Evaluation of 'Shisha No Thanks' - a co-design social marketing campaign on the harms of waterpipe smoking.

BACKGROUND: Waterpipe (shisha) is becoming increasingly popular worldwide, particularly among young people; and in some countries, it is one of the few forms of tobacco use that is increasing. While there is a growing body of evidence of the harms of waterpipe smoke, there is a scarcity of research of interventions to address this form of tobacco consumption. METHODS: The Shisha No Thanks project was a co-design social marketing campaign that aimed to raise awareness of the harms of waterpipe smoking among young people from an Arabic speaking background in Sydney, Australia. The campaign distributed material through social media and community events. We evaluated the project through an SMS community panel using a longitudinal study design. The cohort were sent questions before and after the project asking about their awareness of messages of harms, attitudes, intention to reduce waterpipe smoking, and awareness of support services. Data was analysed as matched pre- post- data. RESULTS: The evaluation recruited 133 people to the panel. There was a significantly greater proportion of people who reported seeing, hearing or reading something about the harms of waterpipe smoking after the campaign (67.5%) compared with before (45.0%) (p=0.003). Post-campaign, there were higher proportions of people who strongly agreed that waterpipe smoking causes damage, and that it contains cancer-causing substances, but these increases were not statistically significant. There was low awareness of waterpipe cessation services at baseline and post campaign (22.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The Shisha No Thanks project increased awareness of messages about the harms of waterpipe smoking. Although this is a small study, the longitudinal evaluation findings have international relevance and make a useful contribution to the understanding of the impact such interventions can have in addressing one of the few forms of tobacco use that is growing in both developed and developing countries.

Do general practice management and/or team care arrangements reduce avoidable hospitalisations in Central and Eastern Sydney, Australia?

BACKGROUND: The number of people living with chronic health conditions is increasing in Australia. The Chronic Disease Management program was introduced to Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) to provide a more structured approach to managing patients with chronic conditions and complex care needs. The program supports General Practitioners (GP)s claiming for up to one general practice management plan (GPMP) and one team care arrangement (TCA) every year and the patient claiming for up to five private allied health visits. We describe the profile of participants who claimed for GPMPs and/or TCAs in Central and Eastern Sydney (CES) and explore if GPMPs and/or TCAs are associated with fewer emergency hospitalisations (EH)s or potentially preventable hospitalisations (PPH)s over the following 5 years. METHODS: This research used the CES Primary and Community Health Cohort/Linkage Resource (CES-P&CH) based on the 45 and Up Study to identify a community-dwelling population in the CES region. There were 30,645 participants recruited within the CES area at baseline. The CES-P&CH includes 45 and Up Study questionnaire data linked to MBS data for the period 2006-2014. It also includes data from the Admitted Patient Data Collection, Emergency Department Data Collection and Deaths Registry linked by the NSW Centre for Health Record Linkage. RESULTS: Within a two-year health service utilisation baseline period 22% (5771) of CES participants had at least one claim for a GPMP and/or TCA. Having at least one claim for a GPMP and/or TCA was closely related to the socio-demographic and health needs of participants with higher EHs and PPHs in the 5 years that followed. However, after controlling for confounding factors such as socio-demographic need, health risk, health status and health care utilization no significant difference was found between having claimed for a GPMP and/or TCA during the two-year health service utilisation baseline period and EHs or PPHs in the subsequent 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The use of GPMPs and/or TCAs in the CES area appears well-targeted towards those with chronic and complex care needs. There was no evidence to suggest that the use of GPMPs and /or TCAs has prevented hospitalisations in the CES region.

Frequent users of health services among community-based older Australians: Characteristics and association with mortality.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate characteristics of frequent users of general practice (GP; ≥21 visits in a year), medical specialist (≥10 visits), emergency department (ED; ≥2 presentations) and hospital services (≥2 overnight hospitalisations) and the association with mortality for people aged over 75 years. METHODS: The study included residents from Central and Eastern Sydney, Australia, aged over 75 years who participated in a large community-dwelling cohort study. Demographic, social and health characteristics data were extracted from the 45 and Up Study survey. Health service (GP, medical specialist, ED and hospitalisations) use and mortality data were extracted from linked administrative data. We calculated adjusted prevalence ratios to identify independent characteristics associated with frequent users of services at baseline (approx. 2008) and adjusted hazard ratios to assess the association between frequent users of services and mortality. RESULTS: Frequent users of services (GPs, medical specialists, EDs and hospitals) were more likely to be associated with ever having had heart disease and less likely to be associated with reporting good quality of life. Characteristics varied by service type. Frequent users of services were 1.5-2.0 times more likely to die within 7 years compared to those who were less frequent service users after controlling for all significant factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found that frequent service users aged over 75 years had poorer quality of life, more complex health conditions and higher mortality and so their health service use was not inappropriate. However, better management of these frequent service users may lead to better health outcomes.

A rapid equity focused health impact assessment of a policy implementation plan: An Australian case study and impact evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Equity focused health impact assessments (EFHIAs), or health equity impact assessments, are being increasingly promoted internationally as a mechanism for enhancing the consideration of health equity in the development of policies, programs and projects. Despite this there are relatively few examples of examples of completed EFHIAs available. This paper presents a case study of a rapid EFHIA that was conducted in Australia on a health promotion policy implementation plan. It briefly describes the process and findings of the EFHIA and evaluates the impact on decision-making and implementation. METHODS: The rapid EFHIA was undertaken in four days, drawing on an expert panel and limited review of the literature. A process evaluation was undertaken by email one month after the EFHIA was completed. An impact evaluation was undertaken two years later based on five semi-structured interviews with members of the EFHIA working group and policy officers and managers responsible for implementing the plan. A cost estimation was conducted by the EFHIA working group. FINDINGS: The EFHIA made both general and specific recommendations about how the health equity impacts of the policy implementation plan could be improved. The impact evaluation identified changes to development and implementation that occurred as a result of the EFHIA, though there was disagreement about the extent to which changes could be attributed solely to the EFHIA. Those responsible considered the recommendations of the EFHIA in the next versions of their ABHI implementation plans. Factors that influenced the impact of the EFHIA included consolidating understandings of equity, enabling discussion of alternatives, and differing understandings of the purpose of the EFHIA. The EFHIA cost US$4,036 to undertake. CONCLUSIONS: This EFHIA was conducted in a short timeframe using relatively few resources. It had some reported impacts on the development of the implementation plan and enhanced overall consideration of health equity. This case highlights some of the factors and preconditions that may maximise the impact of future EFHIAs on decision-making and implementation.

General practitioner follow-up after hospitalisation in Central and Eastern Sydney, Australia: access and impact on health services.

Objectives General practitioner (GP) follow-up after a hospital admission is an important indicator of integrated care. We examined the characteristics of patients who saw a GP within 2 weeks of hospital discharge in the Central and Eastern Sydney (CES) region, Australia, and the relationship between GP follow-up and subsequent hospitalisation. Methods This data linkage study used a cohort of 10240 people from the 45 and Up Study who resided in CES and experienced an overnight hospitalisation in the 5 years following recruitment (2007-14). Characteristics of participants who saw a GP within 2 weeks of discharge were compared with those who did not using generalised linear models. Time to subsequent hospitalisation was compared for the two groups using Cox proportional hazards regression models stratified by prior frequency of GP use. Results Within 2 weeks of discharge, 64.3% participants saw a GP. Seeing a GP within 2 weeks of discharge was associated with lower rates of rehospitalisation for infrequent GP users (i.e. <8 visits in year before the index hospitalisation; hazard ratio (HR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.97) but not frequent GP users (i.e. ≥8 plus visits; HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.90-1.17). Conclusion The effect of seeing a GP on subsequent hospitalisation was protective but differed depending on patient care needs. What is known about the topic? There is general consensus among healthcare providers that primary care is a significant source of ongoing health care provision. What does this paper add? This study explored the relationship between GP follow-up after an uncomplicated hospitalisation and its effect on rehospitalisation. What are the implications for practitioners? Discharge planning and the transfer of care from hospital to GP through discharge arrangements have substantial benefits for both patients and the health system.

Increasing use of general practice management and team care arrangements over time in New South Wales, Australia.

The number of older people living with chronic health conditions is increasing in Australia. The Chronic Disease Management (CDM) items program was introduced to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) to encourage a more structured approach to managing patients with chronic conditions. Initial uptake was slow and recent research has suggested that uptake is decreasing. This paper examines: person MBS CDM claims in NSW between 2006 and 2014 - using baseline survey data (2006-09) from the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study linked to MBS and Death Registry data (2006-14) - and MBS CDM claims per 100000 population - using billing data sourced from the Medicare Australia Statistics website - to systematically examine any changes in uptake using a time-series analysis. After age adjustment, claims for initial plans increased from 11.3% in 2006 to 22.4% in 2014. Increases were also seen for allied health service claims (from 4.1% in 2006 to 20.8% in 2014) and for plan reviews (from 5.9% in 2006 to 16.0% in 2014). These increases were consistent with the MBS summary claims data. There is evidence that these plans are appropriately targeting those in most need; however, there is limited evidence of their effect. Claims for plan reviews, although increasing, are suboptimal and may indicate poor continuity of care.

Understanding the use and impact of allied health services for people with chronic health conditions in Central and Eastern Sydney, Australia: a five-year longitudinal analysis.

AIM: To describe the characteristics of people in Central and Eastern Sydney (CES), NSW, who had a General Practice Management Plan (GPMP) and claimed for at least one private allied health service item; and to examine if allied health service use results in less hospitalisations over a five-year period. BACKGROUND: The number of people living with chronic health conditions is increasing in Australia. The Chronic Disease Management programme was introduced to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) to provide a more structured approach to managing patients with chronic conditions and complex care needs. The programme supports general practitioners claiming up to one GPMP and one Team Care Arrangement every year, and the patient additionally claiming for up to five private allied health services visits. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal study was conducted. The sample consisted of 5771 participants in CES who had a GPMP within a two-year health service utilisation baseline period (2007-2009). The analysis used the 45 and Up Study questionnaire data linked to the MBS, hospitalisation, death and emergency department data for the period 2006-2014. FINDINGS: Of the eligible participants, 43% (2460) had at least one allied health service item claim in the subsequent 12 months. Allied health services were reported as physiotherapy, podiatry and other allied health services. The highest rates of allied health service use were among participants aged 85 years and over (49%). After controlling for confounding factors, a significant difference was found between having claimed for five or more physiotherapy services and emergency admissions (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.95) and potentially preventable hospitalisations (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64-0.96) in the subsequent five years. Use of allied health service items was well targeted towards those with chronic and complex care needs, and use of physiotherapy services was associated with less avoidable hospitalisations.

Learning by doing: the value of case studies of health impact assessment.

The nine health impact assessment (HIA) case studies in this issue represent a considerable contribution to the HIA literature and provide a number of lessons. These lessons include the value of using evidence in HIA to aid decision-making; the various forms that stakeholder and community involvement in HIA can take; and the fact that HIA can act as a catalyst for intersectoral engagement. They also highlight challenges faced by HIA practitioners, including time, methods of assessment, developing evidence summaries and considering equity.

An overview of the regulatory planning system in New South Wales: identifying points of intervention for health impact assessment and consideration of health impacts.

The experience of health impact assessment (HIA) in NSW has shown that it is possible to incorporate considerations of health impacts into decision-making concerning urban planning. In NSW, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is the regulatory framework governing urban planning. This legislative system provides opportunities for HIA and the consideration of health impacts as part of developing plans, policies and development proposals within NSW.

Health impact assessment and urbanisation. Lessons from the NSW HIA Project.

Health impact assessment (HIA) can ensure that health is a core element of sustainable urban planning. Based on the experience of the NSW HIA Project, we discuss the current strengths of HIA and challenges facing it as an urban sustainability tool across five areas: the use of evidence; integrating HIA with environmental impact assessments; including consideration of equity; recognising wider determinants of health; and building capacity.

Rapid versus intermediate health impact assessment of foreshore development plans.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the main differences between conducting a rapid health impact assessment (HIA) and an intermediate HIA on foreshore development plans and their feasibility from a health service perspective. METHODS: A rapid HIA and an intermediate HIA were undertaken on two foreshore development plans. RESULTS: The main differences between the two HIAs were in the identification, assessment and decision-making stages of the HIA. CONCLUSION: While the rapid HIA was less resource intensive than the intermediate HIA, there are several factors that affect the feasibility of conducting this type of HIA within a short time period.