Joint submission to the Australian Government Treasury for the Measuring What Matters second consultation process, May 2023

In April 2023, the Australian Government invited a second round of feedback on the Treasury’s Measuring What Matters Statement; Australia’s first national framework on wellbeing. Recognising that traditional economic indicators provide important insights, but not a complete picture or holistic view of the community’s wellbeing, the Statement sought to define a suite of social and environmental indicators. Treasury set out several key questions and invited organisations and individuals to conduct their own consultation guided by these questions. The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use recognised the need to 1) ensure mental health is considered as paramount in any conceptualisation of wellbeing, and 2) centre both academic evidence and the voices of young people. As such, two consultation sessions were held; firstly with Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, which is chaired by The Matilda Centre’s Professor Maree Teesson; and secondly with the PREMISE Centre of Research Excellence in Prevention and Early Intervention in Mental Illness and Substance Use Youth Advisory Board and The Matilda Centre Youth Mental Health Advisory Team. Chaired by Distinguished Professor Maree Teesson AC, Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank includes mental health experts from around Australia: Mr John Brogden AM, Professor Philip Batterham, Professor Alison Calear, Professor Tom Calma AO, Scientia Professor Helen Christensen AO, Professor Patricia Dudgeon AM, Professor Ian Hickie AM, Professor Frances Kay-Lambkin, Professor Patrick McGorry AO, Professor John McGrath, Professor Marc Stears, and Professor Harvey Whiteford. Eight diverse young people aged 16-25 were involved in the second submission and were reimbursed for their participation. The findings from these consultations and resulting submissions are contained in this document. In July 2023, Treasury released the final Measuring What Matters Framework. Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, The Matilda Centre and PREMISE look forward to hearing more about the implementation of this framework and tracking of the 50 chosen indicators

Options for early breast cancer follow-up in primary and secondary care : a systematic review

Background Both incidence of breast cancer and survival have increased in recent years and there is a need to review follow up strategies. This study aims to assess the evidence for benefits of follow-up in different settings for women who have had treatment for early breast cancer. Method A systematic review to identify key criteria for follow up and then address research questions. Key criteria were: 1) Risk of second breast cancer over time - incidence compared to general population. 2) Incidence and method of detection of local recurrence and second ipsi and contra-lateral breast cancer. 3) Level 1–4 evidence of the benefits of hospital or alternative setting follow-up for survival and well-being. Data sources to identify criteria were MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PSYCHINFO, ZETOC, Health Management Information Consortium, Science Direct. For the systematic review to address research questions searches were performed using MEDLINE (2011). Studies included were population studies using cancer registry data for incidence of new cancers, cohort studies with long term follow up for recurrence and detection of new primaries and RCTs not restricted to special populations for trials of alternative follow up and lifestyle interventions. Results Women who have had breast cancer have an increased risk of a second primary breast cancer for at least 20 years compared to the general population. Mammographically detected local recurrences or those detected by women themselves gave better survival than those detected by clinical examination. Follow up in alternative settings to the specialist clinic is acceptable to women but trials are underpowered for survival. Conclusions Long term support, surveillance mammography and fast access to medical treatment at point of need may be better than hospital based surveillance limited to five years but further large, randomised controlled trials are needed

Experiences of parenting and clinical intervention for mothers affected by personality disorder: a pilot qualitative study combining parent and clinician perspectives

Background: Evidence-based parenting programmes are recommended for the treatment of child mental health difficulties. Families with complex psychosocial needs show poorer retention and outcomes when participating in standard parenting programmes. The Helping Families Programme (HFP) is a 16-week community-based parenting intervention designed to meet the needs of these families, including families with parental personality disorder. This study aimed to explore the help seeking and participatory experiences of parents with a diagnosis of personality disorder. It further aimed to examine the acceptability of referral and intervention processes for the HFP from the perspectives of (i) clinicians referring into the programme; and (ii) referred parents. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents recruited to receive HFP (n = 5) as part of a research case series and the referring NHS child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) clinicians (n = 5). Transcripts were analysed using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. Results: Four themes were identified for parents: (i) the experience of parenthood, (ii) being a parent affected by personality disorder, (iii) experience of the intervention, and (iv) qualities of helping. Three themes emerged for clinicians: (i) challenges of addressing parental need, (ii) experience of engaging parents with personality disorders and (iii) limited involvement during HFP. Comparison of parent and clinician themes led to the identification of two key interlinked themes: (i) concerns prior to receiving the intervention, and (ii) the challenges of working together without a mutual understanding. Conclusions: This pilot study identifies potentially significant challenges of working with parents affected by personality disorder and engaging them in HFP and other similar interventions. Results have important wider clinical implications by highlighting potential barriers to engagement and participation and providing insights on how these barriers might be overcome. Findings have been used to inform the referral and intervention processes of a pilot RCT and further intervention development

Axillary treatment for operable primary breast cancer

Axillary surgery is an established part of the management of primary breast cancer. It provides staging information to guide adjuvant therapy and potentially local control of axillary disease. Several alternative approaches to axillary surgery are available, most of which aim to spare a proportion of women the morbidity of complete axillary dissection

DOMINO-AD protocol: donepezil and memantine in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease - a multicentre RCT.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the commonest cause of dementia. Cholinesterase inhibitors, such as donepezil, are the drug class with the best evidence of efficacy, licensed for mild to moderate AD, while the glutamate antagonist memantine has been widely prescribed, often in the later stages of AD. Memantine is licensed for moderate to severe dementia in AD but is not recommended by the England and Wales National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. However, there is little evidence to guide clinicians as to what to prescribe as AD advances; in particular, what to do as the condition progresses from moderate to severe. Options include continuing cholinesterase inhibitors irrespective of decline, adding memantine to cholinesterase inhibitors, or prescribing memantine instead of cholinesterase inhibitors. The aim of this trial is to establish the most effective drug option for people with AD who are progressing from moderate to severe dementia despite treatment with donepezil. METHOD: DOMINO-AD is a pragmatic, 15 centre, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial. Patients with AD, currently living at home, receiving donepezil 10 mg daily, and with Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) scores between 5 and 13 are being recruited. Each is randomized to one of four treatment options: continuation of donepezil with memantine placebo added; switch to memantine with donepezil placebo added; donepezil and memantine together; or donepezil placebo with memantine placebo. 800 participants are being recruited and treatment continues for one year. Primary outcome measures are cognition (SMMSE) and activities of daily living (Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale). Secondary outcomes are non-cognitive dementia symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), health related quality of life (EQ-5D and DEMQOL-proxy), carer burden (General Health Questionnaire-12), cost effectiveness (using Client Service Receipt Inventory) and institutionalization. These outcomes are assessed at baseline, 6, 18, 30 and 52 weeks. All participants will be subsequently followed for 3 years by telephone interview to record institutionalization. DISCUSSION: There is considerable debate about the clinical and cost effectiveness of anti-dementia drugs. DOMINO-AD seeks to provide clear evidence on the best treatment strategies for those managing patients at a particularly important clinical transition point. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN49545035.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Fidelity scales and performance measures to support implementation and quality assurance for first episode psychosis services.

AIM: The purpose of this paper is to review fidelity and outcome measures which can be used to support broad implementation of first episode psychosis services and ensure quality of existing services. First episode psychosis services use a combination of evidence-based practices to improve the outcome of a first episode of psychosis and the early stages of schizophrenia. Now that there is an established international evidence base to show that they are effective, efforts are being made to make such services widely available as a routine part of health care. METHODS: We provide an overview of the literature from the perspective of an expert task force that was commissioned to report to the board of the International Early Psychosis Association IEPA. First, we examined the evidence-based components that underpin first episode psychosis services and identified common elements. Next, we reviewed the availability of fidelity measures and outcome indicators, finally we reviewed how broadly these services are delivered internationally, and the barriers to ensuring broad access to quality services. RESULTS: There is a growing consensus about the elements required to deliver effective services. Fidelity scales and performance measures are available to assess quality, access, and outcome. First episode psychosis services are variably offered in high-income countries and rarely with attention to access and quality of services. Several strategies to promote implementation are identified. CONCLUSIONS: Fidelity scales and outcome measure are valuable resources to support widespread implementation and quality assurance for first episode psychosis services

Credible knowledge: A pilot evaluation of a modified GRADE method using parent-implemented interventions for children with autism

Abstract Background Decision-making in child and youth mental health (CYMH) care requires recommendations that are developed through an efficient and effective method and are based on credible knowledge. Credible knowledge is informed by two sources: scientific evidence, and practice-based evidence, that reflects the "real world" experience of service providers. Current approaches to developing these recommendations in relation to CYMH will typically include evidence from one source or the other but do not have an objective method to combine the two. To this end, a modified version of the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was pilot-tested, a novel method for the CYMH field. Methods GRADE has an explicit methodology that relies on input from scientific evidence as well as a panel of experts. The panel established the quality of evidence and derived detailed recommendations regarding the organization and delivery of mental health care for children and youth or their caregivers. In this study a modified GRADE method was used to provide precise recommendations based on a specific CYMH question (i.e. What is the current credible knowledge concerning the effects of parent-implemented, early intervention with their autistic children?). Results Overall, it appeared that early, parent-implemented interventions for autism result in positive effects that outweigh any undesirable effects. However, as opposed to overall recommendations, the heterogeneity of the evidence required that recommendations be specific to particular interventions, based on the questions of whether the benefits of a particular intervention outweighs its harms. Conclusions This pilot project provided evidence that a modified GRADE method may be an effective and practical approach to making recommendations in CYMH, based on credible knowledge. Key strengths of the process included separating the assessments of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, transparency in decision-making, and the objectivity of the methods. Most importantly, this method combined the evidence and clinical experience in a more timely, explicit and simple process as compared to previous approaches. The strengths, limitations and modifications of the approach as they pertain to CYMH, are discussed

OPTIMA prelim: a randomised feasibility study of personalised care in the treatment of women with early breast cancer

Abstract Background There is uncertainty about the chemotherapy sensitivity of some oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancers. Multiparameter assays that measure the expression of several tumour genes simultaneously have been developed to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for this breast cancer subtype. The assays provide prognostic information and have been claimed to predict chemotherapy sensitivity. There is a dearth of prospective validation studies. The Optimal Personalised Treatment of early breast cancer usIng Multiparameter Analysis preliminary study (OPTIMA prelim) is the feasibility phase of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to validate the use of multiparameter assay directed chemotherapy decisions in the NHS. Objectives OPTIMA prelim was designed to establish the acceptability to patients and clinicians of randomisation to test-driven treatment assignment compared with usual care and to select an assay for study in the main RCT. Design Partially blinded RCT with adaptive design. Setting Thirty-five UK hospitals. Participants Patients aged ≥ 40 years with surgically treated ER-positive HER2-negative primary breast cancer and with 1–9 involved axillary nodes, or, if node negative, a tumour at least 30 mm in diameter. Interventions Randomisation between two treatment options. Option 1 was standard care consisting of chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy. In option 2, an Oncotype DX® test (Genomic Health Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) performed on the resected tumour was used to assign patients either to standard care [if ‘recurrence score’ (RS) was > 25] or to endocrine therapy alone (if RS was ≤ 25). Patients allocated chemotherapy were blind to their randomisation. Main outcome measures The pre-specified success criteria were recruitment of 300 patients in no longer than 2 years and, for the final 150 patients, (1) an acceptance rate of at least 40%; (2) recruitment taking no longer than 6 months; and (3) chemotherapy starting within 6 weeks of consent in at least 85% of patients. Results Between September 2012 and 3 June 2014, 350 patients consented to join OPTIMA prelim and 313 were randomised; the final 150 patients were recruited in 6 months, of whom 92% assigned chemotherapy started treatment within 6 weeks. The acceptance rate for the 750 patients invited to participate was 47%. Twelve out of the 325 patients with data (3.7%, 95% confidence interval 1.7% to 5.8%) were deemed ineligible on central review of receptor status. Interviews with researchers and recordings of potential participant consultations made as part of the integral qualitative recruitment study provided insights into recruitment barriers and led to interventions designed to improve recruitment. Patient information was changed as the result of feedback from three patient focus groups. Additional multiparameter analysis was performed on 302 tumour samples. Although Oncotype DX, MammaPrint®/BluePrint® (Agendia Inc., Irvine, CA, USA), Prosigna® (NanoString Technologies Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), IHC4, IHC4 automated quantitative immunofluorescence (AQUA®) [NexCourse BreastTM (Genoptix Inc. Carlsbad, CA, USA)] and MammaTyper® (BioNTech Diagnostics GmbH, Mainz, Germany) categorised comparable numbers of tumours into low- or high-risk groups and/or equivalent molecular subtypes, there was only moderate agreement between tests at an individual tumour level (kappa ranges 0.33–0.60 and 0.39–0.55 for tests providing risks and subtypes, respectively). Health economics modelling showed the value of information to the NHS from further research into multiparameter testing is high irrespective of the test evaluated. Prosigna is currently the highest priority for further study. Conclusions OPTIMA prelim has achieved its aims of demonstrating that a large UK clinical trial of multiparameter assay-based selection of chemotherapy in hormone-sensitive early breast cancer is feasible. The economic analysis shows that a trial would be economically worthwhile for the NHS. Based on the outcome of the OPTIMA prelim, a large-scale RCT to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiparameter assay-directed chemotherapy decisions in hormone-sensitive HER2-negative early breast would be appropriate to take place in the NHS