Search

Revising public health policy based on new data does not happen automatically. This is acutely relevant to the now undeniable evidence that many diseases develop differently between the sexes and may also be affected by gender. Current health and medical practices across the globe generally fail to cater for sex and gender effects in common diseases. Inadequate policy frameworks to guide the comprehensive inclusion of sex and gender in research jeopardises scientific rigour and ultimately the practices they underpin. To ensure that Australian health and medical research is fit-for-purpose, we realised that potent initiatives would be necessary to expedite strategic reframing of thought and behaviour. Here we report on our innovative engagement of end-users for democratic self-determined policy reform to guide health and medical research, based on robust data. We draw upon our specific study to outline seven key steps that can be adopted to accelerate effective change, across a breadth of evidence-based initiatives to reform health policies.

In 2022, a global outbreak of mpox (formerly 'monkeypox') emerged in non-endemic countries, including Australia, predominantly affecting gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. Public health advice on transmission and isolation emerged rapidly from different sources, sometimes conflicting and producing uncertainty. Using the concept of 'counterpublic health', which acknowledges the incorporation of official science and experiences of affected communities into embodied practice, this paper investigates how people affected by mpox in Australia managed risk of transmission and navigated self-isolation. In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 people: 13 people diagnosed with mpox and three close contacts. All participants were cisgender gay and bisexual men living in Australia. Participants thought critically about public health advice, often finding it restrictive and unresponsive to the needs of people with mpox. Participants' decisions about reducing mpox risk and isolating often drew on experiences with other infections (i.e. HIV; COVID-19) and were made collaboratively with the people closest to them (e.g. partners, friends, family) to sustain relationships. Future public health responses to infectious disease outbreaks would benefit from identifying more opportunities to formalise and embed mechanisms to obtain feedback from affected communities so as to inform responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Trans and gender-diverse people who wish to donate blood face significant barriers with policies and procedures differing across countries. It remains critical to explore the experiences and perspectives of trans and gender-diverse people in different locations to understand challenges in local systems. We undertook a qualitative study focussed on procedures and processes affecting trans and gender-diverse people in Australia, and their views about needed change., Materials and Methods: Stakeholders collaborated with the researchers to refine the focus of and design the research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 trans and gender-diverse people who were current, past or potential donors. The interviews comprised open-ended questions about donation experiences, knowledge of current policies and procedures and preferences for change. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis., Results: Participants reported varied and inconsistent donation experiences. When compared with current practice, participants preferred a two-step approach to donor registration that asks for sex reported at birth followed by gender identity. However, they also expressed concern that the two-step approach could deter new donors and stressed the importance of only collecting information relevant to eligibility assessment. Participants were supportive of a gender-neutral approach to assess eligibility to donate., Conclusion: Our study highlights significant barriers and procedural inconsistencies for trans and gender-diverse individuals when (considering) donating blood. We recommend more inclusive practices including clear communication about data use, rigorous staff training on gender diversity, registration processes that respect all gender identities and adopting a gender-neutral approach to donor screening., (© 2025 The Author(s). Vox Sanguinis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Blood Transfusion.)