Towards a health promoting university: descriptive findings on health, wellbeing and academic performance amongst university students in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Universities are increasingly recognised as institutions where health and wellbeing can be promoted to maximise academic outcomes, career transitions, and lifelong positive health behaviours. There is concern about the mental health of university students and other factors which affect academic outcomes particularly for subgroups such as international students. There are few cohort studies of the breadth of issues that can impact on mental health and academic outcomes for both local and international students. We conducted a baseline prevalence survey of students at a large Australian university covering health, academic, and social determinants of wellbeing. The purpose was to inform the university's new student health and wellbeing framework with a view to follow-up to determine predictors of mental ill-health and academic outcomes in the subsequent year. In this paper we present the baseline prevalence data and report on selected mental health and health care access issues for local and international students. METHODS: The entire university population as of April 2019 of over 56,375 students aged 18 or above were invited to complete the online survey. Questions explored eight domains: demographic characteristics, general health and wellbeing, mental health, risk taking behaviours, psychosocial stressors, learning and academic factors, social and cultural environment, and awareness of and access to health and wellbeing services. Records of academic results were also accessed and matched with survey data for a large subset of students providing consent. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand eight hundred eighty (26.4%) students commenced our survey and were representative of the entire student population on demographic characteristics. Three quarters were aged between 18 to 25 years and one third were international students. Eighty-five percent consented to access of their academic records. Similar proportions of local and international students experienced symptoms of a depression or anxiety disorder, however international students were less aware of and less likely to access available health services both inside and external to the university. We also reported on the prevalence of: general lifestyle factors (diet, exercise, amount of daily sleep); risk-taking behaviours (including alcohol, tobacco and other drug use; unprotected sexual activity); psychosocial stressors (financial, intimate partner violence, discrimination, academic stressors, acculturative stress); subjects failed; resilience; social supports; social media use; and health services accessed online. CONCLUSIONS: This rigorous and comprehensive examination of the health status of local and international students in an Australian university student population establishes the prevalence of mental health issues and other psychosocial determinants of health and wellbeing, along with academic performance. This study will inform a university-wide student wellbeing framework to guide health and wellbeing promotion and is a baseline for a 12-month follow-up of the cohort in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Screening for Adverse Childhood Experiences in Children: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with increased risk of poor mental health outcomes. Although there is interest in screening for ACEs for early identification and intervention, it is not known whether screening improves outcomes for children. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review whether screening for ACEs in children leads to an increase in (1) identification of ACEs, (2) referrals to services, (3) increased uptake of services, and (4) improved mental health outcomes for children and parents. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Center for Clinical and Translational Research electronic databases were searched between 2009 and 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if researchers screened for current ACEs in children aged 0 to 12 years and they had a control comparison. DATA EXTRACTION: Information was extracted, including study characteristics, sample demographics, screening tool characteristics, referral rates to services, uptake rates, and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 5816 articles were screened, with 4 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Screening for ACEs increases identification of adversity and may increase referrals to services. There are limited data about whether this leads to an increase in referral uptake by families. There are no reported data addressing mental health outcomes. LIMITATIONS: There are few published control trials of moderate quality. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that screening for ACEs improves identification of childhood adversity and may improve referrals. If we are to realize the hypothesized benefits of ACEs screening on child and parent mental health, it is essential to understand the barriers for families taking up referrals.

School-Level Variation in Coverage of Co-Administered dTpa and HPV Dose 1 in Three Australian States.

BACKGROUND: Australian adolescents are routinely offered HPV and dTpa (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) vaccines simultaneously in the secondary school vaccination program. We identified schools where HPV initiation was lower than dTpa coverage and associated school-level factors across three states. METHODS: HPV vaccination initiation rates and dTpa vaccination coverage in 2016 were calculated using vaccine databases and school enrolment data. A multivariate analysis assessed sociodemographic and school-level factors associated with HPV initiation being >5% absolute lower than dTpa coverage. RESULTS: Of 1280 schools included, the median school-level HPV initiation rate was 85% (interquartile range (IQR):75-90%) and the median dTpa coverage was 86% (IQR:75-92%). Nearly a quarter (24%) of all schools had HPV vaccination initiation >5% lower than dTpa coverage and 11 % had >10% difference. School-level factors independently associated with >5% difference were remote schools (aOR:3.5, 95% CI = 1.7-7.2) and schools in major cities (aOR:1.8, 95% CI = 1.0-3.0), small schools (aOR:3.3, 95% CI = 2.3-5.7), higher socioeconomic advantage (aOR:1.7, 95% CI = 1.1-2.6), and lower proportions of Language-background-other-than-English (aOR:1.9, 95% CI = 1.2-3.0). CONCLUSION: The results identified a quarter of schools had lower HPV than dTpa initiation coverage, which may indicate HPV vaccine hesitancy, and the difference was more likely in socioeconomically advantaged schools. As hesitancy is context specific, it is important to understand the potential drivers of hesitancy and future research needs to understand the reasons driving differential uptake.

Parental preferences for paediatric specialty follow-up care.

Objective The aim of the present study was to examine factors associated with: (1) parental preference to receive follow-up care for their child from a general practitioner (GP); and (2) a decision to seek treatment when there is a slight worsening of their child's condition. Methods Parents presenting with their child at any one of five paediatric out-patient clinics at two public hospitals in Melbourne (Vic., Australia) were surveyed. We performed frequency distributions, bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression to evaluate associations with the preference for a GP for follow-up care and treatment in case of a slight worsening. Results In all, 606 parents were recruited to the study, 283 being new presentations and 323 presenting for review. GPs were selected as the preference for follow-up care by 23% (n=142) of respondents, and 26% (n=160) reported they would seek treatment from a GP if the condition of their child were to worsen slightly. There was an increased likelihood to prefer a GP for follow-up care for new patients (odds ratio (OR) 3.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.99-4.83), those attending general paediatrics clinic (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.11-2.70), and parents with a lower level of education (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.09-2.78). For review patients, if during the previous visit a paediatrician suggested follow-up with a GP, parents were more likely to prefer a GP as a follow-up provider (OR 6.70; 95% CI 3.42-13.10) and to seek treatment from a GP in case of a slight worsening (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.03-3.37). Conclusion Most parents attending paediatric out-patient appointments prefer to return for follow-up care; however, a paediatrician's advice may have an important role in return of paediatric patients to primary care. What is known about the topic? In Australia, there has been a growing concern regarding long waiting times for specialist consultations in out-patient clinics and difficulties with access for new patients. This has occurred when the ratio of review attendees to new patients has tipped towards the review attendees. What does this paper add? Most parents of children attending paediatric out-patient clinics value follow-up care with paediatric specialists, even if the referring GP requested a return to their surgery. The advice of the consulting paediatrician in support of follow-up care with a GP contributes significantly to the willingness of parents to return to primary care and to seek treatment from their GP for a slight worsening of their child's condition. What are the implications for practitioners? The findings of the present study have significant implications for the discharge of patients from speciality care: paediatricians can have an important role in the return of paediatric patients to primary care.

Road safety risks in young people attending general practice: A cross-sectional study of road risks and associated health risks.

BACKGROUND: Young people have a large burden of death and disease from risky road behaviours. Guidelines recommend injury prevention and harm minimisation counselling; however, little is known about road risks in youth attending primary care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the type of road risks and associated behaviours in young people attending general practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was undertaken on health risk survey data from a sample of 901 patients, aged 14-24 years, attending 40 Victorian general practices in a stratified cluster randomised trial. RESULTS: Frequently occurring road risks included travelling with people under the influence of alcohol or drugs (55%), speeding (43%) and mobile phone use (40%). These behaviours were strongly associated with other health risks, including use of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs, and unprotected sex. DISCUSSION: High proportions of youth attending general practice engage in road risks, making this a potential setting to discuss road risks along with broader health risk prevention activities.

Does screening for and intervening with multiple health compromising behaviours and mental health disorders amongst young people attending primary care improve health outcomes? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Adolescence and young adulthood are important developmental periods. Screening for health compromising behaviours and mental health disorders during routine primary care visits has the potential to assist clinicians to identify areas of concern and provide appropriate interventions. The objective of this systematic review is to investigate whether screening and subsequent interventions for multiple health compromising behaviours and mental health disorders in primary care settings improves the health outcomes of young people. METHODS: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, literature searches were conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases (Prospero registration number CRD42013005828) using search terms representing four thematic concepts: primary care, young people, screening, and mental health and health compromising behaviour. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to: include a measure of health outcome; include at least 75 % of participants aged under 25 years; use a screening tool that assessed more than one health domain; and be conducted within a primary care setting. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Rating Scale. RESULTS: From 5051 articles identified, nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were reviewed: two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one pilot RCT, two clustered RCTs, one randomised study with multiple intervention groups and no control group, one cluster RCT with two active arms, one longitudinal study and one pre-post study. Seven studies, including two RCTs and one clustered RCT, found positive changes in substance use, diet, sexual health or risky sexual behaviour, alcohol-related risky behaviour, social stress, stress management, helmet use, sleep and exercise. Of only two studies reporting on harms, one reported a negative health outcome of increased alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that the use of screening and intervention with young people for mental health disorder or health compromising behaviours in clinical settings improves health outcomes. Along with other evidence that young people value discussions of health risks with their providers, these discussions should be part of the routine primary care of young people. Further quality studies are needed to strengthen this evidence.

Why do men go to the doctor? Socio-demographic and lifestyle factors associated with healthcare utilisation among a cohort of Australian men.

BACKGROUND: Men use health services less often than women and frequently delay seeking help even if experiencing serious health problems. This may put men at higher risk for developing serious health problems which, in part, may explain men's higher rates of some serious illnesses and shorter life span relative to women. This paper identifies factors that contribute to health care utilisation in a cohort of Australian men by exploring associations between socio-economic, health and lifestyle factors and the use of general practitioner (GP) services. METHODS: We used data from Ten to Men, the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health. Health care utilisation was defined in two ways: at least one GP visit in the past 12 months and having at least yearly health check-ups with a doctor. Associations between these two measures and a range of contextual socio demographic factors (education, location, marital status, country of birth, employment, financial problems etc.) as well as individual health and lifestyle factors (self-rated health, smoking, drinking, healthy weight, pain medication) were examined using logistic regression analysis. The sample included 13,763 adult men aged 18 to 55 years. Analysis was stratified by age (18 to 34 year versus 35 to 55 years). RESULTS: Overall, 81 % (95 % CI: 80.3-81.6) of men saw a GP for consultation in the 12 months prior to the study. The odds of visiting a GP increased with increasing age (p < 0.01), but decreased with increasing remoteness of residence (p < 0.01). Older men, smokers and those who rate their health as excellent were less likely to visit a GP in the last 12 months, but those on daily pain medication or with co-morbidities were more likely to have visited a GP. However, these factors were not associated with consulting a GP in the last 12 months among young men. Overall, 39 % (95 % CI: 38.3-39.9) reported having an annual health check. The odds of having an annual health check increased with increasing age (p < 0.01), but showed no association with area of residence (p = 0.60). Across both age groups, the odds of a regular health check increased with obesity and daily pain medication, but decreased with harmful levels of alcohol consumption. CONCLUSION: The majority of men (61 %) did not engage in regular health check-up visits, representing a missed opportunity for preventative health care discussions. Lower consultation rates may translate into lost opportunities to detect and intervene with problems early and this is where men may be missing out compared to women.

Health and lifestyle factors associated with sexual difficulties in men - results from a study of Australian men aged 18 to 55 years.

BACKGROUND: Sexual difficulties (SD) are common among men of all ages and can have considerable impact on quality of life and indications for future health. SD are associated with mental and physical wellbeing and with relationship satisfaction, yet they are rarely discussed with medical professionals who are often ill equipped to assess and manage them. This paper provides an updated overview on the status of SD in Australian men from 18 to 55 years of age and will form a baseline comparison for future analyses of SD based on Ten to Men data. METHODS: We used data from Ten to Men, the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health. SD was measured using eight items capturing specific sexual difficulties. We examined associations of a range of health and lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, illicit drug use, obesity and new sexual partners, self-rated health status, disability, pain medication, diagnosed physical and mental health conditions) with each SD using logistic regression. The sample included 12,636 adult males who had previously been sexually active. Analysis was stratified by age (18-34 years versus 35-55 years). RESULTS: This paper shows that experiencing SD is relatively common among Australian men - overall half the sample (54 %; 95 % CI: 0.53-0.55) experienced at least one SD for more than 3 months over the past 12 months. While more common in older men aged 45 to 55 years, almost half the 18 to 24 year old men (48 %) also reported at least one SD highlighting that SD affects men of all ages. We found that SDs were associated with both lifestyle and health factors, although the strongest associations were observed for health factors in both age groups, in particular poor self-rated health, having a disability and at least one mental health condition. Lifestyle factors associated with SDs in men of all ages included smoking, harmful alcohol consumption and drug use in the past 12 months. Obesity was only associated with an increased rate of SD in men aged 35 to 55 years. CONCLUSION: Sexual difficulties are common among men of all ages and increasingly more prevalent as men grow older. They are strongly associated with both health and lifestyle factors. With previous literature showing that SDs can be a precursor of an underlying or developing physical and mental health condition, it is imperative that sexual health and sexual functioning is discussed with a doctor as part of a standard health check and across the lifespan.

Responding to Young People's Health Risks in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Training Clinicians in Screening and Motivational Interviewing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention implementing best practice guidelines recommending clinicians screen and counsel young people across multiple psychosocial risk factors, on clinicians' detection of health risks and patients' risk taking behaviour, compared to a didactic seminar on young people's health. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial where volunteer general practices were stratified by postcode advantage or disadvantage score and billing type (private, free national health, community health centre), then randomised into either intervention or comparison arms using a computer generated random sequence. Three months post-intervention, patients were recruited from all practices post-consultation for a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview and followed up three and 12 months later. Researchers recruiting, consenting and interviewing patients and patients themselves were masked to allocation status; clinicians were not. SETTING: General practices in metropolitan and rural Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: General practices with at least one interested clinician (general practitioner or nurse) and their 14-24 year old patients. INTERVENTION: This complex intervention was designed using evidence based practice in learning and change in clinician behaviour and general practice systems, and included best practice approaches to motivating change in adolescent risk taking behaviours. The intervention involved training clinicians (nine hours) in health risk screening, use of a screening tool and motivational interviewing; training all practice staff (receptionists and clinicians) in engaging youth; provision of feedback to clinicians of patients' risk data; and two practice visits to support new screening and referral resources. Comparison clinicians received one didactic educational seminar (three hours) on engaging youth and health risk screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were patient report of (1) clinician detection of at least one of six health risk behaviours (tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use, risks for sexually transmitted infection, STI, unplanned pregnancy, and road risks); and (2) change in one or more of the six health risk behaviours, at three months or at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were likelihood of future visits, trust in the clinician after exit interview, clinician detection of emotional distress and fear and abuse in relationships, and emotional distress at three and 12 months. Patient acceptability of the screening tool was also described for the intervention arm. Analyses were adjusted for practice location and billing type, patients' sex, age, and recruitment method, and past health risks, where appropriate. An intention to treat analysis approach was used, which included multilevel multiple imputation for missing outcome data. RESULTS: 42 practices were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison arms. Two intervention practices withdrew post allocation, prior to training, leaving 19 intervention (53 clinicians, 377 patients) and 21 comparison (79 clinicians, 524 patients) practices. 69% of patients in both intervention (260) and comparison (360) arms completed the 12 month follow-up. Intervention clinicians discussed more health risks per patient (59.7%) than comparison clinicians (52.7%) and thus were more likely to detect a higher proportion of young people with at least one of the six health risk behaviours (38.4% vs 26.7%, risk difference [RD] 11.6%, Confidence Interval [CI] 2.93% to 20.3%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.7, CI 1.1 to 2.5). Patients reported less illicit drug use (RD -6.0, CI -11 to -1.2; OR 0.52, CI 0.28 to 0.96), and less risk for STI (RD -5.4, CI -11 to 0.2; OR 0.66, CI 0.46 to 0.96) at three months in the intervention relative to the comparison arm, and for unplanned pregnancy at 12 months (RD -4.4; CI -8.7 to -0.1; OR 0.40, CI 0.20 to 0.80). No differences were detected between arms on other health risks. There were no differences on secondary outcomes, apart from a greater detection of abuse (OR 13.8, CI 1.71 to 111). There were no reports of harmful events and intervention arm youth had high acceptance of the screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: A complex intervention, compared to a simple educational seminar for practices, improved detection of health risk behaviours in young people. Impact on health outcomes was inconclusive. Technology enabling more efficient, systematic health-risk screening may allow providers to target counselling toward higher risk individuals. Further trials require more power to confirm health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN16059206.

Primary care and youth mental health in Ireland: qualitative study in deprived urban areas.

BACKGROUND: Mental disorders account for six of the 20 leading causes of disability worldwide with a very high prevalence of psychiatric morbidity in youth aged 15-24 years. However, healthcare professionals are faced with many challenges in the identification and treatment of mental and substance use disorders in young people (e.g. young people's unwillingness to seek help from healthcare professionals, lack of training, limited resources etc.) The challenge of youth mental health for primary care is especially evident in urban deprived areas, where rates of and risk factors for mental health problems are especially common. There is an emerging consensus that primary care is well placed to address mental and substance use disorders in young people especially in deprived urban areas. This study aims to describe healthcare professionals' experience and attitudes towards screening and early intervention for mental and substance use disorders among young people (16-25 years) in primary care in deprived urban settings in Ireland. METHODS: The chosen method for this qualitative study was inductive thematic analysis which involved semi-structured interviews with 37 healthcare professionals from primary care, secondary care and community agencies at two deprived urban centres. RESULTS: We identified three themes in respect of interventions to increase screening and treatment: (1) Identification is optimised by a range of strategies, including raising awareness, training, more systematic and formalised assessment, and youth-friendly practices (e.g. communication skills, ensuring confidentiality); (2) Treatment is enhanced by closer inter-agency collaboration and training for all healthcare professionals working in primary care; (3) Ongoing engagement is enhanced by motivational work with young people, setting achievable treatment goals, supporting transition between child and adult mental health services and recognising primary care's longitudinal nature as a key asset in promoting treatment engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Especially in deprived areas, primary care is central to early intervention for youth mental health. Identification, treatment and continuing engagement are likely to be enhanced by a range of strategies with young people, healthcare professionals and systems. Further research on youth mental health and primary care, including qualitative accounts of young people's experience and developing complex interventions that promote early intervention are priorities.

A mobile phone application for the assessment and management of youth mental health problems in primary care: health service outcomes from a randomised controlled trial of mobiletype.

BACKGROUND: GPs detect at best 50c of mental health problems in young people. Barriers to detecting mental health problems include lack of screening tools, limited appointment times and young people's reluctance to report mental health symptoms to GPs. The mobiletype program is a mobile phone mental health assessment and management application which monitors mood, stress and everyday activities then transmits this information to general practitioners (GPs) via a secure website in summary format for medical review. The current aims were to examine: (i) mobiletype as a clinical assistance tool, ii) doctor-patient rapport and, iii) pathways to care. METHODS: We conducted a randomised controlled trial in primary care with patients aged 14 to 24 years recruited from rural and metropolitan general practices. GPs identified and referred eligible participants (those with mild or more mental health concerns) who were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (where mood, stress and daily activities were monitored) or the attention-comparison group (where only daily activities were monitored). Both groups self-monitored for 2 to 4 weeks and reviewed the monitoring data with their GP. GPs, participants and researchers were blind to group allocation at randomisation. GPs assessed the mobiletype program as a clinical assistant tool. Doctor-patient rapport was assessed using the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire Communication and Enablement subscales, and the Trust in Physician Scale (TPS). Pathways to care was measured using The Party Project's Exit Interview. RESULTS: Of the 163 participants assessed for eligibility, 118 were randomised and 114 participants were included in analyses (intervention n = 68, attention-comparison n = 46). T-tests showed that the intervention program increased understanding of patient mental health, assisted in decisions about medication/referral and helped in diagnosis when compared to the attention-comparison program. Mixed model analysis showed no differences in GP-patient rapport nor in pathways to care. CONCLUSIONS: We conducted the first RCT of a mobile phone application in the mental health assessment and management of youth mental health in primary care. This study suggests that mobiletype has much to offer GPs in the often difficult and time-consuming task of assessment and management of youth mental health problems in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00794222.

The prevention access and risk taking in young people (PARTY) project protocol: a cluster randomised controlled trial of health risk screening and motivational interviewing for young people presenting to general practice.

BACKGROUND: There are growing worldwide concerns about the ability of primary health care systems to manage the major burden of illness in young people. Over two thirds of premature adult deaths result from risks that manifest in adolescence, including injury, neuropsychiatric problems and consequences of risky behaviours. One policy response is to better reorientate primary health services towards prevention and early intervention. Currently, however, there is insufficient evidence to support this recommendation for young people. This paper describes the design and implementation of a trial testing an intervention to promote psychosocial risk screening of all young people attending general practice and to respond to identified risks using motivational interviewing. MAIN OUTCOMES: clinicians' detection of risk-taking and emotional distress, young people's intention to change and reduction of risk taking. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: pathways to care, trust in the clinician and likelihood of returning for future visits. The design of the economic and process evaluation are not detailed in this protocol. METHODS: PARTY is a cluster randomised trial recruiting 42 general practices in Victoria, Australia. Baseline measures include: youth friendly practice characteristics; practice staff's self-perceived competency in young people's care and clinicians' detection and response to risk taking behaviours and emotional distress in 14-24 year olds, attending the practice. Practices are then stratified by a social disadvantage index and billing methods and randomised. Intervention practices receive: nine hours of training and tools; feedback of their baseline data and two practice visits over six weeks. Comparison practices receive a three hour seminar in youth friendly practice only. Six weeks post-intervention, 30 consecutive young people are interviewed post-consultation from each practice and followed-up for self-reported risk taking behaviour and emotional distress three and 12 months post consultation. DISCUSSION: The PARTY trial is the first to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of a psychosocial risk screening and counselling intervention for young people attending primary care. It will provide important data on health risk profiles of young people attending general practice and on the effects of the intervention on engagement with primary care and health outcomes over 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16059206.

Detecting emotional disorder in young people in primary care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Screening young people for emotional disorder in primary care has seemed sensible given most attend annually and most mental disorder is undetected. Yet evidence supporting screening has been scant. This review considers recent progress around conceptual frameworks, epidemiological findings, accuracy of available instruments and evidence for effectiveness of screening in reducing the burden of emotional disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite better evidence about the accuracy of screens in identifying adolescent depression and possible benefits of early intervention with current treatments, demonstration of improved health outcomes and cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Even when screening detects mental disorder other factors such as readiness for care and availability of effective treatments may affect responses. Best results are obtained when screening is linked to collaborative models of care. Evidence around harms from screening is scant but debate exists over potential harms of false-positives such as stigma and increased strain on healthcare resources. SUMMARY: There is growing consensus that, if screening for emotional disorder is to be effective in primary care, facilitated access of identified young people to effective treatment options is necessary. Further research is required to demonstrate that routine screening will improve mental health outcomes and be cost-effective.

Incentive payments to general practitioners aimed at increasing opportunistic testing of young women for chlamydia: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentives have been used for many years internationally to improve quality of care in general practice. The aim of this pilot study was to determine if offering general practitioners (GP) a small incentive payment per test would increase chlamydia testing in women aged 16 to 24 years, attending general practice. METHODS: General practice clinics (n = 12) across Victoria, Australia, were cluster randomized to receive either a $AUD5 payment per chlamydia test or no payment for testing 16 to 24 year old women for chlamydia. Data were collected on the number of chlamydia tests and patient consultations undertaken by each GP over two time periods: 12 month pre-trial and 6 month trial period. The impact of the intervention was assessed using a mixed effects logistic regression model, accommodating for clustering at GP level. RESULTS: Testing increased from 6.2% (95% CI: 4.2, 8.4) to 8.8% (95% CI: 4.8, 13.0) (p = 0.1) in the control group and from 11.5% (95% CI: 4.6, 18.5) to 13.4% (95% CI: 9.5, 17.5) (p = 0.4) in the intervention group. Overall, the intervention did not result in a significant increase in chlamydia testing in general practice. The odds ratio for an increase in testing in the intervention group compared to the control group was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6, 1.2). Major barriers to increased chlamydia testing reported by GPs included a lack of time, difficulty in remembering to offer testing and a lack of patient awareness around testing. CONCLUSIONS: A small financial incentive alone did not increase chlamydia testing among young women attending general practice. It is possible small incentive payments in conjunction with reminder and feedback systems may be effective, as may higher financial incentive payments. Further research is required to determine if financial incentives can increase testing in Australian general practice, the type and level of financial scheme required and whether incentives needs to be part of a multi-faceted package. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12608000499381.

The experience of providing young people attending general practice with an online risk assessment tool to assess their own sexual health risk.

BACKGROUND: Targeted chlamydia screening has been advocated to reduce chlamydia associated reproductive sequelae. General practitioners are well positioned to play a major role in chlamydia control. The primary aim of this pilot study was to measure the effect of offering an online sexual health assessment tool, Youth Check Your Risk, on chlamydia testing rates among young people attending general practices. The secondary aim was to test the acceptability of the tool among general practitioners and young people. METHODS: General practitioners at three practices in Melbourne, Australia, referred patients aged 16 to 24 years to Youth Check Your Risk http://www.checkyourrisk.org.au for use post-consultation between March to October 2007. The proportion of young people tested for chlamydia before and during the implementation of the tool was compared. Acceptability was assessed through a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire with general practitioners, and anonymous online data provided by Youth Check Your Risk users. RESULTS: The intervention did not result in any significant increases in the proportion of 16 to 24 year old males (2.7% to 3.0%) or females (6.3% to 6.4%) tested for chlamydia. A small increase in the proportion of 16 to 19 year old females tested was seen (4.1% to 7.2%). Of the 2997 patients seen during the intervention phase, 871 (29.1%) were referred to Youth Check Your Risk and 120 used it (13.8%). Major reasons for low referral rates reported by practitioners included lack of time, discomfort with raising the issue of testing, and difficulty in remembering to refer patients. CONCLUSION: Offering an online sexual risk assessment tool in general practice did not significantly increase the proportion of young people tested for chlamydia, with GPs identifying a number of barriers to referring young people to Youth Check Your Risk. Future interventions aimed at increasing chlamydia screening in general practice with the aid of an online risk assessment tool need to identify and overcome barriers to testing.

Screening for chlamydia trachomatis: barriers for homeless young people.

OBJECTIVE: The study explored homeless young people's knowledge and attitudes of Chlamydia trachomatis (Chlamydia) and its screening. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews using focus groups. SETTING: An inner city clinic for homeless young people. SUBJECTS: Homeless young people aged 16 -26 years. OUTCOMES: Perceptions of Chlamydia and its screening. RESULTS: 19 males and 6 females aged 16-26 years participated. Content analysis confirmed a lack of knowledge, prior education and misinformation about Chlamydia and barriers to being screened. Ideas for informing young people about Chlamydia included advertising on billboards, in free newspapers, and improved school sex education programs. CONCLUSIONS: Homeless young people have poor knowledge of Chlamydia and its screening and barriers to the screening process. Culturally-specific education and health promotion programs and services are needed.