PurposeChildhood cancer survivorship care is a complex specialty, though it is increasingly being integrated into the general practitioner’s (GP) remit. Establishing the essential components of tertiary- and primary-led care, to maximize the benefits and overcome the challenges inherent to each, is essential to inform the development of survivor-centered, sustainable care models.MethodsWe used the qualitative principles of semi-structured interviewing, verbatim transcription, coding (supported by NVivo12) and thematic analysis, to collect and evaluate the views and preferences of pediatric oncologists, survivorship nurse coordinators, and GPs currently caring for childhood cancer survivors.ResultsSeventy healthcare providers (19 oncology staff and 51 GPs) from 11 tertiary hospitals and 51 primary practices across Australia and New Zealand participated. Participants reported specialist expertise and holistic family-centered care as the key benefits of tertiary and primary care respectively. Participants reported that tertiary-led survivorship care was significantly challenged by a lack of dedicated funding and costs/travel burden incurred by the survivor, whereas primary-led survivorship care was challenged by insufficient GP training and GPs’ reliance on oncologist-developed action plans to deliver guideline-based care. GPs also reported a need for ongoing access to survivorship expertise/consultants to support care decisions at critical times. The discharge of survivors into primary care limited late-effects data collection and the rapid implementation of novel research findings.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals report that while a risk-stratified, collaborative model of survivor-centered care is optimal, to be implemented successfully, greater provisions for the ongoing engagement of GPs and further access to GP education/training are needed.

No abstract

The battle for Crete, 20 May to 1 June 1941, was an engagement in which New Zealand forces played a key role in the defence, and ultimately the loss, of the island. This article traces the methodology of the New Zealand War History Branch in determining responsibility for the withdrawal from Maleme airfield at the western end of the island and the subsequent impact of the official history’s conclusions on New Zealand’s view of this battle.

Important curriculum development work has progressed since the 2019 announcement that Aotearoa New Zealand histories would become compulsory learning across all schools. Much effort has gone into considering how learning ‘our’ histories can engage, inspire and empower children in schools through years 1 to 10, and recent writing has focused on how to address challenges in building knowledge and capability to meet those aims. However, what will be the effects beyond those years? Will students still be drawn to choose history in their senior school years, or will they be ‘over it’? In a quest to gauge the implications of the new curriculum, our research team surveyed secondary school history students on their motivations and areas of interest in learning history, and their views on Aotearoa New Zealand history becoming compulsory for Years 1-10. Findings from our research confirmed that students’ past engagement with history influenced their ongoing interest, motivation and understanding of the subject. However, the positive learning that had drawn them to history was often about everyone else’s history rather than their own. Students identified international histories – often involving war or conflict – as favourite topics. So, while most supported the implementation of the new curriculum, they equally expressed concern that the local focus should not be at the expense of wider perspectives. They felt history could become repetitive and boring; elements which could put students off engaging with history in future.  We conclude by presenting important considerations for ensuring such negative impacts do not occur.

No abstract