Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To quantify and compare the treatment effect and risk of bias of trials reporting biomarkers or intermediate outcomes (surrogate outcomes) versus trials using final patient relevant primary outcomes. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources All randomised clinical trials published in 2005 and 2006 in six high impact medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine. Study selection Two independent reviewers selected trials. Data extraction Trial characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were recorded according to a predefined form. Two reviewers independently checked data extraction. The ratio of odds ratios was used to quantify the degree of difference in treatment effects between the trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes, also adjusted for trial characteristics. A ratio of odds ratios >1.0 implies that trials with surrogate outcomes report larger intervention effects than trials with patient relevant outcomes. Results 84 trials using surrogate outcomes and 101 using patient relevant outcomes were considered for analyses. Study characteristics of trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes were well balanced, except for median sample size (371 v 741) and single centre status (23% v 9%). Their risk of bias did not differ. Primary analysis showed trials reporting surrogate endpoints to have larger treatment effects (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.60) than trials reporting patient relevant outcomes (0.76, 0.70 to 0.82), with an unadjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.47 (1.07 to 2.01) and adjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.46 (1.05 to 2.04). This result was consistent across sensitivity and secondary analyses. Conclusions Trials reporting surrogate primary outcomes are more likely to report larger treatment effects than trials reporting final patient relevant primary outcomes. This finding was not explained by differences in the risk of bias or characteristics of the two groups of trials.

Is pharmacy the final frontier for supermarkets?

Australia’s two major supermarket retailers, Coles and Woolworths, already have vested interests in fuel, convenience, liquor, hardware, hotels, apparel, general merchandise and technology. While they continue to battle each other for a share of the household food shopping dollar, pharmacy appears the final opportunity to grow their business.

Electronic Building Passport - Final Report: Project 2 National Energy Efficient Building Project Phase 2

The National Energy Efficient Building Project (NEEBP) Phase One report, published in December 2014, investigated “process issues and systemic failures” in the administration of the energy performance requirements in the National Construction Code. It found that most stakeholders believed that under-compliance with these requirements is widespread across Australia, with similar issues being reported in all states and territories. The report found that many different factors were contributing to this outcome and, as a result, many recommendations were offered that together would be expected to remedy the systemic issues reported. To follow up on this Phase 1 report, three additional projects were commissioned as part of Phase 2 of the overall NEEBP project. This Report deals with the development and piloting of an Electronic Building Passport (EBP) tool – a project undertaken jointly by pitt&sherry and a team at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) led by Dr Wendy Miller. The other Phase 2 projects cover audits of Class 1 buildings and issues relating to building alterations and additions. The passport concept aims to provide all stakeholders with (controlled) access to the key documentation and information that they need to verify the energy performance of buildings. This trial project deals with residential buildings but in principle could apply to any building type. Nine councils were recruited to help develop and test a pilot electronic building passport tool. The participation of these councils – across all states – enabled an assessment of the extent to which these councils are currently utilising documentation; to track the compliance of residential buildings with the energy performance requirements in the National Construction Code (NCC). Overall we found that none of the participating councils are currently compiling all of the energy performance-related documentation that would demonstrate code compliance. The key reasons for this include: a major lack of clarity on precisely what documentation should be collected; cost and budget pressures; low public/stakeholder demand for the documentation; and a pragmatic judgement that non-compliance with any regulated documentation requirements represents a relatively low risk for them. Some councils reported producing documentation, such as certificates of final completion, only on demand, for example. Only three of the nine council participants reported regularly conducting compliance assessments or audits utilising this documentation and/or inspections. Overall we formed the view that documentation and information tracking processes operating within the building standards and compliance system are not working to assure compliance with the Code’s energy performance requirements. In other words the Code, and its implementation under state and territory regulatory processes, is falling short as a ‘quality assurance’ system for consumers. As a result it is likely that the new housing stock is under-performing relative to policy expectations, consuming unnecessary amounts of energy, imposing unnecessarily high energy bills on occupants, and generating unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, Councils noted that the demand for documentation relating to building energy performance was low. All the participant councils in the EBP pilot agreed that documentation and information processes need to work more effectively if the potential regulatory and market drivers towards energy efficient homes are to be harnessed. These findings are fully consistent with the Phase 1 NEEBP report. It was also agreed that an EBP system could potentially play an important role in improving documentation and information processes. However, only one of the participant councils indicated that they might adopt such a system on a voluntary basis. The majority felt that such a system would only be taken up if it were: - A nationally agreed system, imposed as a mandatory requirement under state or national regulation; - Capable of being used by multiple parties including councils, private certifiers, building regulators, builders and energy assessors in particular; and - Fully integrated into their existing document management systems, or at least seamlessly compatible rather than a separate, unlinked tool. Further, we note that the value of an EBP in capturing statistical information relating to the energy performance of buildings would be much greater if an EBP were adopted on a nationally consistent basis. Councils were clear that a key impediment to the take up of an EBP system is that they are facing very considerable budget and staffing challenges. They report that they are often unable to meet all community demands from the resources available to them. Therefore they are unlikely to provide resources to support the roll out of an EBP system on a voluntary basis. Overall, we conclude from this pilot that the public good would be well served if the Australian, state and territory governments continued to develop and implement an Electronic Building Passport system in a cost-efficient and effective manner. This development should occur with detailed input from building regulators, the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), councils and private certifiers in the first instance. This report provides a suite of recommendations (Section 7.2) designed to advance the development and guide the implementation of a national EBP system.

Journalism, media & communication network: Final report 2015

The JoMeC Network project had three key objectives. These were to: 1. Benchmark the pedagogical elements of journalism, media and communication (JoMeC) programs at Australian universities in order to develop a set of minimum academic standards, to be known as Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs), which would applicable to the disciplines of Journalism, Communication and/or Media Studies, and Public Relations; 2. Build a learning and teaching network of scholars across the JoMeC disciplines to support collaboration, develop leadership potential among educators, and progress shared priorities; 3. Create an online resources hub to support learning and teaching excellence and foster leadership in learning and teaching in the JoMeC disciplines. In order to benchmark the pedagogical elements of the JoMeC disciplines, the project started with a comprehensive review of the disciplinary settings of journalism, media and communication-related programs within Higher Education in Australia plus an analysis of capstone units (or subjects) offered in JoMeC-related degrees. This audit revealed a diversity of degree titles, disciplinary foci, projected career outcomes and pedagogical styles in the 36 universities that offered JoMeC-related degrees in 2012, highlighting the difficulties of classifying the JoMeC disciplines collectively or singularly. Instead of attempting to map all disciplines related to journalism, media and communication, the project team opted to create generalised TLOs for these fields, coupled with detailed TLOs for bachelor-level qualifications in three selected JoMeC disciplines: Journalism, Communication and/or Media Studies, and Public Relations. The initial review’s outcomes shaped the methodology that was used to develop the TLOs. Given the complexity of the JoMeC disciplines and the diversity of degrees across the network, the project team deployed an issue-framing process to create TLO statements. This involved several phases, including discussions with an issue-framing team (an advisory group of representatives from different disciplinary areas); research into accreditation requirements and industry-produced materials about employment expectations; evaluation of learning outcomes from universities across Australia; reviews of scholarly literature; as well as input from disciplinary leaders in a variety of forms. Draft TLOs were refined after further consultation with industry stakeholders and the academic community via email, telephone interviews, and meetings and public forums at conferences. This process was used to create a set of common TLOs for JoMeC disciplines in general and extended TLO statements for the specific disciplines of Journalism and Public Relations. A TLO statement for Communication and/or Media Studies remains in draft form. The Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) and Journalism Education and Research Association of Australian (JERAA) have agreed to host meetings to review, revise and further develop the TLOs. The aim is to support the JoMeC Network’s sustainability and the TLOs’ future development and use.

Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia: Final report

FRDC project 2008/306 Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia was developed and approved in response to the widespread recognition and acknowledgement of the importance of incorporating economic considerations into marine management in Australia and of the persistent undersupply of suitably trained and qualified individuals capable of providing this input. The need to address this shortfall received broad based support and following widespread stakeholder consultation and building on previous unsuccessful State-based initiatives, a collaborative, cross-jurisdictional cross-institutional capability building model was developed. The resulting project sits within the People Development Program as part of FRDC’s ‘investment in RD&E to develop the capabilities of the people to whom the industry entrusts its future’, and has addressed its objectives largely through three core activities: 1. The Fisheries Economics Graduate Research Training Program which provides research training in fisheries/marine economics through enrolment in postgraduate higher degree studies at the three participating Universities; 2. The Fisheries Economics Professional Training Program which aims to improve the economic literacy of non-economist marine sector stakeholders and was implemented in collaboration with the Seafood Cooperative Research Centre through the Future Harvest Masterclass in Fisheries Economics; and, 3. The Australian Fisheries Economics Network (FishEcon) which aims to strengthen research in the area of fisheries economics by creating a forum in which fisheries economists, fisheries managers and Ph.D. students can share research ideas and results, as well as news of upcoming research opportunities and events. These activities were undertaken by a core Project team, comprising economic researchers and teachers from each of the four participating institutions (namely the University of Tasmania, the University of Adelaide, Queensland University of Technology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), spanning three States and the Commonwealth. The Project team reported to and was guided by a project Steering Committee. Commensurate with the long term nature of the project objectives and some of its activities the project was extended (without additional resources) in 2012 to 30th June 2015.