Australian researcher's perspectives on the Australian industry-led moratorium on genetic tests in life insurance.

Fear of insurance discrimination can inhibit genetic research participation. In 2019, an industry-led partial moratorium on using genetic results in Australian life insurance underwriting was introduced. This mixed-methods study used online surveys (n = 59 participants) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22 participants) to capture researchers' perceptions about the moratorium. 66% (n = 39/59) were aware of the moratorium before the survey. Of researchers returning genetic results, 56% (n = 22/39) reported that insurance implications were mentioned in consent forms, but a minority reported updating consent forms post-moratorium (n = 13/39, 33%). Most researchers reported that concerns regarding life insurers utilizing research results inhibited recruitment (35/59, 59%), and few perceived that the moratorium positively influenced participation (n = 9/39, 23%). These findings were supported by qualitative findings which revealed that genetic discrimination concerns were a major issue for some individuals, though these concerns could be eclipsed by the promise of a diagnosis through research participation. The majority thought a regulatory solution should be permanent (n = 34/51, 67%), have financial limits of at least ≥1,000,000 AUD (37/51, 73%), and involve government oversight/legislation (n = 44/51, 86%). In an era where an increasing number of research studies involve genomics as a primary or secondary objective, it is crucial that we have regulatory solutions to address participants' hesitation.

Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants.

INTRODUCTION: In Australia, opportunistic screening (occurring as skin checks) for the early detection of melanoma is common, and overdiagnosis is a recognised concern. Risk-tailored cancer screening is an approach to cancer control that aims to provide personalised screening tailored to individual risk. This study aimed to explore the views of key informants in Australia on the acceptability and appropriateness of risk-tailored organised screening for melanoma, and to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to inform potential future implementation. Acceptability and appropriateness are crucial, as successful implementation will require a change of practice for clinicians and consumers. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Key informants were purposively selected to ensure expertise in melanoma early detection and screening, prioritising senior or executive perspectives. Consumers were expert representatives. Data were analysed deductively using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-six participants were interviewed (10 policy makers; 9 consumers; 10 health professionals; 7 researchers). Key informants perceived risk-tailored screening for melanoma to be acceptable and appropriate in principle. Barriers to implementation included lack of trial data, reluctance for low-risk groups to not screen, variable skill level in general practice, differing views on who to conduct screening tests, confusing public health messaging, and competing health costs. Key facilitators included the perceived opportunity to improve health equity and the potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening approach. A range of implementation strategies were identified including strengthening the evidence for cost-effectiveness, engaging stakeholders, developing pathways for people at low risk, evaluating different risk assessment criteria and screening delivery models and targeted public messaging. CONCLUSION: Key informants were supportive in principle of risk-tailored melanoma screening, highlighting important next steps. Considerations around risk assessment, policy and modelling the costs of current verses future approaches will help inform possible future implementation of risk-tailored population screening for melanoma.

Financial Advisers' and Key Informants' Perspectives on the Australian Industry-Led Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance.

INTRODUCTION: Genetic discrimination (GD) in the context of life insurance is a perennial concern in Australia and internationally. To address such concerns in Australia, an industry self-regulated Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance was introduced in 2019 to restrict life insurers from using genetic test results in underwriting for policies under certain limits. Financial advisers (FAs) are sometimes engaged by clients to provide financial advice and assist them to apply for life insurance. They are therefore well-placed to comment on GD and the operation of the Moratorium. Despite this, the financial advising sector in Australia has yet to be studied empirically with regards to GD and the Moratorium. This study aims to capture this perspective by reporting on interviews with the financial advising sector. METHODS: Ten semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with FAs and key informants and were analysed using thematic analysis. CONCLUSION(S): Participants' level of awareness and understanding of the Moratorium varied. Participants reported mixed views on the Moratorium's effectiveness, how it operates in practice, and perceived industry compliance. Participants also provided reflections on Australia's current approach to regulating GD, with most participants supporting the concept of industry self-regulation but identifying a need for this to be supplemented with external oversight and meaningful recourse mechanisms for consumers. Our results suggest that there is scope to increase FAs' awareness of GD, and that further research, consultation, and policy consideration are required to identify an optimal regulatory response to GD in Australia.

Health professionals' views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: A qualitative study.

Australian life insurance companies can legally use genetic test results in underwriting, which can lead to genetic discrimination. In 2019, the Financial Services Council (Australian life insurance industry governing body) introduced a partial moratorium restricting the use of genetic testing in underwriting policies ≤ $500,000 (active 2019-2024). Health professionals (HPs), especially clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, often discuss the implications of genetic testing with patients, and provide critical insights into the effectiveness of the moratorium. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, we interviewed 23 Australian HPs, who regularly discuss genetic testing with patients and had previously completed an online survey about genetic testing and life insurance. Interviews explored views and experiences about the moratorium, and regulation, in greater depth. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Two key themes emerged from views expressed by HPs during interviews (about matters reported to or observed by them): 1) benefits of the moratorium, and 2) concerns about the moratorium. While HPs reported that the moratorium reassures some consumers, concerns include industry self-regulation, uncertainty created by the temporary time period, and the inadequacy of the moratorium's financial limits for patients' financial needs. Although a minority of HPs felt the current industry self-regulated moratorium is an adequate solution to genetic discrimination, the vast majority (19/23) expressed concern with industry self-regulation and most felt government regulation is required to adequately protect consumers. HPs in Australia are concerned about the adequacy of the FSC moratorium with regards to consumer protections, and suggest government regulation is required.

Understanding the barriers to, and facilitators of, ovarian toxicity assessment in breast cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Detailed toxicity data are routinely collected in breast cancer (BC) clinical trials. However, ovarian toxicity is infrequently assessed, despite the adverse impacts on fertility and long-term health from treatment-induced ovarian insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To determine the barriers to and facilitators of ovarian toxicity assessment in BC trials of anti-cancer drugs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected stakeholders from multiple countries involved in BC clinical trials (clinicians, consumers, pharmaceutical company representatives, members of drug-regulatory agencies). Participants were asked to describe the perceived benefits and barriers to evaluating ovarian toxicity. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded in NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Saturation of the main themes was reached and the final sample size included 25 participants from 14 countries (9 clinicians, 7 consumers, 5 members of regulatory agencies, 4 pharmaceutical company representatives); half were female. The main reported barrier to ovarian toxicity assessment was that the issue was rarely considered. Reasons included that these data are less important than survival data and are not required for regulatory approval. Overall, most participants believed evaluating the impact of BC treatments on ovarian function is valuable. Suggested strategies to increase ovarian toxicity assessment were to include it in clinical trial design guidelines and stakeholder advocacy. CONCLUSION: Lack of consideration about measuring ovarian toxicity in BC clinical trials that include premenopausal women suggest that guidelines and stronger advocacy from stakeholders, including regulators, would facilitate its more frequent inclusion in future trials, allowing women to make better informed treatment decisions.

A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover). METHODS: We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia. RESULTS: Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs' awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs' (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium's introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium's temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required. CONCLUSION: While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.

Benefits and burdens of risk management for young people with inherited cancer: A focus on Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Discussing population-based cancer risk and screening is common in general practice. Patients with an inherited cancer syndrome, however, may need more nuanced discussions. Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a rare, inherited cancer syndrome that affects many organ systems from birth and requires intensive, whole-body cancer risk management. The aim of this study was to explore the risk management experiences of young people (aged 15-39 years) with, or at risk of, LFS. METHOD: Using an interpretive description design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with young people diagnosed with, or at risk of, LFS from across Australia. Interview transcripts were analysed with team-based, codebook thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty young people (mean age 25.5 years) participated. Participants described intensive screening and risk-reducing mastectomy (for women) as their 'best shot' to control their cancer risks with LFS. Engaging in these options as a young person came with a slew of psychosocial implications. DISCUSSION: General practitioners may help to improve care for young people with inherited cancer syndromes by acknowledging the benefits and complex burdens of their risk management.

Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project.

BACKGROUND: The use of genetic test results in risk-rated insurance is a significant concern internationally, with many countries banning or restricting the use of genetic test results in underwriting. In Australia, life insurers' use of genetic test results is legal and self-regulated by the insurance industry (Financial Services Council (FSC)). In 2018, an Australian Parliamentary Inquiry recommended that insurers' use of genetic test results in underwriting should be prohibited. In 2019, the FSC introduced an industry self-regulated moratorium on the use of genetic test results. In the absence of government oversight, it is critical that the impact, effectiveness and appropriateness of the moratorium is monitored. Here we describe the protocol of our government-funded research project, which will serve that critical function between 2020 and 2023. METHODS: A realist evaluation framework was developed for the project, using a context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) approach, to systematically assess the impact of the moratorium for a range of stakeholders. Outcomes which need to be achieved for the moratorium to accomplish its intended aims were identified, and specific data collection measures methods were developed to gather the evidence from relevant stakeholder groups (consumers, health professionals, financial industry and genetic research community) to determine if aims are achieved. Results from each arm of the study will be analysed and published in peer-reviewed journals as they become available. DISCUSSION: The A-GLIMMER project will provide essential monitoring of the impact and effectiveness of the self-regulated insurance moratorium. On completion of the study (3 years) a Stakeholder Report will be compiled. The Stakeholder Report will synthesise the evidence gathered in each arm of the study and use the CMO framework to evaluate the extent to which each of the outcomes have been achieved, and make evidence-based recommendations to the Australian federal government, life insurance industry and other stakeholders.

Assessment of Ovarian Function in Phase III (Neo)Adjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Loss of ovarian function is a recognized adverse effect of chemotherapy for breast cancer and of great importance to patients. Little is known about the ovarian toxicity of newer cancer treatments. This study examined whether breast cancer clinical trials include assessment of the impact of trial interventions on ovarian function. METHODS: Eligible trials were phase III (neo)adjuvant trials of pharmacologic treatments for breast cancer, recruiting between June 2008 and October 2019, which included premenopausal women. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and EudraCT were searched. Data were extracted from trial publications, protocols, databases, and a survey sent to all trial chairs. Tests of statistical significance were 2-sided. RESULTS: Of 2354 records identified, 141 trials were eligible. Investigational treatments included chemotherapy (36.9%), HER2 targeted (24.8%), endocrine (12.8%), immunotherapy (7.8%), cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (5.0%), and poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (2.8%). Ovarian function was a prespecified endpoint in 13 (9.2%) trials. Forty-five (31.9%) trials collected ovarian function data, but only 33 (23.4%) collected posttrial-intervention data. Common postintervention data collected included menstruation (15.6%), pregnancy (13.5%), estradiol (9.9%), and follicle-stimulating hormone levels (8.5%). Only 4 (2.8%) trials collected postintervention anti-müllerian hormone levels, and 3 (2.1%) trials collected antral follicle count. Of 22 trials investigating immunotherapy, cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, or poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, none specified ovarian function as an endpoint, but 4 (18.2%) collected postintervention ovarian function data. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of pharmacologic interventions on ovarian function is infrequently assessed in phase III breast cancer (neo)adjuvant trials that include premenopausal women. Trialists should consider inclusion of ovarian function endpoints when designing clinical trials, given its importance for informed decision making.

Genetic discrimination by Australian insurance companies: a survey of consumer experiences.

We report previously undocumented evidence of genetic discrimination by Australian insurance companies, obtained through direct consumer reports. We surveyed 174 consumers with cancer-predisposing variants, recruited by cancer organisations Lynch Syndrome Australia and Pink Hope. Questions related to experiences accessing risk-rated insurance after genetic testing. Results indicate that both legal (permitted under current regulation) and illegal discrimination is occurring. Although some respondents had not applied for risk-rated insurance, or had insurance in place before genetic testing (n = 100), those seeking new policies (n = 74) commonly experienced difficulties obtaining insurance (86%, 64/74). Of those experiencing difficulties, 50% (32/64) had no prior history or symptoms of cancer, and had undertaken risk reduction through surveillance and/or preventative surgery. Seventy-seven percent (49/64) reported difficulties related to life insurance. Follow-up telephone interviews with four respondents further described cases of apparent illegal breaches. All reports of discrimination identified were, to our knowledge, previously unreported in the literature. The number of cases suggests a systemic problem with the Australian life insurance industry. We support calls for government oversight of the inherently conflicted model of industry self-regulation in Australia, and an immediate ban on the use of genetic test results in insurance underwriting.

General practitioner knowledge and practice in relation to unintended pregnancy in the Grampians region of Victoria, Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Abortion has been legal in the Australian state of Victoria since 2008 and medical termination of pregnancy (MTOP) available since 2012. While these developments were expected to improve Victorian rural women's access to abortion, this has not been borne out in practice. General practitioners (GPs), particularly in rural areas, are women's first point of contact when faced with an unintended pregnancy. The objective of this study was to understand rural GPs' knowledge and practice in relation to unintended pregnancy and referral for abortion, using the Grampians region of Victoria as a case study. Parts of this region, like other rural and regional areas, experience teenage pregnancy rates double the national average and more than four times that of major cities, and access to abortion services is known to be limited. Findings from the study will inform rural health service development to improve rural women's access to abortion. METHODS: This article reports on the findings from a mixed methods study which explored GP knowledge, understanding and practice in relation to unintended pregnancy services in seven local government areas in the Grampians. Data were collected between April and August 2017. GPs from all practices in this region were invited to participate. A total of 84 GPs were approached, 23 (27%) completed the survey and, of these, five also took part in a semi-structured telephone interview. The quantitative survey data were analysed descriptively while the open-ended survey responses and qualitative interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Of the GPs surveyed, 38% indicated that they 'refer to a colleague due to a conscientious objection' when women present with an unintended pregnancy. No GP always discussed telehealth medical abortion with women and only 27% said that they 'always' discussed medical abortion with women. A range of views were expressed about the adequacy and location of services, with the majority indicating services in the region were limited or inadequate. Interviews with GPs who had conscientious objections to abortion indicated that 'conscientious objection' occurred in different forms and included a range of behaviours. Rural GPs who were interested in becoming MTOP providers faced barriers such as lack of access to timely ultrasounds and surgical backup. CONCLUSION: The results indicate high levels of conscientious objection and wide variation in knowledge of services. In addition, the provision of tele-abortion and medical abortion is extremely limited in this region, even while these are considered ideal ways to address rural access to abortion. It is likely the promise of tele-abortion is far from fulfilled in the Grampians region and possibly in other rural areas in Victoria. There is a need to improve GPs' knowledge of available services and adherence to legal and professional obligations, and there are clear opportunities to achieve this, with all interview participants expressing strong support for the prevention of unintended pregnancy, and many highlighting the need for good support for women up until the point of termination.

The melanoma genomics managing your risk study: A protocol for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of personal genomic risk information on skin cancer prevention behaviors.

BACKGROUND: Reducing ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure and improving early detection may reduce melanoma incidence, mortality and health system costs. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of providing information on personal genomic risk of melanoma in reducing UV exposure at 12 months, according to low and high traditional risk. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, participants (target sample = 892) will be recruited from the general population, and randomized (1:1 ratio, intervention versus control). Intervention arm participants provide a saliva sample, receive personalized melanoma genomic risk information, a genetic counselor phone call, and an educational booklet on melanoma prevention. Control arm participants receive only the educational booklet. Eligible participants are aged 18-69 years, have European ancestry and no personal history of melanoma. All participants will complete a questionnaire and wear a UV dosimeter to objectively measure their sun exposure at baseline, 1- and 12-month time-points, except 1-month UV dosimetry will be limited to ~250 participants. The primary outcome is total daily Standard Erythemal Doses at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include objectively measured UV exposure for specific time periods (e.g. midday hours), self-reported sun protection and skin-examination behaviors, psycho-social outcomes, and ethical considerations surrounding offering genomic testing at a population level. A within-trial and modelled economic evaluation will be undertaken from an Australian health system perspective to assess the intervention costs and outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will inform the clinical and personal utility of introducing genomic testing into the health system for melanoma prevention and early detection at a population-level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000691347.

The iPrevent Online Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk Management Tool: Usability and Acceptability Testing.

BACKGROUND: iPrevent estimates breast cancer (BC) risk and provides tailored risk management information. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the usability and acceptability of the iPrevent prototype. METHODS: Clinicians were eligible for participation in the study if they worked in primary care, breast surgery, or genetics clinics. Female patients aged 18-70 years with no personal cancer history were eligible. Clinicians were first familiarized with iPrevent using hypothetical paper-based cases and then actor scenarios; subsequently, they used iPrevent with their patients. Clinicians and patients completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and an Acceptability questionnaire 2 weeks after using iPrevent; patients also completed measures of BC worry, anxiety, risk perception, and knowledge pre- and 2 weeks post-iPrevent. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The SUS and Acceptability questionnaires were completed by 19 of 20 clinicians and 37 of 43 patients. Usability was above average (SUS score >68) for 68% (13/19) clinicians and 76% (28/37) patients. The amount of information provided by iPrevent was reported as "about right" by 89% (17/19) clinicians and 89% (33/37) patients and 95% (18/19) and 97% (36/37), respectively, would recommend iPrevent to others, although 53% (10/19) clinicians and 27% (10/37) patients found it too long. Exploratory analyses suggested that iPrevent could improve risk perception, decrease frequency of BC worry, and enhance BC prevention knowledge without changing state anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: The iPrevent prototype demonstrated good usability and acceptability. Because concerns about length could be an implementation barrier, data entry has been abbreviated in the publicly available version of iPrevent.

Genetics and Insurance in Australia: Concerns around a Self-Regulated Industry.

BACKGROUND: Regulating the use of genetic information in insurance is an issue of ongoing international debate. In Australia, providers of life and other mutually rated insurance products can request applicants to disclose all results from any genetic test. Insurers can then use this information to adjust premiums and make policy decisions. The Australian Financial Services Council (FSC; an industry body) developed and maintains the relevant industry standard, which was updated in late 2016. Aims/Objective: To review the 2016 FSC Standard in light of relevant research and determine the legitimacy of the Australian regulatory environment regarding use of genetic information by insurers. RESULTS: We identified five concerns arising from the 2016 FSC Standard: (1) use of results obtained from research; (2) the requirement for an applicant to disclose whether they are "considering" a genetic test; (3) failure to account for genome sequencing and other technology developments; (4) limited evidence regarding adverse selection; and (5) the inappropriateness of industry self-regulation. CONCLUSION: Industry self-regulation of the use of genetic information by life insurers, combined with a lack of government oversight, is inappropriate and threatens to impede the progress of genomic medicine in Australia. At this critical time, Australia requires closer government oversight of the use of genetic information in insurance.

How do women seeking abortion choose between surgical and medical abortion? Perspectives from abortion service providers.

BACKGROUND: Depending on availability, many Australian women seeking an abortion will be faced with the choice between surgical or medical abortion. Little is known about the factors that influence Australian women's choice of method. AIM: Through the perspectives of abortion service providers, this study aimed to explore the factors that contribute to Australian women's decision to have a surgical or medical abortion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2015, in-depth interviews were conducted with fifteen Victorian-based key informants (KIs) directly providing or working within a service offering medical abortion. Ten KIs were working at a service that also provided surgical abortion. Interviews were semi-structured, conducted face-to-face or over the telephone, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: KIs described varying levels of awareness of medical abortion, with poorer awareness in regional areas. When it comes to accessing information, women were informed by: their own research (often online); their own experiences and the experiences of others; and advice from health professionals. Women's reasons for choosing surgical or medical abortion range from the pragmatic (timing and location of the method, support at home) to the subjective (perceived risk, emotional impact, privacy, control, and physical ability). CONCLUSIONS: Women benefit from an alternative to surgical abortion and are well-placed to choose between the two methods, however, challenges remain to ensure that all women are enabled to make an informed choice. KIs identify the need to: promote the availability of medical abortion; address misconceptions about this method; and increase general practitioner involvement in the provision of medical abortion.

Young maternal age at first birth and mental health later in life: Does the association vary by birth cohort?

BACKGROUND: It is well established that maternal age at childbirth has implications for women's mental health in the short term, however there has been little research regarding longer term implications and whether this association has changed over time. We investigated longer term mental health consequences for young mothers in Australia and contrasted the effects between three birth cohorts. METHODS: Using thirteen waves of data from 4262 women aged 40 years or above participating in the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, we compared the mental health of women who had their first child aged 15-19 years, 20-24 years, and 25 years and older. Mental health was measured using the mental health component summary score of the SF-36. We used random-effects linear regression models to generate estimates of the association between age at first birth and mental health, adjusted for early life socioeconomic characteristics (country of birth, parents' employment status and occupation) and later life socioeconomic characteristics (education, employment, income, housing tenure, relationship status and social support). We examined whether the association changed over time, testing for effect modification across three successive birth cohorts. RESULTS: In models adjusted for early life and later life socioeconomic characteristics, there was strong evidence of an association between teenage births and poor mental health, with mental health scores on average 2.76 to 3.96 points lower for mothers aged younger than 20 years than for mothers aged 25 years and older (Late Baby Boom (born 1936-1945): -3.96, 95% CI -5.38, -2.54; Early Baby Boom (born 1946-1955): -3.01, 95% CI -4.32, -1.69; Lucky Few (born 1956-1965): -2.76, 95% CI -4.34, -1.18), and evidence of an association for mothers aged 20-24 years compared to mothers aged 25 years and older in the most recent birth cohort only (-1.09, 95% CI -2.01, -0.17). There was some indication (though weak) that the association increased in more recent cohorts. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that young mothers, and particularly teenage mothers, are a vulnerable group at high risk of poor mental health outcomes compared to mothers aged 25 years and above, and there was some suggestion (though weak) that the health disparities increased over time.

iPrevent®: a tailored, web-based, decision support tool for breast cancer risk assessment and management.

We aimed to develop a user-centered, web-based, decision support tool for breast cancer risk assessment and personalized risk management. Using a novel model choice algorithm, iPrevent(®) selects one of two validated breast cancer risk estimation models (IBIS or BOADICEA), based on risk factor data entered by the user. Resulting risk estimates are presented in simple language and graphic formats for easy comprehension. iPrevent(®) then presents risk-adapted, evidence-based, guideline-endorsed management options. Development was an iterative process with regular feedback from multidisciplinary experts and consumers. To verify iPrevent(®), risk factor data for 127 cases derived from the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study were entered into iPrevent(®), IBIS (v7.02), and BOADICEA (v3.0). Consistency of the model chosen by iPrevent(®) (i.e., IBIS or BOADICEA) with the programmed iPrevent(®) model choice algorithm was assessed. Estimated breast cancer risks from iPrevent(®) were compared with those attained directly from the chosen risk assessment model (IBIS or BOADICEA). Risk management interventions displayed by iPrevent(®) were assessed for appropriateness. Risk estimation model choice was 100 % consistent with the programmed iPrevent(®) logic. Discrepant 10-year and residual lifetime risk estimates of >1 % were found for 1 and 4 cases, respectively, none was clinically significant (maximal variation 1.4 %). Risk management interventions suggested by iPrevent(®) were 100 % appropriate. iPrevent(®) successfully integrates the IBIS and BOADICEA risk assessment models into a decision support tool that provides evidence-based, risk-adapted risk management advice. This may help to facilitate precision breast cancer prevention discussions between women and their healthcare providers.

The Australian longitudinal study on male health-methods.

BACKGROUND: The Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health (Ten to Men) was established in 2011 to build the evidence base on male health to inform policy and program development. METHODS: Ten to Men is a national longitudinal study with a stratified multi-stage cluster random sample design and oversampling in rural and regional areas. Household recruitment was conducted from October 2013 to July 2014. Males who were aged 10 to 55 years residing in private dwellings were eligible to participate. Data were collected via self-completion paper questionnaires (participants aged 15 to 55) and by computer-assisted personal interview (boys aged 10 to 14). Household and proxy health data for boys were collected from a parent via a self-completion paper-based questionnaire. Questions covered socio-demographics, health status, mental health and wellbeing, health behaviours, social determinants, and health knowledge and service use. RESULTS: A cohort of 15,988 males aged between 10 and 55 years was recruited representing a response fraction of 35 %. CONCLUSION: Ten to Men is a unique resource for investigating male health and wellbeing. Wave 1 data are available for approved research projects.

Transitioning to routine breast cancer risk assessment and management in primary care: what can we learn from cardiovascular disease?

To capitalise on advances in breast cancer prevention, all women would need to have their breast cancer risk formally assessed. With ~85% of Australians attending primary care clinics at least once a year, primary care is an opportune location for formal breast cancer risk assessment and management. This study assessed the current practice and needs of primary care clinicians regarding assessment and management of breast cancer risk. Two facilitated focus group discussions were held with 17 primary care clinicians (12 GPs and 5 practice nurses (PNs)) as part of a larger needs assessment. Primary care clinicians viewed assessment and management of cardiovascular risk as an intrinsic, expected part of their role, often triggered by practice software prompts and facilitated by use of an online tool. Conversely, assessment of breast cancer risk was not routine and was generally patient- (not clinician-) initiated, and risk management (apart from routine screening) was considered outside the primary care domain. Clinicians suggested that routine assessment and management of breast cancer risk might be achieved if it were widely endorsed as within the remit of primary care and supported by an online risk-assessment and decision aid tool that was integrated into primary care software. This study identified several key issues that would need to be addressed to facilitate the transition to routine assessment and management of breast cancer risk in primary care, based largely on the model used for cardiovascular disease.