Since the introduction of systematic population-based cervical cancer screening in Australia in 1991, age-standardized incidence of cervical cancer has halved. Given recent advances in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and screening, cervical cancer may be eliminated nationally within 20 years. However, immigrant women are not equitably reached by screening efforts. This study systematically reviewed evidence on cervical cancer screening practices among immigrant women in Australia. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO and gray literature for English language studies published till March 1, 2019, was conducted. Observational and qualitative studies evaluating cervical cancer screening awareness and participation of immigrant women were screened. Of 125 potentially relevant studies, 25 were eligible: 16 quantitative (4 cohort, 12 cross-sectional), 6 qualitative, and 3 mixed-methods studies. Quantitative studies indicated 1% to 16% lower screening rates among migrant women compared with Australian-born women, with participation of South Asian women being significantly lower (odds ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval = 0.48-0.61). Qualitative studies illustrated factors affecting women’s willingness to participate in screening, including insufficient knowledge, low-risk perception, and unavailability of a female health professionals being key barriers. Future studies should focus on South Asian women, due to recent increase in their immigration.

Background There is currently no consensus as to a standardized tool for frailty measurement in any patient population. In the solid-organ transplantation population, routinely identifying and quantifying frailty in potential transplant candidates would support patients and the multidisciplinary team to make well-informed, individualized, management decisions. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesise the literature regarding frailty measurement in solid-organ transplant (SOT) candidates. Methods A search of four databases (Cochrane, Pubmed, EMBASE and CINAHL) yielded 3124 studies. 101 studies (including heart, kidney, liver, and lung transplant candidate populations) met the inclusion criteria. Results We found that studies used a wide range of frailty tools (N = 22), including four ‘established’ frailty tools. The most commonly used tools were the Fried Frailty Phenotype and the Liver Frailty Index. Frailty prevalence estimates for this middle-aged, predominantly male, population varied between 2.7% and 100%. In the SOT candidate population, frailty was found to be associated with a range of adverse outcomes, with most evidence for increased mortality (including post-transplant and wait-list mortality), post-operative complications and prolonged hospitalisation. There is currently insufficient data to compare the predictive validity of frailty tools in the SOT population. Conclusion Overall, there is great variability in the approach to frailty measurement in this population. Preferably, a validated frailty measurement tool would be incorporated into SOT eligibility assessments internationally with a view to facilitating comparisons between patient sub-groups and national and international transplant services with the ultimate goal of improved patient care.

No abstract

Background Compared with those without dementia, older patients with dementia admitted to acute care settings are at higher risk for triad combination of polypharmacy (PP), potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), and drug-drug interaction (DDI), which may consequently result in detrimental health. The aims of this research were to assess risk factors associated with triad combination of PP, PIM and DDI among hospitalized older patients with dementia, and to assess prevalence and characteristics of PP, PIM and DDI in this population. Methods In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 416 older inpatients diagnosed with dementia and referred for specialist geriatric consultation at a tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia during 2006-2016 were enrolled. Patients were categorized into two groups according to their exposure to the combination of PP, PIM and DDI: 'triad combination' and 'non-triad combination'. Data were collected using the interRAI Acute Care (AC) assessment instrument. Independent risk factors of exposure to the triad combination were evaluated using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results Overall, 181 (43.5%) were classified as triad combination group. The majority of the population took at least 1 PIM (56%) or experienced at least one potential DDI (76%). Over 75% of the participants were exposed to polypharmacy. The most common prescribed PIMs were antipsychotics, followed by benzodiazepines. The independent risk factors of the triad combination were the presence of atrial fibrillation diagnosis and higher medications use in cardiac therapy, psycholeptics and psychoanaleptics. Conclusions The exposure to triad combination of PP, PIM and DDI are common among people with dementia as a result of their vulnerable conditions and the greater risks of adverse events

Background Medication review can be delivered using telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure ongoing provision of care to vulnerable patient populations and to minimise risk of infection for both patients and health professionals. Objective The aim of this article is to discuss the evidence related to telehealth medication reviews and provide practical considerations for conducting successful medication reviews by telehealth. Discussion Leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth technologies had been increasingly used to deliver medication review services, mainly to patients in rural and remote areas, and were accepted by patients. Available evidence suggests telehealth medication reviews may positively affect clinical and cost outcomes, but there are ongoing challenges. When delivering these services, appropriate preparation – using support people, maintaining patients’ privacy, selecting the most suitable technology on the basis of individual circumstances and ensuring good communication between healthcare professionals involved in medication review cycle of care – can help produce best results for patients.