What can we learn from Australian general practices taking steps to be more environmentally sustainable? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Climate change is impacting the health of individuals worldwide. At the same time, the healthcare sector contributes to carbon emissions. In Australia, healthcare contributes 7% of the country's carbon footprint. Research into the environmental impact and mitigation of carbon emissions in primary care is an emerging area. OBJECTIVE: To explore staff perspectives on facilitators and barriers to environmental sustainability in 3 Australian general practices seeking to reduce their environmental impact. METHODS: We used a qualitative, case-study approach, conducting 23 semistructured interviews with staff across the 3 practices including nurses, administrative staff, and doctors. Observation of systems and staff behaviour relating to environmental sustainability was undertaken at 1 practice. Thematic analysis was conducted to determine themes relating to factors influencing the implementation of environmentally sustainable initiatives within practice settings. RESULTS: Climate mitigation efforts raised by participants were largely focussed on energy and waste reduction, rather than prescribing pharmaceuticals and staff and patient transport. Three main factors influencing change towards sustainable practice were identified: "Leadership," "Staff Engagement and Workplace Culture," and "Concomitant Benefits." A leadership team and workplace culture that valued environmental sustainability were found to be important facilitators, as were concomitant benefits, in particular financial savings. Barriers included what interviewees described as a lack of knowledge about initiatives with the highest impact, lack of understanding described by staff of the evidence behind particular initiatives, waning staff engagement and infection control concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Our research highlights several important factors that contribute to the implementation of intended environmentally sustainable initiatives in these 3 practices. Further education, research and high-level policy guidance on the potential environmental impact of prescribing pharmaceuticals, staff and patient transport and unnecessary tests and treatments are recommended to further promote environmental sustainability in primary care.

Combining public health evidence, policy experience and communications expertise to inform preventive health: reflections on a novel method of knowledge synthesis.

Knowledge synthesis methods help summarize evidence and utilize content expertise to draw out key messages to aid knowledge mobilization and translation. Systems thinking and coproduction can support this by facilitating a multiperspective view and ensuring that knowledge is mobilized and translated in a useful and meaningful way for policy-makers and practitioners. In this paper, we describe the development of a knowledge synthesis approach that utilizes coproduction with policy-makers to combine the findings of a programme of research with policy knowledge to support decision-makers working in chronic disease prevention. The process developed by The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre combined the expertise of research, policy and science communications experts. We reflect on how we used coproduction processes to embed policy-makers as partners in the evidence synthesis process via research-policy dialogues, and embedded science communication into the development and presentation of the findings. This differs from a more common approach of researchers generating evidence for policy with limited input from policy-makers themselves. By collaborating with policy-makers and using coproduction, we can better inform policy-relevant research and generate policy-relevant knowledge. We describe the development of our knowledge synthesis approach using two case studies: the first drawing on a body of work in public health law, and the second on a body of work focused on the first 2000 days of life. We consider how these case studies demonstrate the value of working with policy partners as part of a knowledge synthesis process, and discuss how this process could be adapted and used in future.

Spokespeople in public health: Important characteristics from the perspective of Australian public health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Spokespeople play a significant role in communicating public health information yet there is little research understanding the characteristics of those who provide such messaging. METHODS: One hundred and four health professionals (70% female) recruited through professional association mailing lists in Australia completed a brief online quantitative and qualitative survey. RESULTS: Participants reported characteristics they believed to be important for spokespeople, those that they believed their organisation considered important, and those they thought engendered public trust. Knowledge of public health issues, public speaking skills, and willingness to speak on behalf of the organisation were identified as important characteristics (by at least 70%). Qualitative results showed some participants distinguished between perceived, as well as actual, expertise, and described the potential for public health university programs to include public speaking and communication skills. Participants also identified an individual's role in the organisation was considered important in their organisation's selection of a spokesperson, particularly in relation to seniority and leadership. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides an initial description and priority considerations from health professionals about key characteristics of effective spokespeople. Findings suggest possible avenues for training and support for spokespeople and the need for further research regarding the characteristics of who are effective spokespeople. SO WHAT?: Findings suggest possible avenues for training and support for spokespeople and the need for further research regarding the characteristics of who are effective spokespeople.

The 2021 report of the MJA-Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: Australia increasingly out on a limb.

The MJA-Lancet Countdown on health and climate change in Australia was established in 2017, and produced its first national assessment in 2018, its first annual update in 2019, and its second annual update in 2020. It examines indicators across five broad domains: climate change impacts, exposures and vulnerability; adaptation, planning and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co-benefits; economics and finance; and public and political engagement. Our special report in 2020 focused on the unprecedented and catastrophic 2019-20 Australian bushfire season, highlighting indicators that explore the relationships between health, climate change and bushfires. For 2021, we return to reporting on the full suite of indicators across each of the five domains and have added some new indicators. We find that Australians are increasingly exposed to and vulnerable to excess heat and that this is already limiting our way of life, increasing the risk of heat stress during outdoor sports, and decreasing work productivity across a range of sectors. Other weather extremes are also on the rise, resulting in escalating social, economic and health impacts. Climate change disproportionately threatens Indigenous Australians' wellbeing in multiple and complex ways. In response to these threats, we find positive action at the individual, local, state and territory levels, with growing uptake of rooftop solar and electric vehicles, and the beginnings of appropriate adaptation planning. However, this is severely undermined by national policies and actions that are contrary and increasingly place Australia out on a limb. Australia has responded well to the COVID-19 public health crisis (while still emerging from the bushfire crisis that preceded it) and it now needs to respond to and prepare for the health crises resulting from climate change.

The obesity paradigm and the role of health services in obesity prevention: a grounded theory approach.

BACKGROUND: Health services have a clear role in the treatment of obesity and diseases linked to obesity but a less well-established role in prevention, particularly in hospital and community-based health services. METHODS: The aim of this research was to examine whether and how hospital and community-based health services incorporate adult obesity prevention into policy and practice. The case study setting was an Australian based health service. Grounded theory informed all aspects of the research including participant recruitment, data collection and data analysis. A systems approach guided the analysis of diverse perspectives, relationships and interconnections within the study context. RESULTS: The prevailing paradigm within the health service is that obesity is a matter of choice. This dominant perspective combined with a disease focused medical model overly simplifies the complex issue of obesity and reinforces the paradigm which treats obesity as a matter of individual responsibility. A focus on individual change hinders health services from playing an effective role in obesity prevention and leads to unintended consequences, including increasing stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Health service responses to obesity and its prevention compound the negative elements associated with obesity for individuals and are ineffective in creating positive change at individual or a societal level. An alternative systems-level approach is needed to align health service responses with contemporary approaches that address obesity prevention as a complex problem.

The how and why of producing policy relevant research: perspectives of Australian childhood obesity prevention researchers and policy makers.

BACKGROUND: Understanding why research is conducted may help address the under-utilisation of research. This study examined the reasons for childhood obesity prevention knowledge production in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and the factors influencing research choices from the perspective of the researchers and health policy agencies contributing to the research. METHODS: A literature search of SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge (affiliation and key word searches) was conducted to compile a database of NSW childhood obesity research outputs, published between 2000 and 2015 (n = 543). Descriptive statistics were used to quantify outputs by research type, differentiating measurement, descriptive, and intervention research, systematic reviews and other publications. Interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers drawn from the database (n = 13) and decision makers from health policy agencies who funded and contributed to childhood obesity research in NSW (n = 15). Researcher interviews examined views about societal impacts, why and under what circumstances the research was conducted. Decision-maker interviews examined policy agency research investment and how research was used in decision making. Content analysis and a thematic approach was used to analyse the interview transcripts. RESULTS: The research in this case was conducted for mix of reasons including those traditionally associated with academic inquiry, as well as intentions to influence policy and practice. Differences in funding mechanisms, administrative and employment arrangements, and 'who' initiated the research, created differing incentives and perspectives for knowledge production. Factors associated with the characteristics and experience of the individuals involved also influenced goals, as did the type of research conducted. Policy agencies played a role in directing research to address policy needs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study confirm that researchers are strongly influenced by their working environment. Funding schemes and other incentives to support policy relevant knowledge production are important. Contextual factors such as policy priorities, policy-driven research funding and the embedded nature or strong connections between some researchers and the policy agencies involved, are likely to have influenced the extent to which policy goals were reported in this study.

A systematic scoping review of the habitual dietary costs in low socioeconomic groups compared to high socioeconomic groups in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Low socioeconomic groups (SEGs) in Australia are less likely to consume diets consistent with the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs) and suffer poorer health than the broader population. The unaffordability, or perceived high cost, of healthy diets may be a factor. Detailed data on the cost of habitually consumed diets is required in order to inform strategies to alleviate socioeconomic impacts on dietary intake. This systematic scoping review aims to identify the cost of the habitual dietary intake of low SEGs in Australia, in terms of the whole diet and its composite foods, in comparison to the cost in higher SEGs. METHODS: A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature since 2000 and key government and non-government organisation (NGO) websites was undertaken. Data were extracted, synthesised and analysed in relation to study populations, dietary cost assessment measures, socioeconomic measures, and dietary cost and affordability. RESULTS: The review identified four studies meeting inclusion criteria. Results confirmed that overall, low SEGs spend a lower amount, yet a higher proportion of household income, on food and drinks than higher SEGs. Quantitative comparison of the dietary costs between included studies was not possible due to difference in populations and study metrics. Costs of the habitual diet in these studies were not reported for ADG food groups, so did not allow for assessment of the healthfulness of the dietary intake or comparison with costs of recommended diets at food group level. CONCLUSIONS: Existing research does not provide sufficiently granular data of the costs of habitual diets of low SEGs in comparison to higher SEGs or data in a form that can inform strategies and interventions to improve dietary intake and diet-related health of low SEGs in Australia. Future empirical health research requires more granular measures of habitual spending on ADG food groups across SEGs.

Applying systems thinking to knowledge mobilisation in public health.

CONTEXT: Knowledge mobilisation (KM) is a vital strategy in efforts to improve public health policy and practice. Linear models describing knowledge transfer and translation have moved towards multi-directional and complexity-attuned approaches where knowledge is produced and becomes meaningful through social processes. There are calls for systems approaches to KM but little guidance on how this can be operationalised. This paper describes the contribution that systems thinking can make to KM and provides guidance about how to put it into action. METHODS: We apply a model of systems thinking (which focuses on leveraging change in complex systems) to eight KM practices empirically identified by others. We describe how these models interact and draw out some key learnings for applying systems thinking practically to KM in public health policy and practice. Examples of empirical studies, tools and targeted strategies are provided. FINDINGS: Systems thinking can enhance and fundamentally transform KM. It upholds a pluralistic view of knowledge as informed by multiple parts of the system and reconstituted through use. Mobilisation is conceived as a situated, non-prescriptive and potentially destabilising practice, no longer conceptualised as a discrete piece of work within wider efforts to strengthen public health but as integral to and in continual dialogue with those efforts. A systems approach to KM relies on contextual understanding, collaborative practices, addressing power imbalances and adaptive learning that responds to changing interactions between mobilisation activities and context. CONCLUSION: Systems thinking offers valuable perspectives, tools and strategies to better understand complex problems in their settings and for strengthening KM practice. We make four suggestions for further developing empirical evidence and debate about how systems thinking can enhance our capacity to mobilise knowledge for solving complex problems - (1) be specific about what is meant by 'systems thinking', (2) describe counterfactual KM scenarios so the added value of systems thinking is clearer, (3) widen conceptualisations of impact when evaluating KM, and (4) use methods that can track how and where knowledge is mobilised in complex systems.

The 2019 report of the MJA-Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: a turbulent year with mixed progress.

The MJA-Lancet Countdown on health and climate change was established in 2017 and produced its first Australian national assessment in 2018. It examined 41 indicators across five broad domains: climate change impacts, exposures and vulnerability; adaptation, planning and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co-benefits; economics and finance; and public and political engagement. It found that, overall, Australia is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change on health, and that policy inaction in this regard threatens Australian lives. In this report we present the 2019 update. We track progress on health and climate change in Australia across the same five broad domains and many of the same indicators as in 2018. A number of new indicators are introduced this year, including one focused on wildfire exposure, and another on engagement in health and climate change in the corporate sector. Several of the previously reported indicators are not included this year, either due to their discontinuation by the parent project, the Lancet Countdown, or because insufficient new data were available for us to meaningfully provide an update to the indicator. In a year marked by an Australian federal election in which climate change featured prominently, we find mixed progress on health and climate change in this country. There has been progress in renewable energy generation, including substantial employment increases in this sector. There has also been some progress at state and local government level. However, there continues to be no engagement on health and climate change in the Australian federal Parliament, and Australia performs poorly across many of the indicators in comparison to other developed countries; for example, it is one of the world's largest net exporters of coal and its electricity generation from low carbon sources is low. We also find significantly increasing exposure of Australians to heatwaves and, in most states and territories, continuing elevated suicide rates at higher temperatures. We conclude that Australia remains at significant risk of declines in health due to climate change, and that substantial and sustained national action is urgently required in order to prevent this.

Obesity prevention and the role of hospital and community-based health services: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Control of obesity is an important priority to reduce the burden of chronic disease. Clinical guidelines focus on the role of primary healthcare in obesity prevention. The purpose of this scoping review is to examine what the published literature indicates about the role of hospital and community based health services in adult obesity prevention in order to map the evidence and identify gaps in existing research. METHODS: Databases were searched for articles published in English between 2006 and 2016 and screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Further papers were highlighted through a manual search of the reference lists. Included papers evaluated interventions aimed at preventing overweight and obesity in adults that were implemented within and/or by hospital and community health services; were an empirical description of obesity prevention within a health setting or reported health staff perceptions of obesity and obesity prevention. RESULTS: The evidence supports screening for obesity of all healthcare patients, combined with referral to appropriate intervention services but indicates that health professionals do not typically adopt this practice. As well as practical issues such as time and resourcing, implementation is impacted by health professionals' views about the causes of obesity and doubts about the benefits of the health sector intervening once someone is already obese. As well as lacking confidence or knowledge about how to integrate prevention into clinical care, health professional judgements about who might benefit from prevention and negative views about effectiveness of prevention hinder the implementation of practice guidelines. This is compounded by an often prevailing view that preventing obesity is a matter of personal responsibility and choice. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights that whilst a population health approach is important to address the complexity of obesity, it is important that the remit of health services is extended beyond medical treatment to incorporate obesity prevention through screening and referral. Further research into the role of health services in obesity prevention should take a systems approach to examine how health service structures, policy and practice interrelationships, and service delivery boundaries, processes and perspectives impact on changing models of care.

Informing implementation of quality improvement in Australian primary care.

BACKGROUND: Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives in primary care are effective at improving uptake of evidence based guidelines, but are difficult to implement and sustain. In Australia meso-level health organisations such as Primary health care Organisations (PHCO) offer new opportunities to implement area-wide QI programs. This study sought to identify enablers and barriers to implementation of an existing Australian QI program and to identify strategic directions that PHCOs can use in the ongoing development of QI in this environment. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 purposively selected program staff and participants from the Australian Primary Care Collaborative (APCC) QI program. Interviewees included seven people involved in design, administration and implementation of the APCC program and eight primary care providers (seven General Practitioners (GPs) and one practice nurse) who had participated in the program from 2004 to 2014. Interviewees were asked to describe their experience of the program and reflect on what enabled or impeded its implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and iteratively analysed, with early analysis informing subsequent interviews. Identified themes and their implications were reviewed by a GP expert reference group. RESULTS: Implementation enablers and barriers were grouped into five thematic areas: (1) leadership, particularly the identification and utilisation of change champions; (2) organisational culture that supports quality improvement; (3) funding incentives that support a culture of quality and innovation; (4) access to and use of accurate data; and 5) design and utilisation of clinical systems that enable and support these issues. In all of these areas, the active involvement of an overarching external support organisation was considered a key ingredient to successful implementation. CONCLUSION: There are substantial opportunities for PHCOs to play a pivotal role in QI implementation in Australia and internationally. In developing QI programs and policies, such organisations ought to invest their efforts in: (1) identifying and mentoring local leaders; (2) fostering QI culture via development of local peer networks; (3) developing and advocating for alternative funding models to support and incentivise these activities; (4) investing in data and audit tool infrastructure; and (5) facilitation of systems implementation within primary care practices.

Decision makers' experience of participatory dynamic simulation modelling: methods for public health policy.

BACKGROUND: Systems science methods such as dynamic simulation modelling are well suited to address questions about public health policy as they consider the complexity, context and dynamic nature of system-wide behaviours. Advances in technology have led to increased accessibility and interest in systems methods to address complex health policy issues. However, the involvement of policy decision makers in health-related simulation model development has been lacking. Where end-users have been included, there has been limited examination of their experience of the participatory modelling process and their views about the utility of the findings. This paper reports the experience of end-user decision makers, including senior public health policy makers and health service providers, who participated in three participatory simulation modelling for health policy case studies (alcohol related harm, childhood obesity prevention, diabetes in pregnancy), and their perceptions of the value and efficacy of this method in an applied health sector context. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with end-user participants from three participatory simulation modelling case studies in Australian real-world policy settings. Interviewees were employees of government agencies with jurisdiction over policy and program decisions and were purposively selected to include perspectives at different stages of model development. RESULTS: The 'co-production' aspect of the participatory approach was highly valued. It was reported as an essential component of building understanding of the modelling process, and thus trust in the model and its outputs as a decision-support tool. The unique benefits of simulation modelling included its capacity to explore interactions of risk factors and combined interventions, and the impact of scaling up interventions. Participants also valued simulating new interventions prior to implementation in the real world, and the comprehensive mapping of evidence and its gaps to prioritise future research. The participatory aspect of simulation modelling was time and resource intensive and therefore most suited to high priority complex topics with contested options for intervening. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the value of a participatory approach to dynamic simulation modelling to support its utility in applied health policy settings.

Does citation matter? Research citation in policy documents as an indicator of research impact - an Australian obesity policy case-study.

BACKGROUND: Citation of research in policy documents has been suggested as an indicator of the potential longer-term impacts of research. We investigated the use of research citations in childhood obesity prevention policy documents from New South Wales (NSW), Australia, considering the feasibility and value of using research citation as a proxy measure of research impact. METHODS: We examined childhood obesity policy documents produced between 2000 and 2015, extracting childhood obesity-related references and coding these according to reference type, geographical origin and type of research. A content analysis of the policy documents examined where and how research was cited in the documents and the context of citation for individual research publications. RESULTS: Over a quarter (28%) of the policy documents (n = 86) were not publicly available, almost two-thirds (63%) contained references, half (47%) cited obesity-related research and over a third (41%) of those containing references used unorthodox referencing styles, making reference extraction laborious. No patterns, in terms of the types of documents more likely to cite research, were observed and the number of obesity research publications cited per document was highly variable. In total, 263 peer-reviewed and 94 non-peer-reviewed obesity research publications were cited. Research was most commonly cited to support a policy argument or choice of solution. However, it was not always possible to determine how or why individual publications were cited or whether the cited research itself had influenced the policy process. Content analysis identified circumstances where research was mentioned or considered, but not directly cited. CONCLUSIONS: Citation of research in policy documents in this case did not always provide evidence that the cited research had influenced the policy process, only that it was accessible and relevant to the content of the policy document. Research citation across these public health policy documents varied greatly and is unlikely to be an accurate reflection of actual research use by the policy agencies involved. The links between citation and impact may be more easily drawn in specific policy areas or types of documents (e.g. clinical guidelines), where research appraisal feeds directly into policy recommendations.

Looking both ways: a review of methods for assessing research impacts on policy and the policy utilisation of research.

BACKGROUND: Measuring the policy and practice impacts of research is becoming increasingly important. Policy impacts can be measured from two directions - tracing forward from research and tracing backwards from a policy outcome. In this review, we compare these approaches and document the characteristics of studies assessing research impacts on policy and the policy utilisation of research. METHODS: Keyword searches of electronic databases were conducted in December 2016. Included studies were published between 1995 and 2016 in English and reported methods and findings of studies measuring policy impacts of specified health research, or research use in relation to a specified health policy outcome, and reviews reporting methods of research impact assessment. Using an iterative data extraction process, we developed a framework to define the key elements of empirical studies (assessment reason, assessment direction, assessment starting point, unit of analysis, assessment methods, assessment endpoint and outcomes assessed) and then documented the characteristics of included empirical studies according to this framework. RESULTS: We identified 144 empirical studies and 19 literature reviews. Empirical studies were derived from two parallel streams of research of equal size, which we termed 'research impact assessments' and 'research use assessments'. Both streams provided insights about the influence of research on policy and utilised similar assessment methods, but approached measurement from opposite directions. Research impact assessments predominantly utilised forward tracing approaches while the converse was true for research use assessments. Within each stream, assessments focussed on narrow or broader research/policy units of analysis as the starting point for assessment, each with associated strengths and limitations. The two streams differed in terms of their relative focus on the contributions made by specific research (research impact assessments) versus research more generally (research use assessments) and the emphasis placed on research and the activities of researchers in comparison to other factors and actors as influencers of change. CONCLUSIONS: The Framework presented in this paper provides a mechanism for comparing studies within this broad field of research enquiry. Forward and backward tracing approaches, and their different ways of 'looking', tell a different story of research-based policy change. Combining approaches may provide the best way forward in terms of linking outcomes to specific research, as well as providing a realistic picture of research influence.

CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.

BACKGROUND: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. DESIGN: Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. RESULTS: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). CONCLUSIONS: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

Knowledge mobilisation for policy development: implementing systems approaches through participatory dynamic simulation modelling.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based decision-making is an important foundation for health policy and service planning decisions, yet there remain challenges in ensuring that the many forms of available evidence are considered when decisions are being made. Mobilising knowledge for policy and practice is an emergent process, and one that is highly relational, often messy and profoundly context dependent. Systems approaches, such as dynamic simulation modelling can be used to examine both complex health issues and the context in which they are embedded, and to develop decision support tools. OBJECTIVE: This paper reports on the novel use of participatory simulation modelling as a knowledge mobilisation tool in Australian real-world policy settings. We describe how this approach combined systems science methodology and some of the core elements of knowledge mobilisation best practice. We describe the strategies adopted in three case studies to address both technical and socio-political issues, and compile the experiential lessons derived. Finally, we consider the implications of these knowledge mobilisation case studies and provide evidence for the feasibility of this approach in policy development settings. CONCLUSION: Participatory dynamic simulation modelling builds on contemporary knowledge mobilisation approaches for health stakeholders to collaborate and explore policy and health service scenarios for priority public health topics. The participatory methods place the decision-maker at the centre of the process and embed deliberative methods and co-production of knowledge. The simulation models function as health policy and programme dynamic decision support tools that integrate diverse forms of evidence, including research evidence, expert knowledge and localised contextual information. Further research is underway to determine the impact of these methods on health service decision-making.

How Often Do Patients with Localized Melanoma Attend Follow-Up at a Specialist Center?

BACKGROUND: Post-treatment follow-up for patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I/II melanoma is believed to be important for early detection of disease recurrence and new primary melanomas, but comes with costs to both patients and healthcare providers. We aimed to determine how frequently a cohort of patients attended follow-up after surgical treatment at one Specialist Center. METHODS: We used prospectively collected data from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) for patients with AJCC stage I/II melanoma diagnosed between January 2008 and December 2011. The distribution of the number of recorded follow-up visits per patient was analyzed and compared with the number of follow-up visits recommended in the 2008 Australian and New Zealand Melanoma Management Guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 3813 patients with stage I/II melanoma were identified. During the first year of follow-up post-surgery, 34 % of stage I patients and 14 % of stage II patients had the number of follow-up visits recommended in the guidelines. A large proportion of melanoma patients did not appear to be routinely followed up at MIA, with 43.2 % of stage I patients and 28.7 % of stage II patients having either no visit or only one visit post-surgery. During all years of follow-up, 13.2 % of stage I patients and 4.1 % of stage II patients had the number of follow-up visits at the specialist center as recommended in the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The large proportion of patients who had fewer follow-up visits than expected suggests (i) many patients are followed up in clinics elsewhere, and/or (ii) post-surgical surveillance is less frequent in practice.

Framing overdiagnosis in breast screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify how the topic of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is framed by experts and to clarify differences and similarities within these frames in terms of problems, causes, values and solutions. METHODS: We used a qualitative methodology using interviews with breast screening experts across Australia and applying framing theory to map and analyse their views about overdiagnosis. We interviewed 33 breast screening experts who influence the public and/or policy makers via one or more of: public or academic commentary; senior service management; government advisory bodies; professional committees; non-government/consumer organisations. Experts were currently or previously working in breast screening in a variety of roles including clinical practice, research, service provision and policy, consumer representation and advocacy. RESULTS: Each expert used one or more of six frames to conceptualise overdiagnosis in breast screening. Frames are described as: Overdiagnosis is harming women; Stop squabbling in public; Don't hide the problem from women; We need to know the overdiagnosis rate; Balancing harms and benefits is a personal matter; and The problem is overtreatment. Each frame contains a different but internally coherent account of what the problem is, the causes and solutions, and a moral evaluation. Some of the frames are at least partly commensurable with each other; others are strongly incommensurable. CONCLUSIONS: Experts have very different ways of framing overdiagnosis in breast screening. This variation may contribute to the ongoing controversy in this topic. The concept of experts using different frames when thinking and talking about overdiagnosis might be a useful tool for those who are trying to negotiate the complexity of expert disagreement in order to participate in decisions about screening.