Will a fee-for-service payment for a young people's health assessment in general practice increase the detection of health risk behaviours and health conditions? Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial (RAd Health Trial).

INTRODUCTION: Adolescence is a period of major transition in physical, cognitive, social and emotional development, and the peak time for the onset of mental health conditions, substance use disorders and sexual and reproductive health risks. Prevention and treatment during this time can improve health and well-being now and into the future. However, despite clinical guidelines recommending annual preventive health assessments for young people, health professionals cite lack of consultation time and adequate funding as key barriers. This trial aims to determine whether a specific fee-for-service ('rebate payment') for a young person's health assessment, is effective and cost-effective at increasing the detection and management of health risk behaviours and conditions among young people. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in Australian general practice. 42 general practices (clusters) will be randomly allocated 1:1 to either an intervention arm where general practitioners receive a rebate payment for each annual health assessment undertaken for 14-24-year-olds during a 2 year study period, or a control arm (no rebate). The rebate amount will be based on the Medical Benefits Schedule (Australia's list of health professional services subsidised by the Australian Government) currently available for similar age-based assessments. Our primary outcome will be the annual rate of risk behaviours and health conditions recorded in the patient electronic health record (eg, alcohol/drug use, sexual activity and mental health issues). Secondary outcomes include the annual rate of patient management activities related to health risks and conditions identified (eg, contraception prescribed, sexually transmitted infection tests ordered). A process evaluation will assess acceptability, adoption, fidelity and sustainability of the rebate; an economic evaluation will assess its cost-effectiveness. Analyses will be intention-to-treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from University of Melbourne Human and Research Ethics Committee (2022-23435-29990-3). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000114741.

Considerations for conducting a young person's health assessment in the general practice setting: Insights from key informants in Victoria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There have been calls for a Medicare Benefits Schedule rebate to support a young person's health assessment in general practice. The aim of this study was to understand Victorian providers' needs and perspectives about implementing young people's health assessments in general practice. METHOD: Focus groups and interviews were conducted over Zoom with current general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses (PNs) and practice managers (PMs). A qualitative descriptive approach and conventional content analysis were used. RESULTS: Two focus groups and five interviews were conducted between September and November 2021. Participants (11 GPs, nine PNs and three PMs) represented metropolitan (n = 11), regional (n = 10) and rural (n = 2) Victoria. Key facilitators to implementing a young person's health assessment included established clinic systems and staff roles as well as the potential to empower young people. Key barriers included scheduling logistics and billing structures. DISCUSSION: Key informants generated substantive stakeholder perspectives to aid planning and implementing young people's health assessments in general practice.

Cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention in general practice to increase uptake of long-acting reversible contraceptives in Australia.

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Australian Contraceptive ChOice pRoject (ACCORd) intervention. Methods An economic evaluation compared the costs and outcomes of the ACCORd intervention with usual care (UC). Data from the ACCORd trial were used to estimate costs and efficacy in terms of contraceptive uptake and quality of life. Rates of contraceptive failure and pregnancy were sourced from the literature. Using a Markov model, within-trial results were extrapolated over 10 years and subjected to univariate sensitivity analyses. Model outputs were expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and cost per unintended pregnancy resulting in birth (UPB) avoided. Results Over 10 years, compared with UC, initiating contraception through the ACCORd intervention resulted in 0.02 fewer UPB and higher total costs (A$2505 vs A$1179) per woman. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the ACCORd intervention versus UC was A$1172 per QALY gained and A$7385 per UPB averted. If the start-up cost of the ACCORd intervention was removed, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was A$81 per QALY gained and A$511 per UPB averted. The results were most sensitive to the probability of contraceptive failure, the probability of pregnancy-related healthcare service utilisation or the inclusion of the costs of implementing the ACCORd intervention. Conclusions From a health system perspective, if implemented appropriately in terms of uptake and reach, and assuming an implicit willingness to pay threshold of A$50 000 the ACCORd intervention is cost-effective. What is known about the topic? The uptake of long-active reversible contraceptives (LARC) in Australia is low. The ACCORd trial assessed the efficacy of providing structured training to general practitioners (GPs) on LARC counselling, together with access to rapid referral to insertion clinics. What does this paper add? This study is the first to assess the cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention in the general practice setting aimed at increasing the uptake of LARC in Australia. What are the implications for practitioners? The results show that implementing a complex intervention in general practice involving GP education and the availability of rapid referral to LARC insertion clinics is a cost-effective approach to increase LARC use and its attending efficacy. If the majority of Australian GPs were able to deliver effectiveness-based contraceptive counselling and either insert LARC or use a rapid referral process to a LARC insertion clinic, the additional cost associated with the purchase of LARC products and their insertion would be offset by reductions to health system costs as a result of fewer UPB and abortions. Moreover, the benefits to women's physical and psychological health of avoiding such events is substantial.

Comprehensive review of conventional and non-conventional methods of management of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis.

Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is a condition what causes women a great deal of discomfort, inconvenience, and sometimes has psychological sequelae.(1) This condition is notoriously difficult to manage. Conventional management is generally favoured by medical practitioners. Some practitioners prefer not to offer other options because of significant possible side-effects and the lack of research supporting alternative treatments. There are many studies and much available information surrounding uncomplicated VVC, including two systematic reviews.(2,3) In the area of recurrent VVC however, quality conclusive studies are scarce, and recurrent VVC is featured infrequently in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Systematic reviews that strongly support a particular pharmacological method of conventional management of recurrent VVC over another are absent from medical literature. Recommendations are largely formed on the basis of scanty RCTs and expert opinion. There is even less conclusive evidence in the area of alternative therapies; yet despite this, anecdotally many practitioners (both alternative and mainstream) continue to advocate certain treatments in the absence of any reliable cure that can be confidently prescribed. As the use of methods other than mainstream medicine becomes more widespread, it is important to be aware of both conventional and non-conventional management of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis. Practitioners need to ascertain their patient's preference and treatment history. It is difficult to find comprehensive literature assessing both approaches. Giving women the most up-to-date and relevant information, and different management options, is essential in allowing them to make informed decisions. This review critically assesses both mainstream and less conventional approaches in the management of recurrent VVC.