Search

Introduction: The Australia New Zealand Trauma Registry enables the collection and analysis of standardised data about trauma patients and their care for quality improvement, injury prevention and benchmarking. Little is known, however, about the needs of providers and clinicians in relation to these data, or their views on trauma quality improvement priorities. As clinical experts, trauma clinicians should have input to these as ultimately their practice may be influenced by report findings. This paper presents the perspectives of multidisciplinary trauma care professionals in Australia and New Zealand about the use of the Australia New Zealand Trauma Registry data and trauma quality improvement priorities.Methods: An exploratory survey of trauma professionals from relevant Australia and New Zealand professional organisations was conducted using the Snowballing Method between September 2018 and February 2019. Participants were recruited via a non-random sampling technique to complete an online survey. Descriptive statistical and content analyses were conducted.Results: The data use priorities identified by 102 trauma professionals from a range of locations participated were clinical improvement and system/process improvement (86.3%). Participants reported that access to trauma data should primarily be for clinicians (93.1%) and researchers (87.3%). Having a standardised approach to review trauma cases across hospitals was a priority in trauma quality improvement.Conclusion: Trauma registry data are under-utilised and their use to drive clinical improvement and system/process improvement is fundamental to trauma quality improvement in Australia and New Zealand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Census-based deprivation indices have been widely used in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada and UK to measure area-based socio-economic inequalities. This paper examines the indicators used in census-based area deprivation indices using a political ecology approach. We question whether the current indicators of deprivation derived from census data are meaningful for the all age groups and minority groups in the population, with a particular focus on deprivation indicators used in New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. We comparatively reviewed methodological papers and reports that describe the indicators of deprivation in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada and the UK from 1975 to 2014. We consider the relationship between the notion of standards of living and measurements of deprivation and explore how hegemonic cultural constructs are implicit in measures of deprivation that privilege a Eurocentric, ageist and gender normative construction of statistics. We argue for more political ecological analyses to studying the relationship between social inequalities, geographies, health inequities and political economy to transform structures of oppression and inequality. This requires turning the analytical gaze on the wealthy and privileged instead of defaulting into deficit models to account for inequality. Studies of deprivation and inequality would benefit from understanding the processes and operations of power in the (re)production of socio-economic and health inequities to inform holistic strategies for social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disasters result in a range of impacts that significantly disrupt the health and wellbeing of those affected. After disasters, a hierarchy of affectedness may be explicitly or implicitly developed, where those affected are compared to each other, and to people affected by disasters in other locations. When an individual's sense of place is so significantly disrupted, these hierarchies are critical to improving the understanding of recovery trajectories, including mental health and well-being outcomes. These hierarchies have practical implications that influence the health outcomes of those affected, including eligibility for disaster aid, support services, and the way that people affected by disasters relate to others in their community. This paper expands the 'hierarchy of affectedness' concept coined by Andersen (2013) using findings from a qualitative study in Australia and New Zealand. Using a letter writing research method, twenty people who had been impacted by a range of disasters in different locations described what they considered helpful and unhelpful in the recovery. One emergent finding in this study was that hierarchies of affectedness are negotiated between impacted individuals, others affected in the same community, and outsiders. These hierarchies served as a helpful sense-making tool for some people impacted by disasters, while causing considerable secondary stress for others. Based on these findings, we offer an expansion to Andersen's existing model of hierarchies of affectedness in post-disaster settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To compare the policy positions of health and medical organisations across Australia, New Zealand, and the UK as they relate to sale and supply of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and evaluate factors that have informed the differences in policy recommendations among these countries.Methods: We used mixed methods to analyse data from position or policy statements published by health and medical organisations regarding NVPs (n = 30) and consultation documents submitted to government committees regarding policy options for the regulation of NVPs (n = 26). Quality assessment of included documents was conducted using the six-item Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, and findings were presented narratively. Qualitative data were coded using NVivo 12 software and analysed using thematic analysis.Results: An overwhelming majority of health bodies, charities and government agencies in the UK and New Zealand portrayed NVPs as a life-saving harm reduction tool. In contrast, concerns about addicting non-smoking youth to nicotine, a perceived lack of clear and convincing evidence of safety and efficacy and the potential to undermine tobacco control progress continues to define attitudes and recommendations towards NVPs among Australian health and medical organisations. Although the profoundly divided views among stakeholders seem to arise from empirical uncertainties and disagreements over the level and credibility of evidence, the source of most of these disagreements can be traced back to the fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the framing of the NVP debate, and varied tolerability of risk trade-offs associated with NVPs.Conclusion: Progress in resolving the controversy surrounding NVP policy requires stakeholders to be frame-reflective and engage in a meaningful dialogue of risk trade-offs, as well as both intended and unintended consequences of proposed policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]