ObjectivesTo quantify the independent roles of geography and Indigenous status in explaining disparities in Potentially Preventable Hospital (PPH) admissions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.Design, setting and participantsAnalysis of linked hospital admission data for New South Wales (NSW), Australia, for the period July 1 2003 to June 30 2008.Main outcome measuresAge-standardised admission rates, and rate ratios adjusted for age, sex and Statistical Local Area (SLA) of residence using multilevel models.ResultsPPH diagnoses accounted for 987,604 admissions in NSW over the study period, of which 3.7% were for Indigenous people. The age-standardised PPH admission rate was 76.5 and 27.3 per 1,000 for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people respectively. PPH admission rates in Indigenous people were 2.16 times higher than in non-Indigenous people of the same age group and sex who lived in the same SLA. The largest disparities in PPH admission rates were seen for diabetes complications, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and rheumatic heart disease. Both rates of PPH admission in Indigenous people, and the disparity in rates between Indigenous than non-Indigenous people, varied significantly by SLA, with greater disparities seen in regional and remote areas than in major cities.ConclusionsHigher rates of PPH admission among Indigenous people are not simply a function of their greater likelihood of living in rural and remote areas. The very considerable geographic variation in the disparity in rates of PPH admission between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people indicates that there is potential to reduce unwarranted variation by characterising outlying areas which contribute the most to this disparity.

No abstract

BackgroundOver the past decade, there have been substantial changes in landline and mobile phone ownership, with a substantial increase in the proportion of mobile-only households. Estimates of daily smoking rates for the mobile phone only (MPO) population have been found to be substantially higher than the rest of the population and telephone surveys that use a dual sampling frame (landline and mobile phones) are now considered best practice. Smoking is seen as an undesirable behaviour; measuring such behaviours using an interviewer may lead to lower estimates when using telephone based surveys compared to self-administered approaches. This study aims to assess whether higher daily smoking estimates observed for the mobile phone only population can be explained by administrative features of surveys, after accounting for differences in the phone ownership population groups.MethodsData on New South Wales (NSW) residents aged 18 years or older from the NSW Population Health Survey (PHS), a telephone survey, and the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), a self-administered survey, were combined, with weights adjusted to match the 2013 population. Design-adjusted prevalence estimates and odds ratios were calculated using survey analysis procedures available in SAS 9.4.ResultsBoth the PHS and NDSHS gave the same estimates for daily smoking (12%) and similar estimates for MPO users (20% and 18% respectively). Pooled data showed that daily smoking was 19% for MPO users, compared to 10% for dual phone owners, and 12% for landline phone only users. Prevalence estimates for MPO users across both surveys were consistently higher than other phone ownership groups. Differences in estimates for the MPO population compared to other phone ownership groups persisted even after adjustment for the mode of collection and demographic factors.ConclusionsDaily smoking rates were consistently higher for the mobile phone only population and this was not driven by the mode of survey collection. This supports the assertion that the use of a dual sampling frame addresses coverage issues that would otherwise be present in telephone surveys that only made use of a landline sampling frame.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0342-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The New South Wales School Students Health Behaviours Survey (2014) reported a substantial reduction in students aged 12-17 years reporting that they had ever consumed alcohol, from 82.7% in 2005 to 65.1% in 2014. Similar downward trends are reported nationally and internationally. Although overall consumption is declining, national recommendations maintain that it is safest for young people to not drink at all; however, 17% of all young people in Australia consumed alcohol in the past 7 days, with 6% consuming at a significant risk of harm. The factors that influence young people's uptake of alcohol are complex, including biological and broader social factors. This paper identifies some of the diverse influences on young people's alcohol consumption, and policies and programs that support healthy behaviours. IntroductionFor people younger than 18 years, not drinking alcohol is the safest option. 1National guidelines also recommend delaying the first drink of alcohol for young people aged 15-17 years. A promising picture is emerging in line with these recommendations, with clear trends of young Australians delaying their first use of alcohol and refraining from alcohol consumption entirely. National and international alcohol consumption patterns in young peopleThe National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2013 reported a decrease in the proportion of young people (aged 12-17 years) who had ever consumed a full serve of alcohol from 41% in 2010 to 32% in 2013. This coincides with a rise in the average age of alcohol initiation (having consumed at least one full serve of alcohol) for younger people from 14.4 years in 1998 to 15.7 years in 2013.