Health Risk Screening and Counselling of Adolescents in Primary Care: a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

The research reported in this paper is a project of the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute which is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing under the Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and Development Strategy

Access 3 project protocol: Young people and health system navigation in the digital age: A multifaceted, mixed methods study

© 2017 Article author(s). Background: The integration of digital technology into everyday lives of young people has become widespread. It is not known whether and how technology influences barriers and facilitators to healthcare, and whether and how young people navigate between face-to-face and virtual healthcare. To provide new knowledge essential to policy and practice, we designed a study that would explore health system access and navigation in the digital age. The study objectives are to: (1) describe experiences of young people accessing and navigating the health system in New South Wales (NSW), Australia; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to healthcare for young people and how these vary between groups; (3) describe health system inefficiencies, particularly for young people who are marginalised; (4) provide policy-relevant knowledge translation of the research data. Methods and analysis: This mixed methods study has four parts, including: (1) a cross-sectional survey of young people (12-24 years) residing in NSW, Australia; (2) a longitudinal, qualitative study of a subsample of marginalised young people (defined as young people who: identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander; are experiencing homelessness; identify as sexuality and/or gender diverse; are of refugee or vulnerable migrant background; and/or live in rural or remote NSW); (3) interviews with professionals; (4) a knowledge translation forum. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approvals were sought and granted. Data collection commenced in March 2016 and will continue until June 2017. This study will gather practice and policy-relevant intelligence about contemporary experiences of young people and health services, with a unique focus on five different groups of marginalised young people, documenting their experiences over time. Access 3 will explore navigation around all levels of the health system, determine whether digital technology is integrated into this, and if so how, and will translate findings into policy-relevant recommendations

Safer Primary Care: Caring for People with Multiple Conditions

No abstract available

Outcomes and costs of primary care surveillance and intervention for overweight or obese children: the LEAP 2 randomised controlled trial

addresses: Royal Children's Hospital, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic 3052, Australia. [email protected]: PMCID: PMC2737607types: Journal Article; Multicenter Study; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tCopyright © 2009 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. This articles was first published in: BMJ, 2009, Vol. 339, pp. b3308 -To determine whether ascertainment of childhood obesity by surveillance followed by structured secondary prevention in primary care improved outcomes in overweight or mildly obese children

Intersectionality: Social Marginalisation and Self-Reported Health Status in Young People.

BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to measure young people's health status and explore associations between health status and belonging to one or more socio-culturally marginalised group. METHODS:part of the Access 3 project, this cross-sectional survey of young people aged 12-24 years living in New South Wales, Australia, oversampled young people from one or more of the following groups: Aboriginal and or Torres Strait Islander; living in rural and remote areas; homeless; refugee; and/or, sexuality and/or gender diverse. This paper reports on findings pertaining to health status, presence of chronic health conditions, psychological distress, and wellbeing measures. RESULTS:1416 participants completed the survey; 897 (63.3%) belonged to at least one marginalised group; 574 (40.5%) to one, 281 (19.8%) to two and 42 (3.0%) to three or four groups. Belonging to more marginalised groups was significantly associated with having more chronic health conditions (p = 0.001), a greater likelihood of high psychological distress (p = 0.001) and of illness or injury related absence from school or work (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:increasing marginalisation is associated with decreasing health status. Using an intersectional lens can to be a useful way to understand disadvantage for young people belonging to multiple marginalised groups

Building evidence into youth health policy: a case study of the Access 3 knowledge translation forum.

BACKGROUND: Effective integration of evidence and youth perspectives into policy is crucial for supporting the future health and well-being of young people. The aim of this project was to translate evidence from the Access 3 project to support development of a new state policy on youth health and well-being within New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Ensuring the active contribution of young people within policy development was a key objective of the knowledge translation (KT) process. METHODS: The KT activity consisted of a 1-day facilitated forum with 64 purposively sampled stakeholders. Participants included eight young people, 14 policy-makers, 15 academics, 22 clinicians or managers from NSW health services, four general practitioners and one mental health service worker. Research to be translated came from the synthesized findings of the NSW Access 3 project. The design of the forum included stakeholder presentations and group workshops, guided by the 2003 Lavis et al. KT framework that was improved by the Grimshaw et al. KT framework in 2012. Members of the Access 3 research team took on the role of knowledge brokers throughout the KT process. Participant satisfaction with the workshop was evaluated using a brief self-report survey. Policy uptake was determined through examination of the subsequent NSW Youth Health Framework 2017-2024. RESULTS: A total of 25 policy recommendations were established through the workshop, and these were grouped into six themes that broadly aligned with the synthesized findings from the Access 3 project. The six policy themes were (1) technology solutions, (2) integrated care and investment to build capacity, (3) adolescent health checks, (4) workforce, (5) youth participation and (6) youth health indicators. Forum members were asked to vote on the importance of individual recommendations. These policy recommendations were subsequently presented to the NSW Ministry of Health, with some evidence of policy uptake identified. The majority of participants rated the forum positively. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of KT theories and active youth engagement led to the successful translation of research evidence and youth perspectives into NSW youth health policy. Future research should examine the implementation of policy arising from these KT efforts

Responding to Young People's Health Risks in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Training Clinicians in Screening and Motivational Interviewing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention implementing best practice guidelines recommending clinicians screen and counsel young people across multiple psychosocial risk factors, on clinicians' detection of health risks and patients' risk taking behaviour, compared to a didactic seminar on young people's health. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial where volunteer general practices were stratified by postcode advantage or disadvantage score and billing type (private, free national health, community health centre), then randomised into either intervention or comparison arms using a computer generated random sequence. Three months post-intervention, patients were recruited from all practices post-consultation for a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview and followed up three and 12 months later. Researchers recruiting, consenting and interviewing patients and patients themselves were masked to allocation status; clinicians were not. SETTING: General practices in metropolitan and rural Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: General practices with at least one interested clinician (general practitioner or nurse) and their 14-24 year old patients. INTERVENTION: This complex intervention was designed using evidence based practice in learning and change in clinician behaviour and general practice systems, and included best practice approaches to motivating change in adolescent risk taking behaviours. The intervention involved training clinicians (nine hours) in health risk screening, use of a screening tool and motivational interviewing; training all practice staff (receptionists and clinicians) in engaging youth; provision of feedback to clinicians of patients' risk data; and two practice visits to support new screening and referral resources. Comparison clinicians received one didactic educational seminar (three hours) on engaging youth and health risk screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were patient report of (1) clinician detection of at least one of six health risk behaviours (tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use, risks for sexually transmitted infection, STI, unplanned pregnancy, and road risks); and (2) change in one or more of the six health risk behaviours, at three months or at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were likelihood of future visits, trust in the clinician after exit interview, clinician detection of emotional distress and fear and abuse in relationships, and emotional distress at three and 12 months. Patient acceptability of the screening tool was also described for the intervention arm. Analyses were adjusted for practice location and billing type, patients' sex, age, and recruitment method, and past health risks, where appropriate. An intention to treat analysis approach was used, which included multilevel multiple imputation for missing outcome data. RESULTS: 42 practices were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison arms. Two intervention practices withdrew post allocation, prior to training, leaving 19 intervention (53 clinicians, 377 patients) and 21 comparison (79 clinicians, 524 patients) practices. 69% of patients in both intervention (260) and comparison (360) arms completed the 12 month follow-up. Intervention clinicians discussed more health risks per patient (59.7%) than comparison clinicians (52.7%) and thus were more likely to detect a higher proportion of young people with at least one of the six health risk behaviours (38.4% vs 26.7%, risk difference [RD] 11.6%, Confidence Interval [CI] 2.93% to 20.3%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.7, CI 1.1 to 2.5). Patients reported less illicit drug use (RD -6.0, CI -11 to -1.2; OR 0.52, CI 0.28 to 0.96), and less risk for STI (RD -5.4, CI -11 to 0.2; OR 0.66, CI 0.46 to 0.96) at three months in the intervention relative to the comparison arm, and for unplanned pregnancy at 12 months (RD -4.4; CI -8.7 to -0.1; OR 0.40, CI 0.20 to 0.80). No differences were detected between arms on other health risks. There were no differences on secondary outcomes, apart from a greater detection of abuse (OR 13.8, CI 1.71 to 111). There were no reports of harmful events and intervention arm youth had high acceptance of the screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: A complex intervention, compared to a simple educational seminar for practices, improved detection of health risk behaviours in young people. Impact on health outcomes was inconclusive. Technology enabling more efficient, systematic health-risk screening may allow providers to target counselling toward higher risk individuals. Further trials require more power to confirm health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN16059206