Evaluating a complex health promotion program to reduce hepatitis C among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in New South Wales, Australia: the Deadly Liver Mob.

The Deadly Liver Mob (DLM) is a peer-delivered incentivised health promotion program by and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and was introduced in response to the disproportionate number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who are impacted by blood borne viruses (BBVs) and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The goal of the program is to increase access to BBV and STI education, screening, treatment, and vaccination in recognition and response to the systemic barriers that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples face in accessing health care. This commentary introduces a series of papers that report on various aspects of the evaluation of the Deadly Liver Mob (DLM) program. In this paper, we explain what DLM is and how we constructed an evaluation framework for this complex health promotion intervention.

Increasing access to screening for blood-borne viruses and sexually transmissible infections for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: evaluation of the Deadly Liver Mob program's 'cascade of care' across nine sites in New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are disproportionately impacted by blood-borne viruses (BBVs) and sexually transmissible infections (STIs). Stigma remains one of the key barriers to testing and treatment for BBVs and STIs, particularly among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Deadly Liver Mob (DLM) is a peer-delivered incentivised health promotion program by and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The program aims to increase access to BBV and STI education, screening, treatment, and vaccination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in recognition of the systemic barriers for First Nations people to primary care, including BBV- and STI-related stigma, and institutional racism. This paper presents routinely collected data across nine sites on the 'cascade of care' progression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients through the DLM program: hepatitis C education, screening, returning for results, and recruitment of peers. METHODS: Routinely collected data were collated from each of the DLM sites, including date of attendance, basic demographic characteristics, eligibility for the program, recruitment of others, and engagement in the cascade of care. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2020, a total of 1787 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients were educated as part of DLM, of which 74% went on to be screened and 42% (or 57% of those screened) returned to receive their results. The total monetary investment of the cascade of care progression was approximately $56,220. Data highlight the positive impacts of the DLM program for engagement in screening, highlighting the need for culturally sensitive, and safe programs led by and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. However, the data also indicate the points at which clients 'fall off' the cascade, underscoring the need to address any remaining barriers to care. CONCLUSIONS: The DLM program shows promise in acting as a 'one stop shop' in addressing the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to BBVs and STIs. Future implementation could focus on addressing any potential barriers to participation in the program, such as co-location of services and transportation.

Does Living Outside of a Major City Impact on the Timeliness of Chlamydia Treatment? A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Timely treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis infection reduces complications and onward transmission. We assessed client, process, and clinic factors associated with treatment delays at sexual health clinics in New South Wales, Australia. METHODS: A retrospective review of 450 consecutive clients with positive chlamydia results (not treated at the time of the consultation) was undertaken at 6 clinics (1 urban, 3 regional, and 2 remote) from October 2013. Mean and median times to treatment were calculated, overall and stratified by process steps and clinic location. RESULTS: Nearly all clients (446, 99%) were treated, with 398 (88%) treated in ≤14 days and 277 (62%) in ≤7 days. The mean time-to-treatment was 22 days at remote clinics, 13 days at regional and 8 days at the urban clinic (P < 0.001). Mean time between the laboratory receipt of specimen and reporting of result was 4.9 in the remote clinics, 4.1 in the regional, and 2.7 days in the urban clinic (P < 0.001); and the mean time between the clinician receiving the result until client treatment was15, 5, and 3 days (P < 0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At participating clinics, treatment uptake was high, however treatment delays were greater with increasing remoteness. Strategies to reduce the time-to-treatment should be explored such as point-of-care testing, faster specimen processing, dedicated clinical time to follow up recalls, SMS results to clients, and taking treatment out to clients.