Acceptability and feasibility of a community-based screening programme for melanoma in Australia

The evaluation of a community-based screening programme for melanoma (SkinWatch) in 18 regional communities (total adult population >30 years 63 035) in Queensland, Australia is described. The aim of the SkinWatch programme was to promote whole-body skin screening for melanoma by primary care physicians. The programme included community education, education and support for local medical practitioners and open-access skin screening clinics. Programme delivery was achieved through assistance of local volunteers. All programme activities and resources were recorded for process evaluation. A baseline telephone survey (n = 3110) and a telephone survey four months after programme launch (n = 680) assessed community awareness of the SkinWatch programme and, 37 face-to-face interviews with community members, doctors and community leaders were conducted to assess satisfaction with the programme. A sample of 1043 of 16 383 residents who attended the skin screening clinics provided as part of the programme were interviewed to assess reasons for attending, and positive and negative aspects of SkinWatch programme. Community awareness of the SkinWatch programme increased by over 30% (p < 0.001) within four months of the start of the programme. Interview participants described the SkinWatch programme as a useful service for the communities and 90% stated they would revisit the clinics. A total of 43% of all attendees were over 50 years old, and nearly 50% were men. These findings demonstrate the acceptability and feasibility of a community-based screening programme for melanoma in rural areas. Volunteers were instrumental in increasing community ownership of and involvement in the SkinWatch programme.

Naturopathic and Western herbal medicine practice in Australia - a workforce survey

Background: Despite substantial growth in the use of complementary medicine, no comprehensive national study has been undertaken of the naturopathic and Western herbal medicine component of the healthcare workforce in Australia. This study aimed to examine the nature of these practices and this currently unregulated workforce in Australia. Methods: A comprehensive survey questionnaire was developed in consultation with the profession and distributed nationally to all members of the naturopathic and Western herbal medicine workforce. Results: The practices of herbal medicine and naturopathy make up a sizeable component of the Australian healthcare sector, with approximately 1.9 million consultations annually and an estimated turnover of $AUD 85 million in consultations (excluding the cost of medicines). A large proportion of patients are referred to practitioners by word of mouth. Up to one third of practitioners work in multidisciplinary clinics with other registered sectors of the healthcare community. The number of adverse events associated with herbal medicines, nutritional substances and homoeopathic medicines recorded in Australia is substantial and the types of events reported are not trivial. Data suggest that practitioners will experience one adverse event every 11 months of full-time practice, with 2.3 adverse events for every 1000 consultations (excluding mild gastrointestinal effects). Conclusion: These data confirm the considerable degree of utilisation of naturopathic and Western herbal medicine practitioners by the Australian public. However, there is a need to examine whether statutory regulation of practitioners of naturopathy and Western herbal medicine is required to better protect the public. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

General practice in Australia 2020: "robust and ready" or "rudderless and reeling"?

The future role and structure of Australian general practice remains uncertain, despite a decade of seemingly constant change following the release of the National Health Strategy papers. Some of the suggested change strategies (such as rural Practice Incentive Payments and practice accreditation) have been implemented; others (such as general practitioner involvement with area health authorities in delivering national goals and targets for communities) still await attention. An overarching vision for our health care system in 2020 and general practice's role within it are still to be clearly enunciated. Australia is at variance with other Western countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, which have spent significant time refocusing their health systems to deal with an ageing population with an increased burden of chronic disease. Health bureaucrats and governments need to invest strategically in operational primary care now. This will require the active commitment of general practice's national bodies to articulate and actively promote a shared vision for Australian general practice.

The continuing use of complementary and alternative medicine in South Australia: costs and beliefs in 2004

Objective: To survey the use, cost, beliefs and quality of life of users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Design: A representative population survey conducted in 2004 with longitudinal comparison to similar 1993 and 2000 surveys. Participants: 3015 South Australian respondents over the age of 15 years (71.7% participation). Results: In 2004, CAMs were used by 52.2% of the population. Greatest use was in women aged 25-34 years, with higher income and education levels. CAM therapists had been visited by 26.5% of the population. In those with children, 29.9% administered CAMs to them and 17.5% of the children had visited CAM therapists. The total extrapolated cost in Australia of CAMs and CAM therapists in 2004 was AUD$1.8 billion, which was a decrease from AUD$2.3 billion in 2000. CAMs were used mostly to maintain general health. The users of CAM had lower quality-of-life scores than non-users. Among CAM users, 49.7% used conventional medicines on the same day and 57.2% did not report the use of CAMs to their doctor. About half of the respondents assumed that CAMs were independently tested by a government agency; of these, 74.8% believed they were tested for quality and safety, 21.8% for what they claimed, and 17.9% for efficacy. Conclusions: Australians continue to use high levels of CAMs and CAM therapists. The public is often unaware that CAMs are not tested by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for efficacy or safety.