No abstract

Since vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) became available, awareness of HPV has dramatically increased. Implementation of a vaccine program varies internationally yet no studies have explored the influence this has on the public's knowledge of HPV. The present study aimed to explore differences in awareness of HPV and HPV knowledge across three countries: The US, UK and Australia. Participants (n=2409) completed a validated measure of HPV knowledge as part of an online survey. There were higher levels of HPV awareness among men and women in the US than the UK and Australia. Being male and having a lower educational level was associated with lower HPV awareness in all three countries. Awareness of HPV vaccine was higher in women from the US than the UK and Australia. Women in the US scored significantly higher on general HPV knowledge (on a 15-item scale) than women in the UK and Australia, but there were no between country differences in HPV vaccine knowledge (on a 6-item scale). When asked about country-specific vaccine availability, participants in the US were less able to identify the correct answers than participants in the UK and Australia. More than half of participants did not know: HPV can cause genital warts; most sexually active people will get HPV at some point in their life; or HPV doesn't usually need treatment. Pharmaceutical advertising campaigns could explain why awareness of HPV and HPV vaccine is higher in the US and this has helped to get some important messages across. Significant gaps in HPV knowledge remain across all three countries.

A structurally coherent set of items covering a range of important HPV knowledge was developed. Responses indicated a reliable questionnaire, which allowed the fitting of an IRT model.

No abstract

Educational outreach as well as audit and feedback continue to dominate research into prescribing interventions. These 2 prescribing interventions also most consistently show positive results. Much less research is conducted into other types of interventions and there is still very little effort to systematically test why interventions do or do not work.

ObjectiveTo determine, using face-to-face diagnostic interviews, the prevalence of common mental disorders (CMD) in a cohort of adult Indigenous Australians, the cultural acceptability of the interviews, the rates of comorbid CMD and concordance with psychiatrists’ diagnoses.DesignCross-sectional study July 2014–November 2016. Psychologists conducted Structured Clinical Interviews for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) (n=544). Psychiatrists interviewed a subsample (n=78).SettingFour Aboriginal Medical Services and the general community located in urban, regional and remote areas of Southern Queensland and two Aboriginal Reserves located in New South Wales.ParticipantsIndigenous Australian adults.Outcome measuresCultural acceptability of SCID-I interviews, standardised rates of CMD, comorbid CMD and concordance with psychiatrist diagnoses.ResultsParticipants reported that the SCID-I interviews were generally culturally acceptable. Standardised rates (95% CI) of current mood, anxiety, substance use and any mental disorder were 16.2% (12.2% to 20.2%), 29.2% (24.2% to 34.1%), 12.4% (8.8% to 16.1%) and 42.2% (38.8% to 47.7%), respectively—6.7-fold, 3.8-fold, 6.9-fold and 4.2-fold higher, respectively, than those of the Australian population. Differences between this Indigenous cohort and the Australian population were less marked for 12-month (2.4-fold) and lifetime prevalence (1.3-fold). Comorbid mental disorder was threefold to fourfold higher. In subgroups living on traditional lands in Indigenous reserves and in remote areas, the rate was half that of those living in mainstream communities. Moderate-to-good concordance with psychiatrist diagnoses was found.ConclusionsThe prevalence of current CMD in this Indigenous population is substantially higher than previous estimates. The lower relative rates of non-current disorders are consistent with underdiagnosis of previous events. The lower rates among Reserve and remote area residents point to the importance of Indigenous peoples’ connection to their traditional lands and culture, and a potentially important protective factor. A larger study with random sampling is required to determine the population prevalence of CMD in Indigenous Australians.

Objective To synthesise quantitative data on the effects of rural background and experience in rural areas during medical training on the likelihood of general practitioners practising and remaining in rural areas. Study design Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the effects of rural pipeline factors (rural background; rural clinical and education experience during undergraduate and postgraduate/vocational training) on likelihood of later general practice in rural areas. Data sources MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Informit Health Collection, and ERIC electronic database records published to September 2018; bibliographies of retrieved articles; grey literature. Data synthesis Of 6709 publications identified by our search, 27 observational studies were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review; when appropriate, data were pooled in random effects models for meta‐analysis. Study quality, assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa scale, was very good or good for 24 studies, satisfactory for two, and unsatisfactory for one. Meta‐analysis indicated that GPs practising in rural communities was significantly associated with having a rural background (odds ratio [OR], 2.71; 95% CI, 2.12–3.46; ten studies) and with rural clinical experience during undergraduate (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.48–2.08; five studies) and postgraduate training (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 2.80–7.46; eight studies). Conclusion GPs with rural backgrounds or rural experience during undergraduate or postgraduate medical training are more likely to practise in rural areas. The effects of multiple rural pipeline factors may be cumulative, and the duration of an experience influences the likelihood of a GP commencing and remaining in rural general practice. These findings could inform government‐led initiatives to support an adequate rural GP workforce. Protocol registration PROSPERO, CRD42017074943 (updated 1 February 2018).

Little comparative information exists regarding the reliability and validity of pain rating scales for nurses to assess pain in people with moderate to severe dementia in residential aged care facilities. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative psychometric merits of the Abbey Pain Scale, the DOLOPLUS-2 Scale, and the Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators Scale, three well-known pain rating scales that have previously been used to assess pain in nonverbal people with dementia. An observational study design was used. Nurses (n = 26) independently rated a cross-section of people with moderate to severe dementia (n = 126) on two occasions. The Abbey Pain Scale and the DOLOPLUS-2 Scale showed good psychometric qualities in terms of reliability and validity, including resistance to the influence of rater characteristics. The Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators Scale also had reasonable results but was not as psychometrically strong as the Abbey Pain Scale and DOLOPLUS-2 Scale. This study has provided comparative evidence for the reliability and validity of three pain rating scales in a single sample. These scales are strong, objective adjuncts in making comprehensive assessments of pain in people who are unable to self-report pain due to moderate to severe dementia, with each having their own strengths and weaknesses. The DOLOPLUS-2 Scale provides more reliable measurement, and the Abbey Pain Scale may be better suited than the other two scales for use by nurse raters who only occasionally use pain rating scales or who have lower level nursing qualifications.