Hormones down under: Hormone therapy use after the Women's Health Initiative

Aims:  The primary objective was to describe the usage pattern of hormone therapy (HT) in a sample of urban Australian women in 2001 and to assess the characteristics of users vs. non-users. The second objective was to determine whether there had been any change in usage since the publication of the results of the combined oestrogen plus progestagen arm of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002. Methods:  A cohort of 374 postmenopausal women aged 50–80 years participated in this substudy of the LAW (Longitudinal Assessment of Ageing in Women) project: a 5-year multidisciplinary, observational study. Participants completed an annual medical assessment including details of the use of HT and the reasons for use, as well as demographic and psychosocial data. Results:  In December 2001, 30.8% of the participants were using HT, whereas 55.4% were ever users. The management of vasomotor symptoms and mood disturbance were the primary reasons for use. Of those who had been using HT in December 2001 (24.4%) women ceased using HT in the 3 months following publication of the WHI results. The percentage of women using HT in December 2003 (13.9%) was less than half of that of December 2001. Conclusion:  The rate of HT use and the reasons for use, in 2001 in Brisbane was similar to that of other Australian regions. Usage of HT decreased since the publication of the WHI results in 2002 which may reflect changing attitudes by patients and practitioners regarding HT.

Development and evaluation of the Clinician Suicide Risk Assessment Checklist

This paper describes the development and evaluation of a new instrument - the Clinician Suicide Risk Assessment Checklist (CSRAC). The instrument assesses the clinician's competency in three areas: clinical interviewing, assessment of specific suicide risk factors, and formulating a management plan. A draft checklist was constructed by integrating information from 1) literature review 2) expert clinician focus group and 3) consultation with experts. It was utilised in a simulated clinical scenario with clinician trainees and a trained actor in order to test for inter-rater agreement. Agreement was calculated and the checklist was re-drafted with the aim of maximising agreement. A second phase of simulated clinical scenarios was then conducted and inter-rater agreement was calculated for the revised checklist. In the first phase of the study, 18 of 35 items had inadequate inter-rater agreement (60%>), while in the second phase, using the revised version, only 3 of 39 items failed to achieve adequate inter-rater agreement. Further evidence of reliability and validity are required. Continued development of the CSRAC will be necessary before it can be utilised to assess the effectiveness of risk assessment training programs.