Paying the price: A cross-sectional survey of Australian socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers' responses to hypothetical cigarette price rises

Introduction and Aims: Increases in tobacco taxation can lead to reductions in tobacco consumption and prevalence of use across social groups. However, use of price-minimisation strategies to manage current and future tobacco use and the role of financial stress is less understood. This study aimed to measure the effect of cigarette price increases on price-minimisation strategy endorsement and financial stress among socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers. Design and Methods: Community service organisation welfare recipients in NSW, Australia completed a touchscreen survey. Smoking history, financial stress, highest price to quit and responses to hypothetical cigarette price increases were assessed. Results: Participants were 354 smokers (response rate=79%). Most participants received income from a government pension (95%), earned < A$300/week (55$56/week on tobacco. In response to 10% and 20% hypothetical price rises, significantly more participants endorsed trying to quit in response to the larger increase scenario (P < 0.001), and fewer selected no change to their smoking (P < 0.001). Numerous price-minimisation strategies (e.g. switching to cheaper brands/products) were endorsed, but remained constant across hypothetical scenarios; level of financial stress appeared to have little influence. Smokers indicating they would not change their smoking in response to price rises had higher levels of nicotine dependence. Discussion and Conclusions: Socially disadvantaged smokers endorsed numerous price-minimising strategies to maintain smoking at hypothetically increased costs. Larger cigarette price rises motivated more smokers to consider quitting, while price-resistant smokers appeared to have a more entrenched smoker status. © 2013 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs

Improving adherence to surveillance and screening recommendations for people with colorectal cancer and their first degree relatives: A randomized controlled trial

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite clinical practice guidelines to guide surveillance care for those who have completed treatment for this disease as well as screening for first degree relatives of people with CRC, the level of uptake of these recommendations remains uncertain. If outcomes for both patients and their families are to be improved, it is important to establish systematic and cost-effective interventions to improve adherence to guideline recommendations for CRC surveillance and screening.Methods/Design: A randomized controlled trial will be used to test the effectiveness of a print-based intervention to improve adherence to colonoscopy surveillance among people with CRC and adherence to CRC screening recommendations among their first degree relatives (FDRs). People diagnosed with CRC in the past 10 months will be recruited through a population-based cancer registry. Consenting participants will be asked if their first degree relatives might also be willing to participate in the trial. Information on family history of CRC will be obtained from patients at baseline. Patients and their families will be randomized to either minimal ethical care or the print-based intervention. The print-based intervention for FDRs will be tailored to the participant's level of risk of CRC as determined by the self-reported family history assessment. Follow up data on surveillance and screening participation will be collected from patients and their FDRs respectively at 12, 24 and 36 months' post recruitment. The primary analyses will relate to comparing levels of guideline adherence in usual care group versus print-based group in the patient sample and the FDR sample respectively.Discussion: Results of this study will provide contribute to the evidence base about effective strategies to a) improve adherence to surveillance recommendation for people with CRC; and b) improve adherence to screening recommendation for FDRs of people with CRC. The use of a population-based cancer registry to access the target population may have significant advantages in increasing the reach of the intervention.Trial registration: This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Registration Number (ACTRN): ACTRN12609000628246. © 2012 Carey et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Improving adherence to colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines: Results of a randomised controlled trial

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors are at increased risk of developing the disease again. Surveillance guidelines are aimed at maximising the early detection of recurring or new cancers and pre-cancerous polyps. The frequency and type of surveillance recommended depends on the type of treatment for the initial CRC, the extent of colonoscopic investigation prior to treatment and the results of previous surveillance tests. This paper aimed to test the effect of a paper-based educational intervention to improve adherence to colonoscopy following treatment for colorectal cancer. Methods: People with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer within the last 10 months, aged ≥18 and English speaking were recruited through a population-based cancer registry in Australia. Participants were randomly allocated to either the intervention or control. Participants completed an interview at baseline. Self-reported participation in colonoscopy was obtained at 12 month followup by survey. Those allocated to the control received a generic pamphlet on colorectal cancer treatment; while intervention participants received a letter which provided specific information about guideline recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy. Rates of guideline adherence were compared between groups. The guideline recommendations for the timing of surveillance colonoscopy changed part way through the study. This change occurred after all intervention materials had been sent, but prior to all participants completing the 12 month follow up. Post hoc analyses were conducted to assess adherence to the new guidelines. Results: Of the 767 participants, 604 (79%) had had surgery, had stage I - III disease and completed the baseline interview within 12 months of diagnosis (intervention = 305; control = 299). There was no significant difference between those adherent to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines, in the control (67, 27%) and intervention groups (80, 31%) at followup (difference = 4.3% (95%CI:-3.7%, 12%), χ 2 (1df) = 1.09, P = 0.296). Overall, 246 (49%) participants were adherent to the new guidelines, compared to 147 (29%) adherent to the old guidelines. Conclusions: Results indicate the paper-based educational intervention is not effective in improving adherence to colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines for colonoscopy. Trial registration number:ACTRN12609000628246Registration date: 28/07/2009 © 2017 The Author(s)

Memory Complaint Questionnaire performed poorly as screening tool : validation against psychometric tests and affective measures

Objective: This study examined the internal and external validity of the Memory Complaint Questionnaire (MAC-Q), a brief measureof subjective memory complaint in people with normal cognitive function.Study Design and Setting: The Study of Health Outcomes in Aircraft Maintenance Personnel was a retrospective cohort study investigatingthe association between aircraft fuel tank deseal/reseal activities and health status in Royal Australian Air Force personnel. Crosssectional comparison tests included measures of executive functioning, psychomotor speed, attention/working memory, newlearning/memory, depression, and anxiety. An adjusted regression analysis accounted for confounders including age, dates of posting, rank, education, alcohol use, tobacco use, and affective status.Results: Eight hundred seventy-nine participants completed the MAC-Q. Although the MAC-Q tested as highly reliable and internallyvalid, it was highly associated with affective status and was only associated with Digit Symbol Coding after adjustment for depression/anxiety.Conclusion: The MAC-Q is greatly influenced by affective status but not memory performance. It is probably not useful as a specificscreen of memory complaint for general population research

Can a print-based intervention increase screening for first degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer? A randomised controlled trial

Objective: To test the effectiveness of a targeted print-based intervention to improve screening adherence in first degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: People with CRC and their adult first degree relatives were identified through a population-based cancer registry and randomly allocated as a family unit to the intervention or control condition. The control group received general information about CRC screening. The intervention group received printed advice regarding screening that was targeted to their risk level. Screening adherence was assessed at baseline and at 12 months via self report. Results: 752 (25%) index cases and 574 (34%) eligible first degree relatives consented to take part in the trial and completed baseline interviews. At 12 months, 58% of first degree relatives in the control group and 61% in the intervention group were adherent to screening guidelines (mixed effects logistic regression group by time interaction effect =2.7; 95%CI=1.2–5.9; P=0.013). Subgroup analysis indicated that the intervention was only effective for those with the lowest risk. Conclusions: Provision of personalised risk information may have a modest effect on adherence to CRC screening recommendations among first degree relatives of people diagnosed with CRC. Implications: Improved strategies for identifying and engaging first degree relatives are needed to maximise the population impact of the intervention. © 2016 The Author

The effectiveness of community action in reducing risky alcohol consumption and harm: A cluster randomised controlled trial

Background:The World Health Organization, governments, and communities agree that community action is likely to reduce risky alcohol consumption and harm. Despite this agreement, there is little rigorous evidence that community action is effective: of the six randomised trials of community action published to date, all were US-based and focused on young people (rather than the whole community), and their outcomes were limited to self-report or alcohol purchase attempts. The objective of this study was to conduct the first non-US randomised controlled trial (RCT) of community action to quantify the effectiveness of this approach in reducing risky alcohol consumption and harms measured using both self-report and routinely collected data.Methods and Findings:We conducted a cluster RCT comprising 20 communities in Australia that had populations of 5,000-20,000, were at least 100 km from an urban centre (population ≥ 100,000), and were not involved in another community alcohol project. Communities were pair-matched, and one member of each pair was randomly allocated to the experimental group. Thirteen interventions were implemented in the experimental communities from 2005 to 2009: community engagement; general practitioner training in alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI); feedback to key stakeholders; media campaign; workplace policies/practices training; school-based intervention; general practitioner feedback on their prescribing of alcohol medications; community pharmacy-based SBI; web-based SBI; Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services support for SBI; Good Sports program for sports clubs; identifying and targeting high-risk weekends; and hospital emergency department-based SBI. Primary outcomes based on routinely collected data were alcohol-related crime, traffic crashes, and hospital inpatient admissions. Routinely collected data for the entire study period (2001-2009) were obtained in 2010. Secondary outcomes based on pre- and post-intervention surveys (n = 2,977 and 2,255, respectively) were the following: long-term risky drinking, short-term high-risk drinking, short-term risky drinking, weekly consumption, hazardous/harmful alcohol use, and experience of alcohol harm. At the 5% level of statistical significance, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the interventions were effective in the experimental, relative to control, communities for alcohol-related crime, traffic crashes, and hospital inpatient admissions, and for rates of risky alcohol consumption and hazardous/harmful alcohol use. Although respondents in the experimental communities reported statistically significantly lower average weekly consumption (1.90 fewer standard drinks per week, 95% CI = -3.37 to -0.43, p = 0.01) and less alcohol-related verbal abuse (odds ratio = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.96, p = 0.04) post-intervention, the low survey response rates (40% and 24% for the pre- and post-intervention surveys, respectively) require conservative interpretation. The main limitations of this study are as follows: (1) that the study may have been under-powered to detect differences in routinely collected data outcomes as statistically significant, and (2) the low survey response rates.Conclusions:This RCT provides little evidence that community action significantly reduces risky alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms, other than potential reductions in self-reported average weekly consumption and experience of alcohol-related verbal abuse. Complementary legislative action may be required to more effectively reduce alcohol harms.Trial registration:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12607000123448 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary. © 2014 Shakeshaft et al