Cancer survival in Australia 1992–1997 : geographic categories and socioeconomic status

Cancer Survival in Australia 1992-1997 is the first national analysis of how cancer survival varies by socioeconomic status and geographic region. It presents an analysis of five-year relative survival proportions by geographic category and socioeconomic status for persons diagnosed with cancer during the years 1992-1997.This analysis is presented by age and sex for all cancers (Excluding non-melanocytic skin cancers) combined and for the following National Health Priority Area cancers - colorectal cancer, cancer of the lung, melanoma, cancer of the breast (females only), cancer of the cervix, cancer of the prostate, and non-Hodgkin\u27s lymphoma.This report is the third in a series of three reports on relative survival after being diagnosed with cancer. It is an important reference for all those interested in the health of Australians

Cancer in Australia 1998

Cancer in Australia 1998 presents comprehensive national data on cancer incidence and mortality. The report provides 1998 data for cancers by site, age and sex, and summary data for each State and Territory. Incidence and mortality trends since the early 1980s, age patterns for selected cancers, comparisons with New Zealand cancer data and an analysis of cancers of unknown primary site are features of this report. The information in this report is supported by more detailed information for all cancer sites on the AIHW\u27s web site www.aihw.gov.au. Cancer in Australia 1998 is an important reference from the Cancer Series for all those interested in the health of Australians

A longitudinal model for disease progression was developed and applied to multiple sclerosis

OBJECTIVES: To develop a model of disease progression using multiple sclerosis (MS) as an exemplar. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Two observational cohorts, the University of Wales MS (UoWMS), UK (1976), and British Columbia MS (BCMS) database, Canada (1980), with longitudinal disability data [the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)] were used; individuals potentially eligible for MS disease-modifying drugs treatments, but who were unexposed, were selected. Multilevel modeling was used to estimate the EDSS trajectory over time in one data set and validated in the other; challenges addressed included the choice and function of time axis, complex observation-level variation, adjustments for MS relapses, and autocorrelation. RESULTS: The best-fitting model for the UoWMS cohort (404 individuals, and 2,290 EDSS observations) included a nonlinear function of time since onset. Measurement error decreased over time and ad hoc methods reduced autocorrelation and the effect of relapse. Replication within the BCMS cohort (978 individuals and 7,335 EDSS observations) led to a model with similar time (years) coefficients, time [0.22 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.19, 0.26), 0.16 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.22)] and log time [-0.13 (95% CI: -0.39, 0.14), -0.15 (95% CI: -0.70, 0.40)] for BCMS and UoWMS, respectively. CONCLUSION: It is possible to develop robust models of disability progression for chronic disease. However, explicit validation is important given the complex methodological challenges face

Process evaluation protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve the mental health support and training available to secondary school teachers– the Wellbeing in Secondary Education (WISE) project

Background: Secondary school teachers have low levels of wellbeing and high levels of depression compared with the general population. Teachers are in a key position to support students, but poor mental health may be a barrier to doing so effectively. The Wellbeing in Secondary Education (WISE) project is a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention to improve the mental health support and training available to secondary school teachers through delivery of the training package Mental Health First Aid and a staff peer support service. We will conduct a process evaluation as part of the WISE trial to support the interpretation of trial outcomes and refine intervention theory. The domains assessed will be: the extent to which the hypothesised mechanisms of change are activated; system level influences on these mechanisms; programme differentiation and usual practice; intervention implementation, including any adaptations; intervention acceptability; and intervention sustainability. Methods: Research questions will be addressed via quantitative and qualitative methods. All study schools (n = 25) will provide process evaluation data, with more detailed focus group, interview and observation data being collected from a subsample of case study schools (4 intervention and 4 control). Mechanisms of change, as outlined in a logic model, will be measured via teacher and student surveys and focus groups. School context will be explored via audits of school practice that relate to mental health and wellbeing, combined with stakeholder interviews and focus groups. Implementation of the training and peer support service will be assessed via training observations, training participant evaluation forms, focus groups with participants, interviews with trainers and peer support service users, and peer supporter logs recording help provided. Acceptability and sustainability will be examined via interviews with funders, head teachers, trainers and peer support services users, and focus groups with training participants. Discussion: The process evaluation embedded within the WISE cluster RCT will illuminate how and why the intervention was effective, ineffective or conferred iatrogenic effects. It will contribute to the refinement of the theory underpinning the intervention, and will help to inform any future implementation. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN95909211 registered on 24 March 2016. Keywords: Mental health, Wellbeing, Schools, Children, Adolescents, Teachers, Process evaluation, Cluster Randomised Controlled Tria

Sequence Variation in Multidrug-Ressitant Plasmid pLUH01, Isolated from Human Nasopharyngeal Swabs

Three variants of the multidrug-resistant plasmid pLUH01 were assembled by deep sequencing from nasopharyngeal swabs. All have a 21-bp deletion in the RS14515 hypothetical gene. Variants 1 through 3 have 2, 6, and 3 nucleotide substitutions, respectively, compared to the pLUH01 reference genome. We named the new plasmid variants pLUH01/Lancaster/2015/1 to pLUH01/Lancaster/2015/3

Genome Sequence of Human Papillomavirus 23 Strain HPV-23/Lancaster/2015

The genome of human papillomavirus type 23 (HPV-23; family Papillomaviridae, genus Betapapillomavirus, species Betapapillomavirus 2, type 23) was assembled by deep sequencing from nasopharyngeal swabs. The assembled genome is 2.7% divergent over its full length from the single complete genome of HPV-23 in GenBank (accession no. U31781). We named the strain HPV-23/Lancaster/201

Genome sequence of human papillomavirus type 20, strain HPV-20/Lancaster/2015

The genome sequence of human papillomavirus type 20 (HPV-20; family Papillomaviridae, genus Betapapillomavirus, species Betapapillomavirus 1, type 20) was assembled by deep sequencing from nasopharyngeal swabs. The assembled genome is 0.37% divergent over its full length from the single complete genome of HPV-20 in GenBank (U31778). We named the strain HPV-20/Lancaster/2015

Genome Sequence of Human Rhinovirus A22, Strain Lancaster/2015

The genome of human rhinovirus A22 (HRV-A22) was assembled by deep sequencing RNA samples from nasopharyngeal swabs. The assembled genome is 8.7% divergent from the HRV-A22 reference strain over its full length, and it is only the second full-length genome sequence for HRV-A22. The new strain is designated strain HRV-A22/Lancaster/2015