Search

BACKGROUND Active surveillance for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN2) would allow time for most cases to regress naturally and in turn avoid potentially unnecessary and harmful treatment. AIM To determine reasons for choosing active surveillance over surgery among women given a hypothetical diagnosis of CIN2. MATERIALS AND METHODS Women residing in Australia aged 25-40 years with no prior diagnosis of cervical cancer, cervical abnormality CIN2 or above, and/or previous hysterectomy, were randomised to one of four identical hypothetical scenarios of testing human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive: high-grade cytology and a diagnosis of CIN2 that used alternate terminology to describe resolution of abnormal cells and/or inclusion of an overtreatment statement. Participants selected active surveillance or surgery after viewing the scenario and free-text reason/s for their choice were thematically analysed. RESULTS Of the 1638 women randomised, 79% (n = 1293) opted for active surveillance. The most common reasons for choosing active surveillance included concerns about surgery and associated risks, preferring to 'wait and see', trusting the doctor's recommendations and having an emotional response toward surgery. For women who chose surgery, being risk-averse, addressing the issue straight away and perceiving surgery to be the better option for them were the most common themes identified. CONCLUSION When presented with balanced information on the benefits and harms of different management options for CIN2 and given a choice, most women in this hypothetical situation chose active surveillance over surgery. Addressing women's concerns about active surveillance may open up the possibility that if deemed safe, it could be an acceptable alternative for women.

Limited studies at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic found GPs have been negatively affected by increased workload, reduced income and major concerns about staff and patient safety. This study aimed to investigate the challenges of COVID-19 in general practice 1 year since it was declared a pandemic. A national cross-sectional online survey was conducted in March 2021 of a convenience sample of 295 Australian GPs attending an online educational webcast. Twenty-five multipart and free-text questions collected information regarding GPs’ main COVID-19-related issues and concerns, including COVID-19 vaccines, useful sources of information, information needs and their perceived role as GPs in COVID-19 management. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all quantitative variables. Content analysis was used to analyse text data from open-ended questions. Of the 596 eligible attendees of the online educational webcast, 295 completed the survey (49.5% response rate). One year since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, GPs still have concerns regarding patients ignoring prescreening and presenting with flu-like symptoms, the safety of their colleagues and family and catching COVID-19 themselves, as well as concerns about the effect of the pandemic on their patients and patients delaying essential care for non-COVID-19 conditions. More education and resources about vaccines was identified as the top information need, which will assist with what GPs’ perceived to be their key roles in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, namely educating the public, correcting misunderstandings and providing the COVID-19 vaccine. These findings highlight gaps in communication and information, particularly regarding COVID-19 vaccines. GPs need high-quality information and resources to support them in undertaking complex risk communication with their patients.

Issues addressedTo investigate whether culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Western Sydney have experienced any positive effects during the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, what these were.MethodsA cross–sectional survey with ten language groups was conducted from 21stMarch to 9thJuly 2021 in Sydney, Australia. Participants were recruited through bilingual multicultural health staff and health care interpreter service staff and answered a question, ‘In your life, have you experienced any positive effects from the COVID-19 pandemic?’ Differences were explored by demographic variables. Free–text responses were thematically coded using the Content Analysis method.Results707 people completed the survey, aged 18 to >70, 49% males and 51% females. Only 161 (23%) of those surveyed reported any positive impacts. There were significant differences in the proportion of those who reported positives based on age (p=0.004), gender (p=0.013), language (p=0.003), health literacy (p=0.014), English language proficiency (p=0.003), education (p=ConclusionsFrom 21st March to July 9th, 2021, few surveyed participants reported finding any positives because of the COVID–19 pandemic. This finding is in stark contrast to related research in Australia in a population dominated by adults with English as their first language, carried out in June 2020, in which many more people experienced positives.So whatThe needs of people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds must inform future responses to community crises to facilitate an equitable effect of any collateral positives that may arise.

Background Community awareness of the harms of overdiagnosis remains low. Objective To evaluate community responses to a public health campaign designed for health service waiting rooms that focuses on the harms of unnecessary diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Methods We conducted two focus groups of 19 community members with or without low back pain in Sydney, Australia. This study formed the fourth and final stage of the development process of a public health campaign: (a) initial design, (b) expert review and revision, (c) online experiment and (d) community views & revision. We evaluated reactions to components of the campaign that included digital posters and an information leaflet using strong imagery and messaging about the risk of overdiagnosis. We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis to identify main themes. Results Community members reacted with surprise, initial mistrust, and occasionally anger towards imagery and messaging that suggested diagnostic imaging tests could be unnecessary and harmful. With further reflection and discussion, and after reading longer format information about overdiagnosis, the participants found some of the messages informative and useful. Participants appeared to gain a better understanding of the concept of overdiagnosis and the importance of not rushing to imaging. Conclusions Public health campaigns including posters and leaflets displayed in waiting rooms could raise awareness about overuse of diagnostic imaging and the harms of overdiagnosis more broadly. However, negative reactions are possible and must be managed carefully. Patient or public contribution We involved a community participation manager who provided advice on the focus group discussion guide, participant recruitment and manuscript presentation.

ObjectivesTo explore experiences of women who identified themselves as having a possible breast cancer overdiagnosis.DesignQualitative interview study using key components of a grounded theory analysis.SettingInternational interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer and aware of the concept of overdiagnosis.ParticipantsTwelve women aged 48–77 years from the UK (6), USA (4), Canada (1) and Australia (1) who had breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ n=9, (invasive) breast cancer n=3) diagnosed between 2004 and 2019, and who were aware of the possibility of overdiagnosis. Participants were recruited via online blogs and professional clinical networks.ResultsMost women (10/12) became aware of overdiagnosis after their own diagnosis. All were concerned about the possibility of overdiagnosis or overtreatment or both. Finding out about overdiagnosis/overtreatment had negative psychosocial impacts on women’s sense of self, quality of interactions with medical professionals, and for some, had triggered deep remorse about past decisions and actions. Many were uncomfortable with being treated as a cancer patient when they did not feel ‘diseased’. For most, the recommended treatments seemed excessive compared with the diagnosis given. Most found that their initial clinical teams were not forthcoming about the possibility of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and many found it difficult to deal with their set management protocols.ConclusionThe experiences of this small and unusual group of women provide rare insight into the profound negative impact of finding out about overdiagnosis after breast cancer diagnosis. Previous studies have found that women valued information about overdiagnosis before screening and this knowledge did not reduce subsequent screening uptake. Policymakers and clinicians should recognise the diversity of women’s perspectives and ensure that women are adequately informed of the possibility of overdiagnosis before screening.

ObjectiveTo explore the psychological, social and financial outcomes of COVID-19—and the sociodemographic predictors of those outcomes—among culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Sydney, Australia.DesignCross-sectional survey informed by the Framework for Culturally Competent Health Research conducted between March and July 2021.SettingParticipants who primarily speak a language other than English at home were recruited from Greater Western Sydney, New South Wales.Participants708 community members (mean age: 45.4 years (range 18–91)). 88% (n=622) were born outside of Australia, 31% (n=220) did not speak English well or at all, and 41% (n=290) had inadequate health literacy.Outcome measuresThirteen items regarding COVID-19-related psychological, social and financial outcomes were adapted from validated scales, previous surveys or co-designed in partnership with Multicultural Health and interpreter service staff. Logistic regression models (using poststratification weighted frequencies) were used to identify sociodemographic predictors of outcomes. Surveys were available in English or translated (11 languages).ResultsIn this analysis, conducted prior to the 2021 COVID-19 outbreak in Sydney, 25% of the sample reported feeling nervous or stressed most/all of the time and 22% felt lonely or alone most/all of the time. A quarter of participants reported negative impacts on their spousal relationships as a result of COVID-19 and most parents reported that their children were less active (64%), had more screen time (63%) and were finding school harder (45%). Mean financial burden was 2.9/5 (95% CI 2.8 to 2.9). Regression analyses consistently showed more negative outcomes for those with comorbidities and differences across language groups.ConclusionCulturally and linguistically diverse communities experience significant psychological, social and financial impacts of COVID-19. A whole-of-government approach is needed to support rapid co-design of culturally safe support packages in response to COVID-19 and other national health emergencies, tailored appropriately to specific language groups and accounting for pre-existing health disparities.

Central to a successful population vaccination program is high uptake of vaccines. However, COVID-19 vaccine uptake may be impeded by beliefs based on misinformation. We sought to understand the prevalence and nature of misbeliefs about COVID-19 vaccines, and identify associated factors, shortly after commencement of Australia’s national vaccine rollout. A cross-sectional survey was administered to unvaccinated young adults (n = 2050) in Australia aged 18–49 years (mean age 33 years), 13 July–21 August 2021. This sample was previously under-represented in COVID-19 research but shown to have less willingness to vaccinate. Two thirds of participants agreed with at least one misbelief item. Misperceptions about COVID-19 vaccines were found to be significantly associated with lower health literacy, less knowledge about vaccines, lower perceived personal risk of COVID-19, greater endorsement of conspiracy beliefs, and lower confidence and trust in government and scientific institutions. Misbeliefs were more common in participants with less educational attainment, in younger age groups, and in males, as per previous research. Understanding determinants and barriers to vaccination uptake, such as knowledge and beliefs based on misinformation, can help to shape effective public health communication and inform debunking efforts at this critical time and in the future.

Recent observational studies suggest that vaccines may have little effect in preventing infection with the Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the observed effects may be confounded by patient factors, preventive behaviours, or differences in testing behaviour. To assess potential confounding, we examined differences in testing behaviour between unvaccinated and vaccinated populations.We recruited 1,526 Australian adults for an online randomized study about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing in late 2021, collecting self-reported vaccination status and three measures of COVID-19 testing behaviour: testing in past month or ever and test intention if they woke with a sore throat. We examined the association between testing intentions and vaccination status in the trial's baseline data.Of the 1,526 participants (mean age 31 y), 22% had a COVID-19 test in the past month and 61% ever; 17% were unvaccinated, 11% were partially vaccinated (one dose), and 71% were fully vaccinated (two or more doses). Fully vaccinated participants were twice as likely as those who were unvaccinated (relative risk [RR] 2.2, 95% CI 1.8 to 2.8,Vaccination predicted greater COVID-19 testing intentions and would substantially bias observed vaccine effectiveness. To account for differential testing behaviours, test-negative designs are currently the preferred option, but their assumptions need more thorough examination.Selon de récentes études observationnelles, les vaccins peuvent avoir peu d’effet sur la prévention de l’infection par le variant Omicron du coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère. Cependant, les effets observés peuvent être biaisés par des facteurs liés aux patients, des comportements préventifs ou des différences de comportements liés aux tests. Pour évaluer les facteurs confusionnels potentiels, les auteurs ont examiné les différences de comportements liés aux tests entre les populations non vaccinées et vaccinées.Les auteurs ont recruté 1 526 adultes australiens en vue d’une étude randomisée en ligne sur les tests de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) à la fin de 2021, afin de colliger l’état vaccinal autodéclaré et trois mesures sur les comportements liés aux tests de la COVID-19 : test au cours du mois précédent ou jamais auparavant et intention de se soumettre à un test en cas de mal de gorge. Ils ont examiné l’association entre les intentions de se soumettre à un test et l’état vaccinal dans les données de référence de l’étude.Sur les 1 526 participants (d’un âge moyen de 31 ans), 22 % avaient subi un test de COVID-19 au cours du mois précédent et 61 % n’en avaient jamais subi; 17 % n’étaient pas vaccinés, 11 % l’étaient partiellement (une dose) et 71 % l’étaient pleinement (au moins deux doses). Les participants pleinement vaccinés étaient deux fois plus susceptibles que ceux qui ne l’étaient pas (risque relatif [RR] 2,2, IC à 95 % 1,8 à 2,8,La vaccination était prédictive de plus grandes intentions de subir un test de COVID-19 et établissait un biais important à l’égard de l’efficacité réelle des vaccins. Pour tenir compte des comportements différentiels vis-à-vis des tests, les méthodologies de tests négatifs constituent actuellement la solution privilégiée, mais cette hypothèse doit être approfondie.

BackgroundLittle is known about COVID-19 information-seeking experiences for culturally and linguistically diverse groups in Australia.MethodsParticipants were recruited using a cross-sectional survey from March 21 to July 9, 2021, translated into 11 languages, and with supporting bilingual staff. Linear regression models identified factors associated with difficulty finding easy-to-understand COVID-19 information.ResultsAcross 708 participants (88% born overseas, 31% poor English proficiency), difficulty finding easy-to-understand COVID-19 information was rated 4.13 for English materials (95%CI: 3.85 to 4.41) and 4.36 for translated materials (95%CI: 4.07 to 4.66) (1 easy to 10 hard). Participants who were older (pConclusionsEasy-to-understand and accessible COVID-19 information is needed to meet the needs of people in culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This approach should involve working alongside these communities to tailor messages and leverage existing communication channels.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the psychological, social, and financial impacts of COVID-19 on culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia. DesignCross-sectional survey informed by the Framework for Culturally Competent Health Research conducted between March and July, 2021. SettingParticipants were recruited from Greater Western Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Participants708 community members who speak a language other than English at home participated (mean age: 45.4years [range 18-91]; 88% [n=622] born outside of Australia). Outcome measuresFifteen items regarding impacts of COVID-19, adapted from validated scales, previous surveys or co-designed in partnership with Multicultural Health and interpreter service staff. Logistic regression models (using post-stratification weighted frequencies) identified factors associated with psychological, social, and financial impacts. Surveys were available in English or translated (11 languages). ResultsEven prior to the COVID-19 outbreak in Sydney, 25% of the sample reported feeling nervous or stressed most/all of the time and 22% felt lonely or alone most/all of the time. One quarter of participants reported negative impacts on their spousal relationships as a result of COVID-19 and most parents reported that their children were less active (64%), had more screen time (63%), and were finding school harder (45%). Mean financial burden was 2.9/5 (95%CI=2.8 to 2.9). Regression analyses consistently showed distinct impact patterns for different language groups and more negative outcomes for those with comorbidities. ConclusionCulturally and linguistically diverse communities experience significant psychological, social and financial impacts of COVID-19, with distinct impact patterns across language groups. A whole-of-government approach with policy and sustainable infrastructure is needed to co-design innovative, tailored and culturally-safe COVID-19 support packages. ARTICLE SUMMARY O_TEXTBOXStrengths and limitations of this study O_LIThis is the largest Australian survey exploring the impacts of COVID-19 among people who primarily speak a language other than English, enabled through recruitment methods that are inclusive and reduce barriers to participation (e.g. translated surveys, engagement of interpreters and multicultural health staff who are trusted in their communities, and use of multiple recruitment methods including through community events and networks). C_LIO_LIThis study was co-designed by researchers and multicultural health service staff, in alignment with the Framework of Culturally Competent Health Research. C_LIO_LITo reduce survey length and burden on participants we purposefully selected a small number of items from validated measures or our previous research to explore psychological, social and financial impacts, or co-designed them specifically for this study. C_LIO_LIWe used convenience sampling methods and self-report may have introduced recall and social desirability bias. C_LIO_LIWe are unable to explore changes in impacts of COVID-19 over time. C_LI C_TEXTBOX

Key Points Question What is the association of individuals’ preferences for more or less health care with knowledge about prostate cancer overdiagnosis and informed choice? Findings In this survey study of 2993 men in Australia, higher scores on the Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Scale, indicating stronger preferences for more health care, were associated with reduced relative risk of making an informed choice, having adequate conceptual and correct numerical knowledge of prostate cancer screening outcomes, and correct understanding of overdiagnosis. Meaning These findings may help clinicians to better tailor discussions with patients about low-value care, such as prostate cancer screening, for which benefit is uncertain., This survey examines the association of preferences for more or less health care with informed choice among men in Australia eligible for prostate-specific antigen screening., Importance Understanding personal factors that influence diverse responses to health care information, such as preferences for more or less health care, might be beneficial to more effective communication and better involvement in health care choices. Objective To determine whether individuals’ preferences for more or less health care are associated with informed choice and understanding of overdiagnosis in routine prostate cancer screening and to examine associations among preferences, educational status, and health literacy. Design, Setting, and Participants This survey study included a community-based sample of men in Australia aged 45 to 60 years eligible for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, recruited via an international social research company. Survey data were collected online from June 27 to July 26, 2018. Data were analyzed in April 2020. Exposures Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 versions of an online decision aid (full-length or abbreviated) about PSA screening and completed an online survey that included a measure of preference for more or less health care, the Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS), in which higher score indicates preference for more health care. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was informed choice; knowledge, attitudes, and intentions about screening for prostate cancer were also measured. Results Of 3722 participants who began the survey, 2993 (80.4%) completed it (mean [SD] age, 52.15 [6.65] years). Stronger preferences for more heath care were observed in those without tertiary education (mean difference, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.22; P

Background: Since the inception of Primary Health Networks (PHNs) in Australia, it has been unclear what their role is regarding implementing chronic disease prevention activities in general practice. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the views of PHN staff on the role of PHNs in promoting prevention, with a focus on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention.Methods: Content analysis of PHN Needs Assessments was conducted to inform interview questions. 29 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 PHN staff, between June and December 2020, in varied roles across 18 PHNs in all Australian states and territories. Transcribed audio-recordings were thematically coded, using the Framework Analysis method to ensure rigour.Results: We identified three main themes about the role of PHNs in promoting, supporting, and improving CVD prevention. 1) Informal prevention: All respondents agreed the role of PHNs in prevention was indirect and, for the most part, outside the formal remit of PHN Key Performance Indicators (KPIs.) Nevertheless, prevention activities were conducted in partnership with external stakeholders, professional development and quality improvement programs, and PHN-funded data extraction and analysis software for general practice. 2) Constrained by financial incentives: Most interviewees felt the role of PHNs in prevention was contingent on the financial drivers provided by the Commonwealth government, such as Medicare funding and national quality improvement programs. 3) Shaped through competing priorities: The role of PHNs in prevention is a function of competing priorities. There was strong agreement amongst participants that the myriad competing priorities from government and local needs assessments impeded prevention activities.Conclusions: PHNs are well positioned to foster prevention activities in general practice and local communities. However, we found that PHNs role in prevention activities were informal, constrained by financial incentives, and shaped through competing priorities. Prevention can be improved through a more explicit prevention focus at Commonwealth government level. To optimise the role of PHNs therefore requires prioritising prevention, aligning it with KPIs, and supporting stakeholders like general practice.

ObjectiveTo undertake an assessment of the health, financial and environmental impacts of a well-recognised example of low-value care; inappropriate vitamin D testing.DesignCombination of systematic literature search, analysis of routinely collected healthcare data and environmental analysis.SettingAustralian healthcare system.ParticipantsPopulation of Australia.Outcome measuresWe took a sustainability approach, measuring the health, financial and environmental impacts of a specific healthcare activity. Unnecessary vitamin D testing rates were estimated from best available published literature; by definition, these provide no gain in health outcomes (in contrast to appropriate/necessary tests). Australian population-based test numbers and healthcare costs were obtained from Medicare for vitamin D pathology services. Carbon emissions in kg CO2e were estimated using data from our previous study of the carbon footprint of common pathology tests. We distinguished between tests ordered as the primary test and those ordered as an add-on to other tests, as many may be done in conjunction with other tests. We conducted base case (8% being the primary reason for the blood test) and sensitivity (12% primary test) analyses.ResultsThere were a total of 4 457 657 Medicare-funded vitamin D tests in 2020, on average one test for every six Australians, an 11.8% increase from the mean 2018–2019 total. From our literature review, 76.5% of Australia’s vitamin D tests provide no net health benefit, equating to 3 410 108 unnecessary tests in 2020. Total costs of unnecessary tests to Medicare amounted to >$A87 000 000. The 2020 carbon footprint of unnecessary vitamin D tests was 28 576 kg (base case) and 42 012 kg (sensitivity) CO2e, equivalent to driving ~160 000–230 000 km in a standard passenger car.ConclusionsUnnecessary vitamin D testing contributes to avoidable CO2e emissions and healthcare costs. While the footprint of this example is relatively small, the potential to realise environmental cobenefits by reducing low-value care more broadly is significant.

BackgroundTo manage the COVID-19 pandemic effectively, governments need clear and effective communication. This is a challenge for culturally diverse communities as groups may have different informational needs and information-seeking behaviours. In this paper we present the frequency of information sources for COVID-19 in a culturally diverse area of Sydney, Australia.MethodsThis study reports findings from two surveys. The first recruited participants across 10 languages between March 21 and July 9, 2021. The second provides a point of reference, and was an Australian, nationally-representative sample of English-speaking participants between November 4 – 18, 2020.ResultsFor the survey in culturally and linguistically diverse communities, of 708 participants, mean age was 45.4 years (SE 0.78), and 51% of respondents were female. Across all language groups, 54.7% of participants used Australian official or public broadcasters to find out about COVID-19 (n=421). Australian commercial information sources (54.1%, n=417), social media (51.6%, n=397), and family and friends in Australia (32.7%, n=252) were common sources. Patterns varied substantially across language groups. In the nationally representative survey (n=2313), 67% of participants (n=1540) used Australian official or public broadcasters, with lower proportions for social media (31.9%, n=738) and friends, family or other personal sources (23.1%; n=533).ConclusionAlmost 50% of participants from culturally and linguistically diverse communities did not report using Australian official or public broadcaster as main sources of information. Instead Australian commercial information sources, friends and family, overseas sources and social media were common. Though a crude comparison of the two datasets, this data can guide policy decisions for communication to different community groups. Further analysis is needed to interpret this data. Better understanding of how diverse communities seek and receive COVID-19 health information is imperative as we manage the current COVID-19 outbreak in the Sydney region.

BackgroundIn Australia in March 2020 a national public health directive required that non-essential workers stay at home, except for essential activities. These restrictions began easing in May 2020 as community transmission slowed.PurposeThis study investigated changes in COVID-19 prevention behaviours from April-July 2020, and psychosocial predictors of these behaviours.Methods1,843 participants in Australia completed a national COVID-19 survey in April, with monthly follow-up over four months. Principal components analysis (PCA) combined self-reported adherence across seven prevention behaviours. Multivariable regression models explored baseline (April) correlates of behaviour in June (a period of low community transmission) and July (a period of increasing community transmission).ResultsOn average, participants agreed with statements of adherence for all behaviours (means all above 4 out of 7). PCA identified two behaviour types: ‘distancing’ (e.g. staying 1.5m away) and ‘hygiene’ (e.g. washing hands), explaining 28.3% and 24.2% of variance, respectively. Distancing declined each month (p’sConclusionsHigh adherence to COVID-19 prevention behaviours were reported; however, distancing behaviours tended to decrease over time. Belief in social responsibility may be an important aspect to consider in encouraging distancing behaviours. Different policy approaches may be needed for different behavioural categories.

BackgroundIn Australia in March 2020 a national public health directive required that non-essential workers stay at home, except for essential activities. These restrictions began easing in May 2020 as community transmission slowed.ObjectivesThis study investigated changes in COVID prevention behaviours from April-July 2020, and psychosocial predictors of these behaviours.MethodsAn Australia-wide (national) survey was conducted in April, with monthly follow-up over four months. Participants who were adults (18+ years), currently residing in Australia and who could read and understand English were eligible. Recruitment was via online social media. Analysis sample included those who provided responses to the baseline survey (April) and at least one subsequent follow-up survey (N = 1834 out of a possible 3216 who completed the April survey). 71.7% of the sample was female (n = 1,322). Principal components analysis (PCA) combined self-reported adherence across seven prevention behaviours. PCA identified two behaviour types: ‘distancing’ (e.g. staying 1.5m away) and ‘hygiene’ (e.g. washing hands), explaining 28.3% and 24.2% of variance, respectively. Distancing and hygiene behaviours were analysed individually using multivariable regression models.ResultsOn average, participants agreed with statements of adherence for all behaviours (means all above 4 out of 7). Distancing behaviours declined each month (p’s < .001), whereas hygiene behaviours remained relatively stable. For distancing, stronger perceptions of societal risk, self-efficacy to maintain distancing, and greater perceived social obligation at baseline were associated with adherence in June and July (p’sConclusionHigh adherence to COVID prevention behaviours were reported in this social media sample; however, distancing behaviours tended to decrease over time. Belief in social responsibility may be an important aspect to consider in encouraging distancing behaviours. These findings have implications for managing a shift from government-imposed restrictions to individual responsibility.

BackgroundVaccination rollout against COVID-19 has begun across multiple countries worldwide. Although the vaccine is free, rollout might still be compromised by hesitancy or concerns about COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsWe conducted two online surveys of Australian adults in April (during national lockdown; convenience cross-sectional sample) and November (virtually no cases of COVID-19; nationally representative sample) 2020, prior to vaccine rollout. We asked about intentions to have a potential COVID-19 vaccine (If a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, I will get it) and free-text responses (November only).ResultsAfter adjustment for differences in sample demographics, the estimated proportion agreeing to a COVID-19 vaccine if it became available in April (n=1146) was 76.2%. In November (n=2034) this was estimated at 71.4% of the sample; additional analyses identified that the variation was driven by differences in perceived public health threat between April and November. Across both surveys, female gender, being younger, having inadequate health literacy and lower education were associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, belief that data on the efficacy of vaccines is ‘largely made up’, having lower confidence in government, and lower perception of COVID-19 as a public health threat, were also associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The top three reasons for agreeing to vaccinate (November only) were to protect myself and others, moral responsibility, and having no reason not to get it. For those who were indifferent or disagreeing to vaccinate, safety concerns were the top reason, followed by indecision and lack of trust in the vaccine respectively.CONCLUSIONSThese findings highlight some factors related to willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine prior to one being available in Australia. Now that the vaccine is being offered, this study identifies key issues that can inform public health messaging to address vaccine hesitancy.HIGHLIGHTSPerceived public health threat is associated with intentions to vaccinateThose believing the efficacy of vaccines is made up were less willing to get vaccinatedTo protect myself and others was the top reason for getting the vaccineSafety concerns was the top reason against getting the vaccine

BackgroundCOVID-19 testing and contact tracing has been crucial in Australia’s prevention strategy. However, testing for COVID-19 is far from optimal, and behavioural barriers are unknown. Study 1 aimed to identify the range of barriers to testing. Study 2 aimed to estimate prevalence in a nationally relevant sample to target interventions.MethodsStudy 1: National longitudinal COVID-19 survey from April-November 2020. Testing barriers were included in the June survey (n=1369). Open responses were coded using the COM-B framework (capability-opportunity-motivation). Study 2: Barriers from Study 1 were presented to a new nationally representative sample in November to estimate prevalence (n=2869). Barrier prevalence was analysed by health literacy level using Chi square tests.ResultsStudy 1: 49% strongly agreed to get tested for symptoms, and 69% would self-isolate. Concern about pain was the top barrier from a provided list (11%), but 32 additional barriers were identified from open responses and coded to the COM-B framework. Study 2: The most prevalent barriers were motivation issues (e.g. don’t believe symptoms are COVID-19: 28%, few local cases: 18%). Capability issues were also common (e.g. not sure symptoms are bad enough: 19%, not sure whether symptoms need testing: 15%). Many barriers were more prevalent amongst people with low compared to high health literacy, including motivation (preference to self isolate: 21% vs 12%, pain: 15% vs 9%) and capability (not sure symptom needs testing: 12% vs 8%, not sure how to test:11% vs 4%).ConclusionEven in a health system with free and widespread access to COVID-19 testing, motivation and capability barriers were prevalent issues, particularly for people with lower health literacy. This study highlights the important of diagnosing behaviour barriers to target public health interventions for COVID-19 and future pandemics.

COVID-19 has created significant challenges for higher education institutions and major disruptions in teaching and learning. To explore the psychological wellbeing of domestic and international university students during the COVID-19 pandemic, an online cross-sectional survey recruited 787 university students (18+ years) currently studying at an Australian university. In total, 86.8% reported that COVID-19 had significantly impacted their studies. Overall, 34.7% of students reported a sufficient level of wellbeing, while 33.8% showed low wellbeing and 31.5% very low wellbeing. Wellbeing was significantly higher in postgraduate students compared with undergraduate students. Future anxiety was significantly greater among undergraduate than postgraduate students. Multivariable regression models showed female gender, low subjective social status, negative overall learning experience or reporting COVID-19 having a huge impact on study, were associated with lower wellbeing in the first few months (May&ndash, July) of the pandemic. Supporting the health, wellbeing, and learning experiences of all students should be of high priority now and post-pandemic. Strategies specifically targeting female students, and those with low self-reported social status are urgently needed to avoid exacerbating existing disparities.

BACKGROUND It is unclear how people with hypertension are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic given their increased risk, and whether targeted public health strategies are needed. OBJECTIVE This retrospective case-control study compared people with hypertension to matched healthy controls during the COVID-19 lockdown to determine whether they have higher risk perceptions, anxiety, and vaccination intentions. METHODS Baseline data from a national survey were collected in April 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdown in Australia. People who reported hypertension with no other chronic conditions were randomly matched to healthy controls of similar age, gender, education, and health literacy level. A subset including participants with hypertension was followed up at 2 months after restrictions were eased. Risk perceptions, anxiety, and vaccination intentions were measured in April and June. RESULTS Of the 4362 baseline participants, 466 (10.7%) reported hypertension with no other chronic conditions. A subset of 1369 people were followed up at 2 months, which included 147 (10.7%) participants with hypertension. At baseline, perceived seriousness was high for both hypertension and control groups. The hypertension group reported greater anxiety compared to the controls and were more willing to vaccinate against influenza, but COVID-19 vaccination intentions were similar. At follow-up, these differences were no longer present in the longitudinal subsample. Perceived seriousness and anxiety had decreased, but vaccination intentions for both influenza and COVID-19 remained high across groups (>80%). CONCLUSIONS Anxiety was above normal levels during the COVID-19 lockdown. It was higher in the hypertension group, which also had higher vaccination intentions. Groups that are more vulnerable to COVID-19 may require targeted mental health screening during periods of greater risk. Despite a decrease in perceived risk and anxiety after 2 months of lockdown restrictions, vaccination intentions remained high, which is encouraging for the future prevention of COVID-19. CLINICALTRIAL

Objectives: To explore the variation in understanding of, attitudes towards, and uptake of, health advice on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the 2020 pandemic stage 3 restrictions (‘lockdown’) by health literacy in the Australian population. Study design: National cross-sectional community survey. Setting: Australian general public. Participants: Adults aged over 18 years (N = 4362). Main outcome measures: Knowledge, attitudes and behaviours related to COVID-19; health literacy and sociodemographic factors. Results: People with inadequate health literacy had poorer understanding of COVID-19 symptoms (49% vs 68%; p < 0.001), were less able to identify behaviours to prevent infection (59% vs 72%; p < 0.001), and experienced more difficulty finding information and understanding government messaging about COVID-19 than people with adequate health literacy. People with inadequate health literacy were less likely to rate social distancing as important (6.1 vs 6.5; p < 0.001) and reported more difficulty with remembering and accessing medicines since lockdown (3.6 vs 2.7; p < 0.001). People with lower health literacy were also more likely to endorse misinformed beliefs about COVID-19 and vaccinations (in general) than those with adequate health literacy. The same pattern of results was observed among people who primarily speak a language other than English at home. Conclusion: Our findings show that there are important disparities in COVID-19–related knowledge, attitudes and behaviours according to people’s health literacy and language. These have the potential to undermine efforts to reduce viral transmission and may lead to social inequalities in health outcomes in Australia. People with the greatest burden of chronic disease are most disadvantaged, and are also most likely to experience severe disease and die from COVID-19. Addressing the health literacy, language and cultural needs of the community in public health messaging about COVID-19 must now be a priority in Australia.

Background In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has rapidly been adopted to deliver health care services around the world. To date, studies have not compared people’s experiences with telehealth services during the pandemic in Australia to their experiences with traditional in-person visits. Objective This study aimed to compare participants’ perceptions of telehealth consults to their perceptions of traditional in-person visits and investigate whether people believe that telehealth services would be useful after the pandemic. Methods A national, cross-sectional, community survey was conducted between June 5 and June 12, 2020 in Australia. In total, 1369 participants who were aged ≥18 years and lived in Australia were recruited via targeted advertisements on social media (ie, Facebook and Instagram). Participants responded to survey questions about their telehealth experience, which included a free-text response option. A generalized linear model was used to estimate the adjusted relative risks of having a poorer telehealth experience than a traditional in-person visit experience. Content analysis was performed to determine the reasons why telehealth experiences were worse than traditional in-person visit experiences. Results Of the 596 telehealth users, the majority of respondents (n=369, 61.9%) stated that their telehealth experience was “just as good as” or “better than” their traditional in-person medical appointment experience. On average, respondents perceived that telehealth would be moderately useful to very useful for medical appointments after the COVID-19 pandemic ends (mean 3.67, SD 1.1). Being male (P=.007), having a history of both depression and anxiety (P=.016), and lower patient activation scores (ie, individuals’ willingness to take on the role of managing their health/health care) (P=.036) were significantly associated with a poor telehealth experience. In total, 6 overarching themes were identified from free-text responses for why participants’ telehealth experiences were poorer than their traditional in-person medical appointment experiences, as follows: communication is not as effective, limitations with technology, issues with obtaining prescriptions and pathology results, reduced confidence in their doctor, additional burden for complex care, and inability to be physically examined. Conclusions Based on our sample’s responses, telehealth appointment experiences were comparable to traditional in-person medical appointment experiences. Telehealth may be worthwhile as a mode of health care delivery while the pandemic continues, and it may continue to be worthwhile after the pandemic.

Background Medical tests provide important information to guide clinical management. Overtesting, however, may cause harm to patients and the healthcare system, including through misdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives and overdiagnosis. Clinicians are ultimately responsible for test requests, and are therefore ideally positioned to prevent overtesting and its unintended consequences. Through this narrative literature review and workshop discussion with experts at the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference (Sydney, 2019), we aimed to identify and establish a thematic framework of factors that influence clinicians to request non-recommended and unnecessary tests. Methods Articles exploring factors affecting clinician test ordering behaviour were identified through a systematic search of MedLine in April 2019, forward and backward citation searches and content experts. Two authors screened abstract titles and abstracts, and two authors screened full text for inclusion. Identified factors were categorised into a preliminary framework which was subsequently presented at the PODC for iterative development. Results The MedLine search yielded 542 articles; 55 were included. Another 10 articles identified by forward-backward citation and content experts were included, resulting in 65 articles in total. Following small group discussion with workshop participants, a revised thematic framework of factors was developed: “Intrapersonal” – fear of malpractice and litigation; clinician knowledge and understanding; intolerance of uncertainty and risk aversion; cognitive biases and experiences; sense of medical obligation “Interpersonal” – pressure from patients and doctor-patient relationship; pressure from colleagues and medical culture; “Environment/context” – guidelines, protocols and policies; financial incentives and ownership of tests; time constraints, physical vulnerabilities and language barriers; availability and ease of access to tests; pre-emptive testing to facilitate subsequent care; contemporary medical practice and new technology Conclusion This thematic framework may raise awareness of overtesting and prompt clinicians to change their test request behaviour. The development of a scale to assess clinician knowledge, attitudes and practices is planned to allow evaluation of clinician-targeted interventions to reduce overtesting.

ObjectivesIt is unclear how people with hypertension are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic given their increased risk, and whether targeted public health strategies are needed.DesignThis retrospective case-control study compared people with hypertension to matched healthy controls during COVID-19 lockdown, to determine whether they have higher risk perceptions, anxiety and prevention intentions.MethodsBaseline data from a national survey were collected in April 2020 during COVID-19 lockdown. Of 4362 baseline participants, 466 people reported hypertension with no other chronic conditions, and were randomly matched to healthy controls with similar age, gender, education and health literacy. A subset (n=1369) was followed-up at 2 months after restrictions eased, including 147 participants with hypertension only. Risk perceptions, prevention intentions and anxiety were measured.ResultsAt baseline, perceived seriousness was high for both hypertension and control groups. The hypertension group had higher anxiety than controls; and were more willing to have the influenza vaccine. At follow-up, these differences were no longer present in the longitudinal sub-sample. Perceived seriousness and anxiety had decreased, but vaccine intentions for both influenza and COVID-19 remained high (>80%).ConclusionsAnxiety was above normal levels during the COVID-19 lockdown. This was higher in the hypertension group, who also had higher vaccination intentions. Locations with prolonged restrictions may require targeted mental health screening for vulnerable groups. Despite a decrease in perceived risk and anxiety after 2 months of lockdown restrictions, vaccination intentions for both influenza and COVID-19 remained high, which is encouraging for future prevention of COVID-19.

BackgroundThe current suppression strategy for COVID-19 in Australia is dependent on people getting tested and self-isolating while they have COVID-19 symptoms. However, there is very little research on the behaviours and behavioural barriers involved in getting tested, both in Australia and worldwide, despite there being some evidence that these barriers do exist.MethodsThe Sydney Health Literacy Lab (SHeLL) has been conducting a national longitudinal survey in Australia since April 2020. A list of testing barriers was included in Wave 3 in June 2020 (n=1369), along with intentions to test and self-isolate if symptomatic. Open responses were also collected. The test barriers identified were categorised using the COM-B framework.ResultsOnly 49% of people strongly agreed they would get tested if they had COVID-19 symptoms, but most people agreed to some extent that they would get tested (96%). The most common barriers selected from the list provided were that testing is painful (11%), not knowing how to get tested (7%), and worry about getting infected at the testing centre (5%). Many participants (10%) indicated other reasons, and open responses included many additional barriers to testing than those provided in the initial list. These covered all components of the COM-B model.ConclusionWe identified a wide range of barriers using both quantitative and qualitative methods, which need to be addressed in order to increase COVID-19 testing behaviour.