The prediction of disease risk in genomic medicine

In recent years, the phrase 'genomic medicine' has increasingly been used to describe a new development in medicine that holds great promise for human health. This new approach to health care uses the knowledge of an individual's genetic make-up to identify those that are at a higher risk of developing certain diseases and to intervene at an earlier stage to prevent these diseases. Identifying genes that are involved in disease aetiology will provide researchers with tools to develop better treatments and cures. A major role within this field is attributed to 'predictive genomic medicine', which proposes screening healthy individuals to identify those who carry alleles that increase their susceptibility to common diseases, such as cancers and heart disease. Physicians could then intervene even before the disease manifests and advise individuals with a higher genetic risk to change their behaviour - for instance, to exercise or to eat a healthier diet - or offer drugs or other medical treatment to reduce their chances of developing these diseases. These promises have fallen on fertile ground among politicians, health-care providers and the general public, particularly in light of the increasing costs of health care in developed societies. Various countries have established databases on the DNA and health information of whole populations as a first step towards genomic medicine. Biomedical research has also identified a large number of genes that could be used to predict someone's risk of developing a certain disorder. But it would be premature to assume that genomic medicine will soon become reality, as many problems remain to be solved. Our knowledge about most disease genes and their roles is far from sufficient to make reliable predictions about a patient’s risk of actually developing a disease. In addition, genomic medicine will create new political, social, ethical and economic challenges that will have to be addressed in the near future.

Environmental Risk Factors for Parkinson's Disease

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive, degenerative, neurological disease. The progressive disability associated with PD results in substantial burdens for those with the condition, their families and society in terms of increased health resource use, earnings loss of affected individuals and family caregivers, poorer quality of life, caregiver burden, disrupted family relationships, decreased social and leisure activities, and deteriorating emotional well-being. Currently, no cure is available and the efficacy of available treatments, such as medication and surgical interventions, decreases with longer duration of the disease. Whilst the cause of PD is unknown, genetic and environmental factors are believed to contribute to its aetiology. Descriptive and analytical epidemiological studies have been conducted in a number of countries in an effort to elucidate the cause, or causes, of PD. Rural residency, farming, well water consumption, pesticide exposure, metals and solvents have been implicated as potential risk factors for PD in some previous epidemiological studies. However, there is substantial disagreement between the results of existing studies. Therefore, the role of environmental exposures in the aetiology of PD remains unclear. The main component of this thesis consists of a case-control study that assessed the contribution of environmental exposures to the risk of developing PD. An existing, previously unanalysed, dataset from a local case-control study was analysed to inform the design of the new case-control study. The analysis results suggested that regular exposure to pesticides and head injury were important risk factors for PD. However, due to the substantial limitations of this existing study, further confirmation of these results was desirable with a more robustly designed epidemiological study. A new exposure measurement instrument (a structured interviewer-delivered questionnaire) was developed for the new case-control study to obtain data on demographic, lifestyle, environmental and medical factors. Prior to its use in the case-control study, the questionnaire was assessed for test-retest repeatability in a series of 32 PD cases and 29 healthy sex-, age- and residential suburb-matched electoral roll controls. High repeatability was demonstrated for lifestyle exposures, such as smoking and coffee/tea consumption (kappas 0.70-1.00). The majority of environmental exposures, including use of pesticides, solvents and exposure to metal dusts and fumes, also showed high repeatability (kappas >0.78). A consecutive series of 163 PD case participants was recruited from a neurology clinic in Brisbane. One hundred and fifty-one (151) control participants were randomly selected from the Australian Commonwealth Electoral Roll and individually matched to the PD cases on age (± 2 years), sex and current residential suburb. Participants ranged in age from 40-89 years (mean age 67 years). Exposure data were collected in face-to-face interviews. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using conditional logistic regression for matched sets in SAS version 9.1. Consistent with previous studies, ever having been a regular smoker or coffee drinker was inversely associated with PD with dose-response relationships evident for packyears smoked and number of cups of coffee drunk per day. Passive smoking from ever having lived with a smoker or worked in a smoky workplace was also inversely related to PD. Ever having been a regular tea drinker was associated with decreased odds of PD. Hobby gardening was inversely associated with PD. However, use of fungicides in the home garden or occupationally was associated with increased odds of PD. Exposure to welding fumes, cleaning solvents, or thinners occupationally was associated with increased odds of PD. Ever having resided in a rural or remote area was inversely associated with PD. Ever having resided on a farm was only associated with moderately increased odds of PD. Whilst the current study’s results suggest that environmental exposures on their own are only modest contributors to overall PD risk, the possibility that interaction with genetic factors may additively or synergistically increase risk should be considered. The results of this research support the theory that PD has a multifactorial aetiology and that environmental exposures are some of a number of factors to contribute to PD risk. There was also evidence of interaction between some factors (eg smoking and welding) to moderate PD risk.

A randomized and controlled trial of a participative ergonomics intervention to reduce injuries associated with manual tasks: physical risk and legislative

A participative ergonomics approach to reducing injuries associated with manual tasks is widely promoted; however only limited evidence from uncontrolled trials has been available to support the efficacy of such an approach. This paper reports on a randomized and controlled trial of PErforM, a participative ergonomics intervention designed to reduce the risks of injury associated with manual tasks. One hundred and seventeen small to medium sized food, construction, and health workplaces were audited by government inspectors using a manual tasks risk assessment tool (ManTRA). Forty-eight volunteer workplaces were then randomly assigned to Experimental and Control groups with the Experimental group receiving the PErforM program. Inspectors audited the workplaces again, 9 months following the intervention. The results showed a significant decrease in estimates of manual task risk and suggested better legal compliance in the Experimental group.

Mental health nursing standards and practice indicators for Australia: a review of current literature

There are many changes and challenges facing the mental health care professional working in Australia in the 21st Century. Given the significance of their number and the considerable extent to which care is delivered by them, mental health nurses in particular must be at the forefront of the movement to enhance and improve mental health care. Mental health nurses in Australia must not only keep up with the changes, we should be setting the pace for others across the profession worldwide. The increasingly complex field of mental health nursing demands nurses who are not only equipped to face the challenges but are confident in doing so. Definitive guidelines for practice, clear expectations regarding outcomes and specific means by which to evaluate both practice and outcomes are vital. Strengthening the role and vision of mental health nursing so that there is clarity about both and highlighting core values by which to perform will enable us to become focused on our future and what we can expect to both give to and receive from our chosen profession and how we can, and do, contribute to mental health care. The role of the mental health nurse is undergoing expansion and there are new hurdles to overcome along with the new benefits this brings. To support this, nationally adopted, formalised standards of practice and means by which to measure these, i.e., practice indicators formerly known as clinical indicators, are required. It is important to have national standards and practice indicators because of the variances in the provision of mental health across Australia – different legislation regarding mental health policies and processes, different nursing registration bodies and Nursing Councils, for example – which create additional barriers to cohesion and uniformity. Improvements in the practice of mental health nursing lead to benefits for consumer outcomes as well as the overall quality of mental health care available in Australia. The emphasis on rights-based care, particularly consumer and carer rights, demands evidence-based, up-to-date mental health care delivered by competent, capable professionals. Documented expectations for performance by nurses will provide all involved with yardsticks by which to evaluate outcomes. Flowing on from these benefits are advances in mental health care generally and enhancements to Australia’s reputation and position within the health care arena throughout the world. Currently, the ‘Standards for Practice’ published by the Australian New Zealand College of Mental Health Nurses (ANZCMHN) in 1995 and the practice indicators developed by Skews et al. (2000) provide a less formal guide for mental health nurses working in Australia. While these earlier standards and practice indicators have played some role in supporting mental health nurses they have not been nationally or enthusiastically adopted and there are a multitude of reasons for this. This report reviews the current literature available on practice indicators and standards for practice and describes an evidence-based rationale as to why a review and renewal of these is required and why it is important, not just for mental health nurses but to the field of mental health in general. The term ‘practice indicator’ is used, except where a quotation utilises ‘clinical indicator’, to more accurately reflect the broad spectrum of nursing roles, i.e. not all mental health nursing work involves a clinical role.