspx?hkey=975b23ce‐fa8e‐485a‐a7ee‐fc88aab9a60d (viewed July 2024).
          • 29. Nisselle A, Macciocca I, McKenzie F, et al. Readiness of clinical genetic healthcare professionals to provide genomic medicine: an Australian census. J Genet Couns 2019; 28: 367‐377.
          • 30. Kanga‐Parabia A, Mitchell L, Smyth R, et al. Genetic counseling workforce diversity, inclusion, and capacity in Australia and New Zealand. Genetics in Medicine Open 2024; 101848.
          • 31. Caleshu C, Kim H, Silver J, et al. Contributors to and consequences of burnout among clinical genetic counselors in the United States. J Genet Couns 2022; 31: 269‐278.
          • 32. Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) Review Advisory Committee. Genetic Counselling Final Report 2022. https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023‐04/mbs‐review‐advisory‐committee‐genetic‐counselling‐final‐report_0.pdf (viewed July 2024).
          • 33. Hoskins C, Gaff C, McEwen A, et al. Professional regulation for Australasian genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 2021; 30: 361‐369.
          • 34. Patrinos D, Ghaly M, Al‐Shafai M, Zawati MH. Legal approaches to risk of harm in genetic counseling: perspectives from Quebec and Qatar. Front Genet 2023; 14: 1190421.
          Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

            Bulk‐billing rates and out‐of‐pocket costs for general practitioner services in Australia, 2022, by SA3 region: analysis of Medicare claims data

            Karinna Saxby and Yuting Zhang
            Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52562
            Published online: 27 January 2025

            Abstract

            Objectives: To examine bulk‐billing rates and out‐of‐pocket costs for non‐bulk‐billed general practitioner services in Australia at the Statistical Area 3 (SA3) level; to assess differences by area‐level socio‐economic disadvantage and remoteness.

            Study design: Retrospective analysis of administrative data (Medicare claims data).

            Setting, participants: All Medicare claims for non‐referred general practitioner services in Australia during the 2022 calendar year, as recorded in the Person Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA).

            Main outcome measures: Mean proportions of general practitioner services that were bulk‐billed and mean patient out‐of‐pocket costs for non‐bulk‐billed general practitioner visits by SA3 region, adjusted for area‐level age and sex, both overall and by area‐level socio‐economic disadvantage (Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage quintile) and remoteness (simplified Modified Monash Model category).

            Results: During 2022, 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80–83%) of general practitioner services in Australia were bulk‐billed; the mean out‐of‐pocket cost for non‐bulk‐billed visits was $43 (95% CI, $42–44). By SA3, mean bulk‐billing rates ranged between 46% and 99%, mean out‐of‐pocket costs for non‐bulk‐billed general practitioner visit between $16 and $99. Bulk‐billing rates were higher in regions in the most socio‐economically disadvantaged quintile (86%; 95% CI, 84–88%) than those in the least disadvantaged quintile (73%; 95% CI, 70–76%); the mean rate was not significantly different for remote (86%; 95% CI, 79–92%) and metropolitan areas (81%; 95% CI, 79–83%). Out‐of‐pocket costs for non‐bulk‐billed general practitioner services were higher in remote ($56; 95% CI, $46–66) than in metropolitan areas ($43; 95% CI, $42–44), and lower in areas in the most socio‐economically disadvantaged quintile ($42; 95% CI, $40–45) than in those in the least disadvantaged quintile ($47; 95% CI, $45–49).

            Conclusion: Although most general practitioner services are bulk‐billed, out‐of‐pocket costs for non‐bulk‐billed services are relatively high, particularly for people in remote and socio‐economically disadvantaged areas of Australia.


            • Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC



            Data Sharing:

            The Person Level Integrated Data Asset Data used for our analysis are available upon request to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

            Acknowledgements: 

            We thank the Australian Bureau of Statistics microdata team for their tireless vetting and assistance. We also thank Susan Mendez (Melbourne Institute, University of Melbourne), Dennis Petrie (Centre for Health Economics, Monash University), and the participants of the Medicare at 40 Event (Canberra. 19 February 2024) for useful feedback and suggestions. Yuting Zhang holds an Australian Research Council Australian Future Fellowship (FT200100630).

            Competing interests:

            No relevant disclosures.

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

              Blood pressure in young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: analysis of baseline data from a prospective cohort study

              Berhe W Sahle, Emily Banks, Robyn Williams, Grace Joshy, Garry Jennings, Jonathan C Craig, Nicholas G Larkins, Francine Eades, Rebecca Q Ivers and Sandra Eades
              Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52558
              Published online: 20 January 2025

              Abstract

              Objective: To assess the distribution of blood pressure levels and the prevalence of hypertension and pre‐hypertension in young Indigenous people (10–24 years of age).

              Study design: Prospective cohort survey study (Next Generation: Youth Wellbeing Study); baseline data analysis.

              Setting, participants: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 10–24 years living in regional, remote, and urban communities in Central Australia, Western Australia, and New South Wales; recruitment: March 2018 – March 2020.

              Main outcome measures: Blood pressure categorised as normal, pre‐hypertension, or hypertension using the 2017 American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines (10–17 years) or 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines (18–24 years); associations of demographic characteristics and health behaviours with hypertension and pre‐hypertension, reported as relative risk ratios (RRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

              Results: Complete data were available for 771 of 1244 study participants (62%); their mean age was 15.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 3.9 years), 438 were girls or young women (56.8%). Mean systolic blood pressure was 111.2 mmHg (SD, 13.7 mmHg), mean diastolic blood pressure 66.3 mmHg (SD, 11.0 mmHg). Mean systolic blood pressure was higher for male than female participants (mean difference, 6.38 mmHg; 95% CI, 4.60–8.16 mmHg), and it increased by 1.06 mmHg (95% CI, 0.76–1.36 mmHg) per year of age. Mean systolic blood pressure increased by 0.42 mmHg (95% CI, 0.28–0.54 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure by 0.46 mmHg (95% CI, 0.35–0.57 mmHg) per 1.0 kg/m2 increase in body mass index. Ninety‐one participants (11.8%) had blood pressure readings indicating pre‐hypertension, and 148 (19.2%) had hypertension. The risks of pre‐hypertension (RRR, 4.22; 95% CI, 2.52–7.09) and hypertension (RRR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.27–2.91) were higher for male than female participants; they were greater for people with obesity than for those with BMI values in the normal range (pre‐hypertension: RRR, 2.39 [95% CI, 1.26–4.55]; hypertension: RRR, 3.20 [95% CI, 1.91–5.35]) and for participants aged 16–19 years (pre‐hypertension: 3.44 [95% CI, 1.88–6.32]; hypertension: RRR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.29–3.59]) or 20–24 years (pre‐hypertension: 4.12 [95% CI, 1.92–8.85]; hypertension: RRR, 4.09 [95% CI, 2.24–7.47]) than for those aged 10–15 years.

              Conclusions: Blood pressure was within the normal range for most young Indigenous people in our study, but one in three had elevated blood pressure or hypertension. Community‐level, culturally safe approaches are needed to avoid the early onset of cardiovascular risks, including elevated blood pressure.

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

              LOGIN
              CREATE AN ACCOUNT

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

              View on Wiley Online Library

              • 1 The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
              • 2 Centre for Public Health Data and Policy, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT
              • 3 Curtin University, Perth, WA
              • 4 National Heart Foundation of Australia, Canberra, ACT
              • 5 Flinders University, Adelaide, SA
              • 6 Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, WA
              • 7 The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA
              • 8 East Metropolitan Health Service, Perth, WA
              • 9 University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW
              • 10 The George Institute for Global Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW


              Correspondence: berhe.sahle@unimelb.edu.au
              Acknowledgements: 

              The Next Generation Youth Well‐being Study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC; 1089104). Emily Banks is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (2017742). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

              We recognise and pay respect to the Aboriginal Custodians of the land where the Next Generation Youth Well‐being Study was conducted, including the Arrernte, Awabakal, Bidjigal, Darkinjung, Dharug, Gadigal, Gamilaraay, Gumbaynggirr, Noongar, and Wiradjuri peoples. We acknowledge the support of our community partners: the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, the Derbarl Yerrigan Health Service South West Aboriginal Medical Service, the Awabakal Medical Service, the Mingaletta Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation, the Miimi Aboriginal Corporation, the Tamworth Regional Youth Centre, and Orange City Council Community Services. We acknowledge the Next Generation investigators and research team including Dennis Gray (Curtin University), Justine Whitby (University of Melbourne), and Peter Azzopardi (Murdoch Children's Research Institute).

              • 1. Zhou B, Perel P, Mensah GA, Ezzati M. Global epidemiology, health burden and effective interventions for elevated blood pressure and hypertension. Nat Rev Cardiol 2021; 18: 785‐802.
              • 2. Fuchs FD, Whelton PK. High blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. Hypertension 2020; 75: 285‐292.
              • 3. World Health Organization. Hypertension. 16 Mar 2023. https://www.who.int/news‐room/fact‐sheets/detail/hypertension (viewed Nov 2023).
              • 4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; National Indigenous Australians Agency. High blood pressure. In: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health performance framework: summary report July 2023. Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20231202182047/https://www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/Measures/1‐07‐High‐blood‐pressure (viewed Jan 2024).
              • 5. Campbell MA, Hunt J, Scrimgeour DJ, et al. Contribution of Aboriginal Community‐Controlled Health Services to improving Aboriginal health: an evidence review. Aust Health Rev 2018; 42: 218‐226.
              • 6. Sinka V, Lopez‐Vargas P, Tong A, et al. Chronic disease prevention programs offered by Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services in New South Wales, Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health 2021: 59‐64.
              • 7. Al‐Yaman F. The Australian Burden of Disease Study: impact and causes of illness and death in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, 2011. Public Health Res Pract 2017; 27: 2741732.
              • 8. Leiba A, Fishman B, Twig G, et al. Association of adolescent hypertension with future end‐stage renal disease. JAMA Intern Med 2019; 179: 517‐523.
              • 9. Falkner B, Gidding SS, Baker‐Smith CM, et al; American Heart Association Council on Hypertension; Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young; Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing. Pediatric primary hypertension: an underrecognized condition: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension 2023; 80: e101‐e111.
              • 10. Wang C, Yuan Y, Zheng M, et al. Association of age of onset of hypertension with cardiovascular diseases and mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020; 75: 2921‐2930.
              • 11. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Australian facts: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Cardiovascular, diabetes and chronic kidney disease series no. 5; cat. no. CDK 5). 25 Nov 2015. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/indigenous‐australians/cardiovascular‐diabetes‐chronic‐kidney‐indigenous/summary (viewed June 2024).
              • 12. Reath JS, O'Mara P. Closing the gap in cardiovascular risk for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Med J Aust 2018; 209: 17‐18. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2018/209/1/closing‐gap‐cardiovascular‐risk‐aboriginal‐and‐torres‐strait‐islander
              • 13. Larkins N, Teixeira‐Pinto A, Banks E, et al; SEARCH investigators. Blood pressure among Australian Aboriginal children. J Hypertens 2017; 35: 1801‐1807.
              • 14. Esler D, Raulli A, Pratt R, Fagan P. Hypertension: high prevalence and a positive association with obesity among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth in far north Queensland. Aust N Z J Public Health 2016; 40(Suppl 1): S65‐S69.
              • 15. Calabria B, Korda RJ, Lovett RW, et al. Absolute cardiovascular disease risk and lipid‐lowering therapy among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Med J Aust 2018; 209: 35‐41. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2018/209/1/absolute‐cardiovascular‐disease‐risk‐and‐lipid‐lowering‐therapy‐among‐aboriginal
              • 16. Australian guideline and calculator for assessing and managing cardiovascular disease risk. https://www.cvdcheck.org.au (viewed July 2023).
              • 17. Bryant J, Bolt R, Botfield JR, et al. Beyond deficit: “strengths‐based approaches” in Indigenous health research. Sociol Health Illn 2021; 43: 1405‐1421.
              • 18. Graham S, Heris CL, Gubhaju L, et al. Young Aboriginal people in Australia who have never used marijuana in the “Next Generation Youth Well‐being study”: a strengths‐based approach. Int J Drug Policy 2021; 95: 103258.
              • 19. Gubhaju L, Banks E, Ward J, et al; “Next Generation” investigator team. “Next Generation Youth Well‐being Study”: understanding the health and social well‐being trajectories of Australian Aboriginal adolescents aged 10–24 years: study protocol. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e028734.
              • 20. Williams R, Eades F, Whitby J, et al. Developing the “Moorditj Moort Boodja (Solid Family and Country) on the ground community relational framework for Aboriginal research engagement” in Western Australia: the Next Generation Aboriginal Youth Well‐being cohort study. AlterNative 2024; 20: 205‐214.
              • 21. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e296.
              • 22. Flynn JT, Kaelber DC, Baker‐Smith CM, et al; Subcommittee on Screening and Management of High Blood Pressure in Children. Clinical practice guideline for screening and management of high blood pressure in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 2017; 140: e20171904.
              • 23. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 2018; 71: e13‐e115.
              • 24. Carrillo‐Larco RM, Guzman‐Vilca WC, Xu X, Bernabe‐Ortiz A. Mean systolic blood pressure above the control threshold in people with treated uncontrolled hypertension: a pooled, cross‐sectional analysis of 55 national health surveys. eClinicalMedicine 2023; 57: 101833.
              • 25. Aris IM, Rifas‐Shiman SL, Li LJ, et al. Early‐life predictors of systolic blood pressure trajectories from infancy to adolescence: findings from Project Viva. Am J Epidemiol 2019; 188: 1913‐1922.
              • 26. Kim S, Macaskill P, Hodson EM, et al. Beginning the trajectory to ESKD in adult life: albuminuria in Australian Aboriginal children and adolescents. Pediatr Nephrol 2017; 32: 119‐129.
              • 27. Valery PC, Moloney A, Cotterill A, et al. Prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome in Indigenous Australian youths. Obes Rev 2009; 10: 255‐261.
              • 28. Heris CL, Guerin N, Thomas DP, et al. The decline of smoking initiation among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander secondary students: implications for future policy. Aust N Z J Public Health 2020; 44: 397‐403.
              • 29. Macniven R, McKay CD, Graham S, et al. Social and behavioural correlates of high physical activity levels among Aboriginal adolescent participants of the Next Generation: Youth Wellbeing Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023; 20: 3738
              • 30. McKay CD, Gubhaju L, Gibberd AJ, et al. Health behaviours associated with healthy body composition among Aboriginal adolescents in Australia in the “Next Generation: Youth Well‐being study”. Prev Med 2023; 175: 107715.
              • 31. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Determinants of health for First Nations people. 2 July 2024. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias‐health/social‐determinants‐and‐indigenous‐health (viewed Nov 2024).
              • 32. Thurber KA, Brinckley MM, Jones R, et al. Population‐level contribution of interpersonal discrimination to psychological distress among Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults, and to Indigenous‐non‐Indigenous inequities: cross‐sectional analysis of a community‐controlled First Nations cohort study. Lancet 2022; 400: 2084‐2094.
              • 33. McNamara BJ, Gubhaju L, Chamberlain C, et al. Early life influences on cardio‐metabolic disease risk in aboriginal populations: what is the evidence? A systematic review of longitudinal and case–control studies. Int J Epidemiol 2012; 41: 1661‐1682.
              • 34. Sayers SM, Mackerras D, Singh GR. Cohort profile: the Australian Aboriginal Birth Cohort (ABC) study. Int J Epidemiol 2017; 46: 1383.
              • 35. Jacobs DR, Woo JG, Sinaiko AR, et al. Childhood cardiovascular risk factors and adult cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2022; 386: 1877‐1888.
              • 36. Luo D, Cheng Y, Zhang H, et al. Association between high blood pressure and long term cardiovascular events in young adults: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ 2020; 370: m3222.
              • 37. Yang L, Magnussen CG, Yang L, et al. Elevated blood pressure in childhood or adolescence and cardiovascular outcomes in adulthood: a systematic review. Hypertension 2020; 75: 948‐955.
              • 38. Niiranen TJ, McCabe EL, Larson MG, et al. Heritability and risks associated with early onset hypertension: multigenerational, prospective analysis in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ 2017; 357: j1949.
              • 39. Niiranen TJ, Larson MG, McCabe EL, et al. Prognosis of prehypertension without progression to hypertension. Circulation 2017; 136: 1262‐1264.
              • 40. Australian Department of Health and Aged Care. National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health plan 2021–2031. 15 Dec 2021. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national‐aboriginal‐and‐torres‐strait‐islander‐health‐plan‐2021‐2031 (viewed Jan 2024).
              • 41. Australian Department of Health and Aged Care. National preventive health strategy 2021–2030. 12 Dec 2021. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national‐preventive‐health‐strategy‐2021‐2030 (viewed July 2023).
              • 42. May T, Dudley A, Charles J, et al. Barriers and facilitators of sport and physical activity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and adolescents: a mixed studies systematic review. BMC Public Health 2020; 20: 601.
              • 43. Gabb GM, Mangoni AA, Anderson CS, et al. Guideline for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in adults: 2016. Med J Aust 2016; 205: 85‐89. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/205/2/guideline‐diagnosis‐and‐management‐hypertension‐adults‐2016
              • 44. Sun J, Steffen LM, Ma C, et al. Definition of pediatric hypertension: are blood pressure measurements on three separate occasions necessary? Hypertens Res 2017; 40: 496‐503.
              Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

                The impact of the BreastScreen NSW transition from film to digital mammography, 2002–2016: a linked population health data analysis

                Rachel Farber, Nehmat Houssami, Kevin McGeechan, Alexandra L Barratt and Katy JL Bell
                Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52566
                Published online: 20 January 2025

                Abstract

                Objectives: To assess the impact of the transition from film to digital mammography in the Australian national breast cancer screening program.

                Study design: Retrospective linked population health data analysis (New South Wales Central Cancer Registry, BreastScreen NSW); interrupted time series analysis.

                Setting: New South Wales, 2002–2016.

                Participants: Women aged 40 years or older with breast cancer diagnosed during 2002–2017 who had been screened by BreastScreen NSW and for whom complete follow‐up information until the end of the recommended re‐screening interval was available.

                Intervention: Transition from film to digital mammography; 2009 defined as transition year (digital mammography becomes dominant screening modality).

                Main outcome measures: Population rates of screen‐detected cancer, interval cancer, recalls, and false positive findings.

                Results: The study cohort comprised 967 573 women; of the 2 741 555 screens, 1 535 184 used film mammography (2002–2010) and 1 206 371 used digital mammography (2006–2016). The screen‐detected cancer rate was 4.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.75–4.97) cases per 1000 screens with film mammography and 6.11 (95% CI, 5.97–6.24) cases per 1000 screens with digital mammography (unadjusted difference, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.06–1.41] cases per 1000 screens). The interval cancer rate was 2.56 (95% CI, 2.48–2.64) cases per 1000 screens with film mammography and 2.84 (95% CI, 2.75–2.94) cases per 1000 screens with digital mammography (unadjusted difference, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.15–0.40] cases per 1000 screens). With the transition to digital mammography, the screen‐detected cancer rate increased by 0.07 per 1000 screens, the sum of the decline in the invasive cancer rate (–0.21 cases per 1000 screens) and the rise in the ductal carcinoma in situ detection rate (0.28 cases per 1000 screens); during 2009–2015, it increased by 0.18 cases per 1000 screens per year. With the transition to digital mammography, the interval cancer rate increased by 0.75 cases per 1000 screens (invasive cancer: by 0.69 cases per 1000 screens); during 2009–2015, it declined by 0.13 cases per 1000 screens per year. The recall rate increased by 8.02 per 1000 screens and the false positive rate by 7.16 per 1000 screens following the transition; both rates subsequently declined to pre‐transition levels.

                Conclusions: The increased screen‐detected cancer rate following the transition to digital mammography was not accompanied by a reduction in interval cancer detection rates.

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

                LOGIN
                CREATE AN ACCOUNT

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

                View on Wiley Online Library

                • 1 Sydney School of Public Health, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
                • 2 The Family Planning Australia Research Centre, Sydney, NSW


                Correspondence: katy.bell@sydney.edu.au


                Open access:

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


                Data Sharing:

                Access to the data and analysis files underlying this report is permitted only with the explicit permission of the approving human research ethics committees and the data custodians. Analysis of linked data is currently authorised at only one location.

                Acknowledgements: 

                This study was supported by funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence (CIA Alexandra Barratt, 1104136). Rachel Farber received funding from the NHMRC (1168688) and the National Breast Cancer Foundation (NBCF) (DS‐19‐02). Katy Bell holds an NHMRC Investigator grant (1174523). Nehmat Houssami holds an NHMRC Investigator grant (1194410) and an NBCF Chair in Breast Cancer Prevention grant (EC‐21‐001). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, reporting or publication.

                Competing interests:

                No relevant disclosures.

                • 1. Colin C, Vergnon P, Guibaud L, et al. Comparative assessment of digital and analog radiography: diagnostic accuracy, cost analysis and quality of care. Eur J Radiol 1998; 26: 226‐234.
                • 2. Wideman C, Gallet J. Analog to digital workflow improvement: a quantitative study. J Digit Imaging 2006; 19 (Suppl 1): 29‐34.
                • 3. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al; Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast‐cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773‐1783.
                • 4. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen‐film versus full‐field digital mammography with soft‐copy reading in population‐based screening program: follow‐up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007; 244: 708‐717.
                • 5. Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, et al. Full‐field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population‐based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 183‐191.
                • 6. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population‐based screening program. Radiology 2009; 253: 353‐358.
                • 7. Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, et al. Comparison of digital mammography and screen‐film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 1010‐1018.
                • 8. Farber R, Houssami N, Wortley S, et al. Impact of full‐field digital mammography versus film‐screen mammography in population screening: a meta‐analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113: 16‐26.
                • 9. Porter AJ, Evans EB, Erzetich LM. Full‐field digital mammography: is the apparent increased detection of microcalcification leading to over‐investigation and over‐diagnosis? J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2017; 61: 470‐475.
                • 10. Australian Department of Health and Aged Care. BreastScreen Australia National Accreditation Standards (NAS). Updated 28 Apr 2023. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/breastscreen‐australia‐national‐accreditation‐standards‐nas?language=en (viewed Dec 2023).
                • 11. Bazo‐Alvarez JC, Morris TP, Carpenter JR, Petersen I. Current practices in missing data handling for interrupted time series studies performed on individual‐level data: a scoping review in health research. Clin Epidemiol 2021; 13: 603‐613.
                • 12. Penfold RB, Zhang F. Use of interrupted time series analysis in evaluating health care quality improvements. Acad Pediatr 2013; 13: S38‐S44.
                • 13. Farber R, Houssami N, McGeechan K, et al. Cohort profile: a data linkage cohort to compare digital vs screen‐film mammography in breast cancer screening in New South Wales, Australia. OSF, 26 May 2023; updated 21 Nov 2023. https://www.osf.io/5eaj9 (viewed Nov 2024).
                • 14. HealthStats NSW (NSW Ministry of Health). Population estimates NSW. https://www.healthstats.nsw.gov.au/#/r/111172 (viewed Nov 2024).
                • 15. Irvine K, Hall R, Taylor L. A profile of the Centre for Health Record Linkage. Int J Popul Data Sci 2019; 4: 1142.
                • 16. Australian Department of Health; BreastScreen Australia. Computed radiography (CR) mammography compared with screen film mammography and digital radiography (DR) mammography. 17 May 2017. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/computed‐radiography‐cr‐mammography‐compared‐with‐screen‐film‐mammography‐and‐digital‐radiography‐dr‐mammography?language=en (viewed Dec 2023).
                • 17. Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, Sheppard AJ, et al; Breast Screening Study Group. Favourable prognostic factors of subsequent screen‐detected breast cancers among women aged 50–69. Eur J Cancer Prev 2012; 21: 499‐506.
                • 18. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Wilson AR. Screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): overdiagnosis or an obligate precursor of invasive disease? J Med Screen 2001; 8: 149‐151.
                • 19. Lagios MD. Heterogeneity of duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS): relationship of grade and subtype analysis to local recurrence and risk of invasive transformation. Cancer Lett 1995; 90: 97‐102.
                • 20. Linden A. Conducting interrupted time‐series analysis for single‐ and multiple‐group comparisons. Stata J 2015; 15: 480‐500.
                • 21. Jandoc R, Burden AM, Mamdani M, et al. Interrupted time series analysis in drug utilization research is increasing: systematic review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 950‐956.
                • 22. Ramsay CR, Matowe L, Grilli R, et al. Interrupted time series designs in health technology assessment: lessons from two systematic reviews of behavior change strategies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19: 613‐623.
                • 23. Jiang M, Hughes DR, Duszak R. Screening mammography rates in the Medicare population before and after the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force Guideline Change: an interrupted time series analysis. Womens Health Issues 2015; 25: 239‐245.
                • 24. Lopez Bernal J, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. The use of controls in interrupted time series studies of public health interventions. Int J Epidemiol 2018; 47: 2082‐2093.
                • 25. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, et al. Digital and screen‐film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 38‐41.
                • 26. Bassett LW. Digital and computer‐aided mammography. Breast J 2000; 6: 291‐293.
                • 27. Bick U, Diekmann F. Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know? Eur Radiol 17: 1931‐1942.
                • 28. Ayyala RS, Chorlton M, Behrman RH, et al. Digital mammographic artifacts on full‐field systems: what are they and how do I fix them? RadioGraphics 2008; 28: 1999‐2008.
                • 29. Brett J, Austoker J, Ong G. Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi‐centre follow‐up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment. J Public Health Med 1998; 20: 396‐403.
                • 30. Brett J, Austoker J. Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re‐attendance. J Public Health Med 2001; 23: 292‐300.
                • 31. Campari C, Giorgi Rossi P, Mori CA, et al. Impact of the introduction of digital mammography in an organized screening program on the recall and detection rate. J Digit Imaging 2016; 29: 235‐242.
                • 32. Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, et al. Consequences of digital mammography in population‐based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long‐term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 2067‐2073.
                • 33. Farber R, Houssami N, McGeechan K, et al. Breast cancer stage and size detected with film versus digital mammography in New South Wales, Australia: a population‐based study using routinely collected data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024; 33: 671‐680.
                • 34. Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol 2016; 46: 348‐355.
                • 35. Boyle T, Reintals M, Holmes A, et al. Interval cancers as related to frequency of recall to assessment in the South Australian population‐based breast screening program: an exploratory study. Cancer Epidemiol 2022; 79: 102183.
                • 36. Jatoi I, Pinsky PF. Breast cancer screening trials: endpoints and overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113: 1131‐1135.
                Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

                  Urban green space provision: the case for policy‐based solutions to support human health

                  Craig Williams, Christie Byrne, Shannon Evenden, Veronica Soebarto, Stefan Caddy‐Retalic, Carmel Williams, Yonatal Tefera, Xiaoqi Feng and Andrew Lowe
                  Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52569
                  Published online: 20 January 2025

                  As one of the world's most urbanised nations, Australia1 is particularly vulnerable to diseases causally linked with urban living.2 Further urban growth requires systemic health policy solutions. Urban green spaces (UGS) are dynamic contributors to the wellbeing of our cities, offering benefits to the health of humans, society, and natural and managed ecosystems. Here we define UGS to encompass planned and intentional green spaces such as parks, curated gardens, sports and recreation areas as well as urban forests and nature reserves, and unconventional green zones such as easements, road and infrastructure routes, streetscapes and commercial precincts.


                  • 1 University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA
                  • 2 Environment Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA
                  • 3 University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA
                  • 4 University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
                  • 5 South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA
                  • 6 University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW


                  Correspondence: craig.williams@unisa.edu.au
                  Acknowledgements: 

                  We acknowledge the HEAL (Healthy Environments And Lives) National Research Network, which receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council Special Initiative in Human Health and Environmental Change (Grant No. 2008937). Support was also provided by the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide. The funding source was not involved in the authoring of this work. The work of the Dynamic State Summit (2022) in catalysing this work is acknowledged.

                  Competing interests:

                  No relevant disclosures.

                  • 1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: 2018 revision [website]. UN, 2018. https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/ (viewed Dec 2024).
                  • 2. Flies EJ, Mavoa S, Zosky GR, et al. Urban‐associated diseases: candidate diseases, environmental risk factors, and a path forward. Environ Int 2019; 133: 105187.
                  • 3. Bolleter J, Ramalho CE. Greenspace‐oriented development: reconciling urban density and nature in suburban cities. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2020.
                  • 4. Feng X, Navakatikyan M, Eckermann S, Astell‐Burt T. Show me the money! Associations between tree canopy and hospital costs in cities for cardiovascular disease events in a longitudinal cohort study of 110 134 participants. Environ Int 2024; 185: 108558.
                  • 5. Astell‐Burt T, Hartig T, Putra IGNE, et al. Green space and loneliness: a systematic review with theoretical and methodological guidance for future research. Sci Total Environ 2022; 847: 157521.
                  • 6. Bates D, Partington J. Physical activity and community resilience. In: Cherrington J, Black J; editors. Sport and physical activity in catastrophic environments. London: Routledge, 2022; pp. 88‐99.
                  • 7. Woodward A, Hinwood A, Bennett D, et al. Trees, climate change, and health: an urban planning, greening and implementation perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023; 20: 6798.
                  • 8. Mavoa S, Badland H, Learnihan V, et al. The Australian National Liveability Study final report: development of policy‐relevant liveability indicators relating to health and wellbeing and recommendations for their dissemination. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, 2016. https://preventioncentre.org.au/wp‐content/uploads/2021/10/FINAL‐The‐National‐Liveability‐Study‐Report.pdf (viewed Dec 2024).
                  • 9. Astell‐Burt T, Feng X. Association of urban green space with mental health and general health among adults in Australia. JAMA Network Open 2019; 2: e198209.
                  • 10. Astell‐Burt T, Feng X. Urban green space, tree canopy and prevention of cardiometabolic diseases: a multilevel longitudinal study of 46 786 Australians. Int J Epidemiol 2020; 49: 926‐933.
                  • 11. Astell‐Burt T, Navakatikyan MA, Feng X. Urban green space, tree canopy and 11‐year risk of dementia in a cohort of 109 688 Australians. Environ Int 2020; 145: 106102.
                  • 12. Feng X, Astell‐Burt T, Standl M, et al. Green space quality and adolescent mental health: do personality traits matter? Environ Res 2022; 206: 112591.
                  • 13. Sun X, Liddicoat C, Tiunov A, et al. Harnessing soil biodiversity to promote human health in cities. Urban Sustain 2023; 3: 5.
                  • 14. Lin J, Wang Q, Huang B. Street trees and crime: what characteristics of trees and streetscapes matter. Urban Forest Urban Green 2021; 65: 127366.
                  • 15. Jennings V, Bamkole O. The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: an avenue for health promotion. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16: 452.
                  • 16. Sukartini NM, Auwalin I, Rumayya R. The impact of urban green spaces on the probability of urban crime in Indonesia. Develop Stud Res 2021; 8: 161‐169.
                  • 17. Nguyen PY, Astell‐Burt T, Rahimi‐Ardabili H, Feng X. Effect of nature prescriptions on cardiometabolic and mental health, and physical activity: a systematic review. Lancet Planet Health 2023; 7: e313‐e328.
                  • 18. Mavoa S, Davern M, Breed M, Hahs A. Higher levels of greenness and biodiversity associate with greater subjective wellbeing in adults living in Melbourne, Australia. Health Place 2019; 57: 321‐329.
                  • 19. Shanahan DF, Bush RA, Gaston KJ, et al. Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 28551.
                  • 20. Tefera Y, Soebarto V, Bishop C, et al. A scoping review of urban planning decision support tools and processes that account for the health, environment, and economic benefits of trees and greenspace. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2024; 21: 48.
                  • 21. White MP, Alcock I, Grellier J et al. Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 7730.
                  • 22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for policymakers. In: Masson‐Delmotte V, P Zhai, A Pirani, et al; editors. Climate Change 2021: the physical science basis. contribution of Working Group I to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge (UK) and New York, NY (USA): Cambridge University Press, 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/about/how‐to‐cite‐this‐report/ (viewed Dec 2024).
                  • 23. Soltani A, Sharifi E. Daily variation of urban heat island effect and its correlations to urban greenery: A case study of Adelaide. Frontiers Arch Res 2017; 6: 529‐538.
                  • 24. Rigolon A, Browning MH, McAnirlin O, Yoon HV. Green space and health equity: a systematic review on the potential of green space to reduce health disparities. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 2563.
                  • 25. Feng X, Navakatikyan MA, Toms R, Astell‐Burt T. Leafier communities, healthier hearts: an Australian cohort study of 104 725 adults tracking cardiovascular events and mortality across 10 years of linked health data. Heart Lung Circ 2023; 32: 105‐113.
                  • 26. City of Melbourne. Green our City Strategic Action Plan. Melbourne: City of Melbourne, 2023. https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/community/greening‐the‐city/green‐infrastructure/Pages/green‐our‐city‐action‐plan.aspx (viewed Sept 2024).
                  • 27. Green Adelaide. Urban Greening Strategy for metro Adelaide. Adelaide: Green Adelaide, 2023. https://www.greenadelaide.sa.gov.au/projects/adelaide‐greening‐strategy (viewed Sept 2024).
                  • 28. Hsu YY, Hawken S, Sepasgozar S, Lin ZH. Beyond the Backyard: GIS Analysis of Public Green Space Accessibility in Australian Metropolitan Areas. Sustainability 2022; 14: 4694.
                  • 29. Labib SM, Lindley S, Huck JJ. Spatial dimensions of the influence of urban green‐blue spaces on human health: A systematic review. Environ Res 2020; 180: 108869.
                  • 30. Konijnendijk CC. Evidence‐based guidelines for greener, healthier, more resilient neighbourhoods: introducing the 3–30–300 rule. J Forestry Res 2023; 34: 821‐830.
                  • 31. Richards D, Polyakov M, Brandt AJ, et al. Inequity in nature's contributions to people in Ōtautahi/Christchurch: a low‐density post‐earthquake city. Urban For Urban Green 2023; 86: 128044.
                  • 32. Pauleit S, Slinn P, Handley J, Lindley S. Promoting the natural green structure of towns and cities: English nature's accessible natural greenspace standards model. Built Environ 2003; 29: 157‐170.
                  • 33. Lin B, Meyers J, Barnett G. Understanding the potential loss and inequities of green space distribution with urban densification. Urban For Urban Green 2015; 14: 952‐958.
                  • 34. Clark DG, Sorensen AE, Jordan RC. Characterization of factors influencing environmental literacy in suburban park users. Current World Environment 2016; 11: 1‐9.
                  • 35. Belder RL, Delaporte KD, Caddy‐Retalic S. Urban tree protection in Australia — review of regulatory matters: a report for the South Australian Attorney General's Department Planning and Land Use Services. Adelaide: Government of South Australia, 2022. https://dit.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1087886/Urban_tree_protection_in_Australia.pdf (viewed Dec 2024)
                  • 36. Kandulu J, Soebarto V. Estimating the net benefit of street trees in Greater Adelaide Metropolitan, Australia. Adelaide: Environmental Institute, University of Adelaide; 2023. https://hdl.handle.net/2440/140808 (viewed Dec 2024).
                  • 37. World Health Organization. Working together for equity and healthier populations: sustainable multisectoral collaboration based on Health in All Policies approaches. Geneva: WHO, 2023. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240067530 (viewed Dec 2024).
                  • 38. Baum F, Lawless A, Delany T, et al. Evaluation of Health in All Policies: concept, theory and application. Health Promot Int 2014; 29 (Suppl): i130‐i142.
                  • 39. Australian Government, Department of Health and Aged Care. National Health and Climate Strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2023. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national‐health‐and‐climate‐strategy (viewed Dec 2024).
                  • 40. Byrne JA, Sipe N, Searle G. Green around the gills? The challenge of density for urban greenspace planning in SEQ. Aust Planner 2010; 47: 162‐177.
                  • 41. Australian Government, Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water. Nature Repair Market. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2023. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/environmental‐markets/nature‐repair‐market (viewed Sept 2024).
                  Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

                    Japanese encephalitis transmission in Australia: challenges and future perspectives

                    Caroline K Dowsett, Francesca Frentiu, Gregor J Devine and Wenbiao Hu
                    Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52550
                    Published online: 13 January 2025

                    Japanese encephalitis is caused by the Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV). JEV is the main cause of viral encephalitis in Asia,1 and is endemic in many countries on that continent and islands of the Pacific region. Although only a small percentage of cases are symptomatic, 20–30% are fatal and 30–50% develop significant neurological sequelae.2 Australia has escaped relatively unscathed, with only a few cases detected in the late 1990s, mostly from international travellers, with local transmission limited to the Torres Strait and Cape York.2,3 The last detection of JEV in Cape York was from feral pigs and an isolate of mosquitoes in 2005. Sentinel animal surveillance in Australia was phased out in 2011 due to costs and labour‐intensive maintenance, potential occupational health and safety issues, and concerns about the potential public health risk of using amplifying hosts (pigs), which may contribute to transmission when they become viremic.3 Sentinel animal use was replaced by a general mosquito trap‐based surveillance system.3 The Box provides a timeline of JEV milestones in Australia from the 1990s to 2023, with details on animal and human cases, and corresponding changes in surveillance.


                    • 1 Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD
                    • 2 Mosquito Control Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD


                    Correspondence: w2.hu@qut.edu.au
                    Acknowledgements: 

                    We acknowledge the HEAL (Healthy Environments And Lives) National Research Network, which receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Special Initiative in Human Health and Environmental Change Initiative (Grant No. 2008937). Caroline Dowsett is funded by a Queensland University of Technology Post‐graduate Research Award (QUTPRA). We also acknowledge the National Foundation for Australia‐China Relations (Grant No. 220011), the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

                    Competing interests:

                    No relevant disclosures.

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

                      Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants admitted to the Hunter New England neonatal intensive care unit, 2016-2021: a retrospective medical record audit

                      Jessica Bennett, Michelle Kennedy, Jamie Bryant, Amanual Mersha, Larissa Korostenski, Michelle Stubbs, Justine Parsons and Luke Wakely
                      Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.52533
                      Published online: 9 December 2024

                      In Australia, 24.4% of newborn Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander infants were admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) or special care nurseries during 2022, compared with 16.3% of non‐Indigenous infants.1 For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, culture is a protective factor for strong health and wellbeing,2 but neonatal care can disrupt usual parent–infant care and cultural care practices. Understanding the characteristics of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families receiving neonatal care is important for supporting their needs. Routinely collected national and state data do not typically provide detailed information about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants admitted to NICUs,1 leading to gaps in knowledge about how to optimise care, particularly at the local level.


                      • 1 The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW
                      • 2 John Hunter Children's Hospital, Newcastle, NSW
                      • 3 Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW



                      Data Sharing:

                      In line with Indigenous data sovereignty and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ethical research principles, data sharing is available for this study.

                      Acknowledgements: 

                      This study was funded by an Ikara–Flinders Ranges Challenge Grant. We respectfully acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people whose data were included in our analysis, and the governing services (Tamworth Aboriginal Medical Service, Tamworth Aboriginal Land Council, Walgett Aboriginal Medical Service, and the Aboriginal Advisory Group) for the leadership, knowledge, and wisdom shared with the investigators.

                      Competing interests:

                      No relevant disclosures.

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