A summary of the 2023 Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) hypertension in pregnancy guideline.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) affect up to 10% of all pregnancies annually and are associated with an increased risk of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. This guideline represents an update of the Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) guidelines for the management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 2014 and has been approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) under section 14A of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992. In approving the guideline recommendations, NHMRC considers that the guideline meets NHMRC's standard for clinical practice guidelines. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: A total of 39 recommendations on screening, preventing, diagnosing and managing HDP, especially preeclampsia, are presented in this guideline. Recommendations are presented as either evidence-based recommendations or practice points. Evidence-based recommendations are presented with the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Practice points were generated where there was inadequate evidence to develop specific recommendations and are based on the expertise of the working group. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINE: This version of the SOMANZ guideline was developed in an academically robust and rigorous manner and includes recommendations on the use of combined first trimester screening to identify women at risk of developing preeclampsia, 14 pharmacological and two non-pharmacological preventive interventions, clinical use of angiogenic biomarkers and the long term care of women who experience HDP. The guideline also includes six multilingual patient infographics which can be accessed through the main website of the guideline. All measures were taken to ensure that this guideline is applicable and relevant to clinicians and multicultural women in regional and metropolitan settings in Australia and New Zealand.

COVID-19 rapid antigen tests approved for self-testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer-supplied information. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To review evaluations of the diagnostic accuracy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen tests (RATs) approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for self-testing by ambulatory people in Australia; to compare these estimates with values reported by test manufacturers. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of publications in any language that reported cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies in which the participants were ambulatory people in the community or health care workers in hospitals in whom severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was suspected, and the results of testing self-collected biological samples with a TGA-approved COVID-19 RAT were compared with those of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) were checked and compared with manufacturer estimates published on the TGA website. DATA SOURCES: Publications (to 1 September 2022) identified in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the World Health Organization COVID-19 research database. Information on manufacturer diagnostic accuracy evaluations was obtained from the TGA website. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twelve publications that reported a total of eighteen evaluations of eight RATs approved by the TGA for self-testing (manufacturers: All Test, Roche, Flowflex, MP Biomedicals, Clungene, Panbio, V-Chek, Whistling) were identified. Five studies were undertaken in the Netherlands, two each in Germany and the United States, and one each in Denmark, Belgium, and Canada; test sample collection was unsupervised in twelve studies, and supervised by health care workers or researchers in six. Estimated sensitivity with unsupervised sample collection ranged from 20.9% (MP Biomedicals) to 74.3% (Roche), and with supervised collection from 7.7% (V-Chek) to 84.4% (Panbio); the estimates were between 8.2 and 88 percentage points lower than the values reported by the manufacturers. Test specificity was high for all RATs (97.9-100%). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of false negative results when using COVID-19 RATs for self-testing may be considerably higher than apparent in manufacturer reports on the TGA website, with implications for the reliability of these tests for ruling out infection.

Communicating the Imperfect Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Tests: An Online Randomized Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential impacts of optimizing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen test (RAT) self-testing diagnostic accuracy information. DESIGN: Online randomized experiment using hypothetical scenarios: in scenarios 1 to 3 (RAT result positive), the posttest probability was considered to be very high (likely true positives), and in scenarios 4 and 5 (RAT result negative), the posttest probability was considered to be moderately high (likely false negatives). SETTING: December 12 to 22, 2022, during the mixed-variant Omicron wave in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Australian adults. Intervention: diagnostic accuracy of a COVID-19 self-RAT presented in a health literacy-sensitive way; usual care: diagnostic accuracy information provided by the manufacturer; control: no diagnostic accuracy information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Intention to self-isolate. RESULTS: A total of 226 participants were randomized (control n = 75, usual care n = 76, intervention n = 75). More participants in the intervention group correctly interpreted the meaning of the diagnostic accuracy information (P = 0.08 for understanding sensitivity, P < 0.001 for understanding specificity). The proportion who would self-isolate was similar across scenarios 1 to 3 (likely true positives). The proportion was higher in the intervention group than in the control for scenarios 4 and 5 (likely false negatives). These differences were not statistically significant. The largest potential effect was seen in scenario 5 (dinner party with confirmed cases, the person has symptoms, negative self-RAT result), with 63% of the intervention group and 49% of the control group indicating they would self-isolate (absolute difference 13.3%, 95% confidence interval: -2% to 30%, P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Health literacy sensitive formatting supported participant understanding and recall of diagnostic accuracy information. This may increase community intentions to self-isolate when there is a likely false-negative self-RAT result. Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12622001517763). HIGHLIGHTS: Community-based diagnostic accuracy studies of COVID-19 self-RATs indicate substantially lower sensitivity (and higher risk of false-negative results) than the manufacturer-supplied information on most government public Web sites.This online randomized study found that a health literacy-sensitive presentation of the imperfect diagnostic accuracy COVID-19 self-RATs supported participant understanding and recall of diagnostic accuracy information.Health literacy-sensitive presentation may increase community intentions to self-isolate after a negative test result where the posttest probability is still moderately high (i.e., likely false-negative result).To prevent the onward spread of infection, efforts to improve communication about the high risk of false-negative results from COVID-19 self-RATs are urgently needed.

Using the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify barriers and targeted strategies to improve adherence in randomised clinical trials: The example of MEL-SELF trial of patient-led surveillance for melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to self-management interventions is critical in both clinical settings and trials to ensure maximal effectiveness. This study reports how the Behaviour Change Wheel may be used to assess barriers to self-management behaviours and develop strategies to maximise adherence in a trial setting (the MEL-SELF trial of patient-led melanoma surveillance). METHODS: The Behaviour Change Wheel was applied by (i) using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COMB) model informed by empirical and review data to identify adherence barriers, (ii) mapping identified barriers to corresponding intervention functions, and (iii) identifying appropriate behaviour change techniques and developing potential solutions using the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects and safety, Equity) criteria. RESULTS: The target adherence behaviour was defined as conducting a thorough skin self-examination and submitting images for teledermatology review. Key barriers identified included: non-engaged skin check partners, inadequate planning, time constraints, low self-efficacy, and technological difficulties. Participants' motivation was positively influenced by perceived health benefits and negatively impacted by emotional states such as anxiety and depression. We identified the following feasible interventions to support adherence: education, training, environmental restructuring, enablement, persuasion, and incentivisation. Proposed solutions included action planning, calendar scheduling, alternative dermatoscopes, optimised communication, educational resources in various formats to boost self-efficacy and motivation and optimised reminders (which will be evaluated in a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)). CONCLUSION: The Behaviour Change Wheel may be used to improve adherence in clinical trials by identifying barriers to self-management behaviours and guiding development of targeted strategies.

Participant Motivators and Expectations in the MEL-SELF Randomized Clinical Trial of Patient-Led Surveillance for Recurrent Melanoma: Content Analysis of Survey Responses.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the motivations and expectations of participants when enrolling in dermatology clinical trials, including melanoma early detection trials. Understanding participant motivators for research engagement has been identified as a prioritized area for trial methodology research. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to determine motivators of participation and expectations from trial involvement among patients enrolled in the MEL-SELF randomized clinical trial of patient-led surveillance for new or recurrent melanoma. METHODS: The MEL-SELF trial is recruiting patients previously treated for localized melanoma, who own a smartphone, have a partner to assist with skin self-examination (SSE), and attend routinely scheduled follow-up at specialist and primary care skin clinics in Australia. We evaluated responses from the first 100 randomized participants to 2 open-ended questions about their motivations and expectations for participating in the trial, administered through the internet-based baseline questionnaire. A total of 3 coders independently coded the free-text responses and resolved discrepancies through consensus. Qualitative content analysis by an iterative process was used to group responses into themes. Responses from potential participants who were not randomized and the 404 participants randomized subsequently into the trial, were also checked for new themes. Coding and analysis were conducted in Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Out of the 100 survey participants, 98 (98%) answered at least 1 of the 2 questions. Overall, responses across the motivation and expectation items indicated 3 broad themes: community benefit, perceived personal benefit, and trusting relationship with their health care provider. The most common motivators for participation were related to community benefit. These included progressing medical research, benefitting future melanoma patients who may have similar experiences, and broader altruistic sentiments such as "helping others" or "giving back." The most common expectations from the trial related to personal benefit. These included perceived improved outcomes such as earlier diagnosis and treatment, access to additional care, and increased self-empowerment to take actions themselves that benefit their health. Patients expressed a desire to gain health-related knowledge and skills and were interested in the potential advantages of teledermatology. There were no new themes in responses from those who were not randomized or were randomized subsequent to the first 100. CONCLUSIONS: We report a tailorable, patient-focused approach to identify drivers of research engagement in clinical research. Clinical trials offer an opportunity to collate a substantial evidence base on determinants of research participation and to identify context-specific factors. Results from the MEL-SELF trial emphasized notable altruism, self-empowerment, and perceived advantages of teledermatology as specific motivators. These findings informed consent processes, recruitment, retention, response to trial tasks, and intervention adherence for the MEL-SELF host trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=379527.

Acceptability of a Hypothetical Reduction in Routinely Scheduled Clinic Visits Among Patients With History of a Localized Melanoma (MEL-SELF): Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: After treatment for a localized melanoma, patients attend routinely scheduled clinics to monitor for new primary or recurrent melanoma. Patient-led surveillance (skin self-examination with patient-performed teledermoscopy) is an alternative model of follow-up that could replace some routinely scheduled visits. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the acceptability of a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits among participants of the Melanoma Self Surveillance (MEL-SELF) pilot randomized clinical trial of patient-led surveillance (intervention) versus usual care (control). METHODS: Patients previously treated for localized melanoma in New South Wales who were participating in the MEL-SELF pilot randomized clinical trial were asked to respond to a web-based questionnaire at baseline and after 6 months on trial. We used mixed methods to analyze the data. The main outcome of interest was the acceptability of a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits for melanoma surveillance. RESULTS: Of 100 randomized participants, 87 answered the questionnaire at baseline, 66 answered the questionnaire at 6 months, and 79 provided a free-text explanation at either time point. At 6 months, 33% (17/51) of the control group and 35% (17/49) of the intervention group indicated that a hypothetical reduction in routinely scheduled visits with all melanoma doctors was at least slightly acceptable (difference in proportions -1%, 95% CI -20% to 17%; P=.89). Participants suggested that prerequisites for a reduction in routinely scheduled visits would include that sufficient time had elapsed since the previous diagnosis without a new primary melanoma or recurrence, an unscheduled appointment could be made at short notice if the patient noticed something concerning, their melanoma doctor had suggested reducing their clinic visit frequency, and patients had confidence that patient-led surveillance was a safe and effective alternative. Participants suggested that a reduction in routinely scheduled visits would not be acceptable where they perceived a very high risk of new or recurrent melanoma, low self-efficacy in skin self-examination and in the use of technologies for the patient-led surveillance intervention, and where they had a preference for clinician-led surveillance. Some patients said that a partial reduction to once a year may be acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Some patients may be receptive to a reduction in routinely scheduled visits if they are assured that patient-led surveillance is safe and effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001716459; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371865&isReview=true; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03581188; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03581188. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.4704.

Strategies to Improve Adherence to Skin Self-examination and Other Self-management Practices in People at High Risk of Melanoma: A Scoping Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Adherence, both in research trials and in clinical practice, is crucial to the success of interventions. There is limited guidance on strategies to increase adherence and the measurement and reporting of adherence in trials of melanoma self-management practices. Objective: This scoping review aimed to describe (1) strategies to improve adherence to self-management practices in randomized clinical trials of people at high risk of melanoma and (2) measurement and reporting of adherence data in these trials. Evidence Review: Four databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL, were searched from inception to July 2022. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials of self-monitoring interventions for early detection of melanoma in people at increased risk due to personal history (eg, melanoma, transplant, dysplastic naevus syndrome), family history of melanoma, or as determined by a risk assessment tool or clinical judgment. Findings: From 939 records screened, 18 eligible randomized clinical trials were identified, ranging in size from 40 to 724 participants, using a range of adherence strategies but with sparse evidence on effectiveness of the strategies. Strategies were classified as trial design (n = 15); social and economic support (n = 5); intervention design (n = 18); intervention and condition support (n = 10); and participant support (n = 18). No strategies were reported for supporting underserved groups (eg, people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, have low health literacy, non-English speakers, or older adults) to adhere to self-monitoring practices, and few trials targeted provider (referring to both clinicians and researchers) adherence (n = 5). Behavioral support tools included reminders (n = 8), priority-setting guidance (n = 5), and clinician feedback (n = 5). Measurement of adherence was usually by participant report of skin self-examination practice with some recent trials of digital interventions also directly measuring adherence to the intervention through website or application analytic data. Reporting of adherence data was limited, and fewer than half of all reports mentioned adherence in their discussion. Conclusions and Relevance: Using an adaptation of the World Health Organization framework for clinical adherence, this scoping review of randomized clinical trials identified key concepts as well as gaps in the way adherence is approached in design, conduct, and reporting of trials for skin self-examination and other self-management practices in people at high risk of melanoma. These findings may usefully guide future trials and clinical practice; evaluation of adherence strategies may be possible using a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) framework within host trials.

Experiences of Patient-Led Surveillance, Including Patient-Performed Teledermoscopy, in the MEL-SELF Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Current clinician-led melanoma surveillance models require frequent routinely scheduled clinic visits, with associated travel, cost, and time burden for patients. Patient-led surveillance is a new model of follow-up care that could reduce health care use such as clinic visits and medical procedures and their associated costs, increase access to care, and promote early diagnosis of a subsequent new melanoma after treatment of a primary melanoma. Understanding patient experiences may allow improvements in implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore patients' experiences and perceptions of patient-led surveillance during the 6 months of participation in the MEL-SELF pilot randomized controlled trial. Patient-led surveillance comprised regular skin self-examination, use of a mobile dermatoscope to image lesions of concern, and a smartphone app to track and send images to a teledermatologist for review, in addition to usual care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients previously treated for melanoma localized to the skin in New South Wales, Australia, who were randomized to the patient-led surveillance (intervention group) in the trial. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data with reference to the technology acceptance model. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 patients (n=8, 40% women and n=12, 60% men; median age 62 years). Patients who were more adherent experienced benefits such as increased awareness of their skin and improved skin self-examination practice, early detection of melanomas, and opportunities to be proactive in managing their clinical follow-up. Most participants experienced difficulty in obtaining clear images and technical problems with the app. These barriers were overcome or persevered by participants with previous experience with digital technology and with effective help from a skin check partner (such as a spouse, sibling, or friend). Having too many or too few moles decreased perceived usefulness. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with melanoma are receptive to and experience benefits from patient-led surveillance using teledermoscopy. Increased provision of training and technical support to patients and their skin check partners may help to realize the full potential benefits of this new model of melanoma surveillance.

Perspectives and Experiences of Patient-Led Melanoma Surveillance Using Digital Technologies From Clinicians Involved in the MEL-SELF Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: The growing number of melanoma patients who need long-term surveillance increasingly exceeds the capacity of the dermatology workforce, particularly outside of metropolitan areas. Digital technologies that enable patients to perform skin self-examination and send dermoscopic images of lesions of concern to a dermatologist (mobile teledermoscopy) are a potential solution. If these technologies and the remote delivery of melanoma surveillance are to be incorporated into routine clinical practice, they need to be accepted by clinicians providing melanoma care, such as dermatologists and general practitioners (GPs). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore perceptions of potential benefits and harms of mobile teledermoscopy, as well as experiences with this technology, among clinicians participating in a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patient-led melanoma surveillance. METHODS: This qualitative study was nested within a pilot RCT conducted at dermatologist and skin specialist GP-led melanoma clinics in New South Wales, Australia. We conducted semistructured interviews with 8 of the total 11 clinicians who were involved in the trial, including 4 dermatologists (3 provided teledermatology, 2 were treating clinicians), 1 surgical oncologist, and 3 GPs with qualifications in skin cancer screening (the remaining 3 GPs declined an interview). Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data with reference to the concepts of "medical overuse" and "high-value care." RESULTS: Clinicians identified several potential benefits, including increased access to dermatology services, earlier detection of melanomas, reassurance for patients between scheduled visits, and a reduction in unnecessary clinic visits. However, they also identified some potential concerns regarding the use of the technology and remote monitoring that could result in diagnostic uncertainty. These included poor image quality, difficulty making assessments from a 2D digital image (even if good quality), insufficient clinical history provided, and concern that suspicious lesions may have been missed by the patient. Clinicians thought that uncertainty arising from these concerns, together with perceived potential medicolegal consequences from missing a diagnosis, might lead to increases in unnecessary clinic visits and procedures. Strategies suggested for achieving high-value care included managing clinical uncertainty to decrease the potential for medical overuse and ensuring optimal placement of patient-led teledermoscopy within existing clinical care pathways to increase the potential for benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians were enthusiastic about the potential and experienced benefits of mobile teledermoscopy; however, managing clinical uncertainty will be necessary to achieve these benefits in clinical care outside of trial contexts and minimize potential harms from medical overuse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001716459; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371865.

Assessing the Potential for Patient-led Surveillance After Treatment of Localized Melanoma (MEL-SELF): A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Patient-led surveillance is a promising new model of follow-up care following excision of localized melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient-led surveillance in patients with prior localized primary cutaneous melanoma is as safe, feasible, and acceptable as clinician-led surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a pilot for a randomized clinical trial at 2 specialist-led clinics in metropolitan Sydney, Australia, and a primary care skin cancer clinic managed by general practitioners in metropolitan Newcastle, Australia. The participants were 100 patients who had been treated for localized melanoma, owned a smartphone, had a partner to assist with skin self-examination (SSE), and had been routinely attending scheduled follow-up visits. The study was conducted from November 1, 2018, to January 17, 2020, with analysis performed from September 1, 2020, to November 15, 2020. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized (1:1) to 6 months of patient-led surveillance (the intervention comprised usual care plus reminders to perform SSE, patient-performed dermoscopy, teledermatologist assessment, and fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits) or clinician-led surveillance (the control was usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible and contacted patients who were randomized. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (eg, SSE knowledge, attitudes, and practices, psychological outcomes, other health care use) and clinical outcomes (eg, clinic visits, skin surgeries, subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma). RESULTS: Of 326 patients who were eligible and contacted, 100 (31%) patients (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [12.0] years; 53 [53%] men) were randomized to patient-led (n = 49) or clinician-led (n = 51) surveillance. Data were available on patient-reported outcomes for 66 participants and on clinical outcomes for 100 participants. Compared with clinician-led surveillance, patient-led surveillance was associated with increased SSE frequency (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% CI, 0.9 to 14.0) and thoroughness (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 5.7), had no detectable adverse effect on psychological outcomes (fear of cancer recurrence subscale score; mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -3.1 to 0.5), and increased clinic visits (risk ratio [RR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.1), skin lesion excisions (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0), and subsequent melanoma diagnoses and subsequent melanoma diagnoses (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, -2% to 23%). New primary melanomas and 1 local recurrence were diagnosed in 8 (16%) of the participants in the intervention group, including 5 (10%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits; and in 3 (6%) of the participants in the control group, with none (0%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, 2% to 19%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This pilot of a randomized clinical trial found that patient-led surveillance after treatment of localized melanoma appears to be safe, feasible, and acceptable. Experiences from this pilot study have prompted improvements to the trial processes for the larger trial of the same intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616001716459.

Can patient-led surveillance detect subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas and reduce the need for routinely scheduled follow-up? A protocol for the MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas might be self-detected if patients are trained to systematically self-examine their skin and have access to timely medical review (patient-led surveillance). Routinely scheduled clinic visits (clinician-led surveillance) is resource-intensive and has not been shown to improve health outcomes; fewer visits may be possible if patient-led surveillance is shown to be safe and effective. The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing patient-led surveillance with clinician-led surveillance in people who have been previously treated for localised melanoma. METHODS: Stage 0/I/II melanoma patients (n = 600) from dermatology, surgical, or general practice clinics in NSW Australia, will be randomised (1:1) to the intervention (patient-led surveillance, n = 300) or control (usual care, n = 300). Patients in the intervention will undergo a second randomisation 1:1 to polarised (n = 150) or non-polarised (n = 150) dermatoscope. Patient-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet, skin self-examination (SSE) instructional videos; 3-monthly email/SMS reminders to perform SSE; patient-performed dermoscopy with teledermatologist feedback; clinical review of positive teledermoscopy through fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits; and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. Clinician-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. The primary outcome, measured at 12 months, is the proportion of participants diagnosed with a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma at an unscheduled clinic visit. Secondary outcomes include time from randomisation to diagnosis (of a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and of a new keratinocyte cancer), clinicopathological characteristics of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas (including AJCC stage), psychological outcomes, and healthcare use. A nested qualitative study will include interviews with patients and clinicians, and a costing study we will compare costs from a societal perspective. We will compare the technical performance of two different models of dermatoscope (polarised vs non-polarised). DISCUSSION: The findings from this study may inform guidance on evidence-based follow-up care, that maximises early detection of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and patient wellbeing, while minimising costs to patients, health systems, and society. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864 . Registered on 18 February 2021.

Media coverage of anthrax vaccination refusal by Australian Defence Force personnel.

BACKGROUND: During February 2003 a number of Australian sailors were returned home from their deployment to the Persian Gulf after refusing anthrax vaccination. This paper examines the media coverage of this episode as a case study in how controversies about vaccine safety escalate. METHODS: Frame analysis of articles from major Australian newspapers (n=83) and transcripts of radio and television news and current affairs programs (n=22) to identify the main supportive and oppositional themes used in reportage and media debate. FINDINGS: Initially, the major news frames were supportive of the vaccine refusing soldiers, and conveyed a sense of distrust of the government's actions. These initial themes were rapidly re-framed and new dominant discourses appeared. First, sailors went from brave whistleblowers to being portrayed as deserters and cowards. Second, proponents shifted from their portrayal as faceless regulators to personal risk takers embodied in a well-respected Major General having the vaccine. Third, the voluntary nature of the vaccine was emphasised, thus dousing the flames of implied coercion. CONCLUSION: Marked shifts in the representation of vaccine opponents and proponents possibly contributed to the rapid diminishment of media interest in the story.