by Carla Treloar, Emily Lenton, Amy Kirwan, Caitlin Douglass, Gemma Nourse, Adrian Farrugia, Kate Seear, Caroline Watts, Mark Stoove, Elena Cama
The impacts of stigma on health are well-known. Most interventions to reduce stigma focus on education or skills building of health workers and less on organisational or structural approaches. Responding to ongoing efforts to increase the quality of health care, we explore data from semi-structured interviews with 20 key stakeholders to identify and examine stigma reduction opportunities that align with existing practices, policies and structures for strengthening quality in the Australian healthcare system. Analysis focused on the “outer setting” constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify and categorise mechanisms that linked to or were determined by governing processes of the (“outer setting”). The necessity to be accredited against national standards was positioned as an over-arching driver of what health systems do and what gets the attention of leaders and executives, and can subsequently impact allocation of resources, including for stigma reduction. Participants’ accounts also raise the possibility of using other more general industrial relations laws to bring greater attention to stigma reduction. Innovative approaches to stigma reduction using macro, structural tools provide a promising opportunity to trial.This project will establish a nationally consistent and ethically defensible approach to embed genomic testing in Australian primary care. Many non-genetic health professionals (eg, general practitioners (GPs) and other specialists) have limited experience with such testing. Current tests—both subsidised and consumer-paid—target a range of genes and conditions, making appropriate selection challenging. A structured implementation approach is therefore crucial. We will develop, test, refine and evaluate internationally relevant tools to support GPs and consumers in using genomics effectively.
Aims of the project are to (1) develop, implement and evaluate key supports for GPs offering tests through three interventions: primary health point-of-care resources, a practical guide to dealing with ethical issues affecting clinicians and established recommendations for a national approach for genetic counsellors to support GPs providing genetic testing; (2) develop and evaluate consumer resources and plan the implementation strategies; (3) evaluate real-world utilisation and equity of access to genetic testing in primary care using linked Medicare and population data.
This project will focus on two genomic applications recently made available in Australia on the universal insurance scheme (Medicare): a reproductive genetic carrier screen (an example of the role of genetics in reproductive testing) and genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia (an example of a condition-specific test). Both tests can be complex for GPs to understand and explain to consumers and have potential implications beyond the purpose of the test (eg, personal health implications for carriers and results are also relevant to genetic relatives). Developing a robust clinical pathway and process for these tests will prepare GPs for future more complex applications of clinical genomics. The study will take place from January 2024 to December 2026.
Ethical approval for this work has been received from the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 520241849560183) and the Royal Children’s Hospital Research Ethics and Governance (HREC/112451). Findings will be disseminated via publications, conferences and engagement with primary care networks and policymakers.
To identify subgroups with similar social determinants of health (SDOH) characteristics using latent class analysis (LCA) and examine their associations with physical and mental health, cognitive function and missed workdays at 3 and 6 months post-SARS-CoV-2 infection. We hypothesised that intersecting SDOH factors would differentially influence COVID-19-related health outcomes across subgroups.
Prospective cohort study from the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), with longitudinal data collection and cross-sectional analyses at baseline, 3-month and 6-month follow-ups.
Multicentre registry across eight US academic medical centres (Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, New Haven, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle).
Adults aged ≥18 years, fluent in English or Spanish, with self-reported acute COVID-19 symptoms and a confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test within 42 days before enrolment (9 December 2020 to 12 August 2022), and access to an internet-connected device. Exclusions included incarceration, inability to provide informed consent, lack of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or no internet access. Of 3791 eligible participants with complete baseline data, 2897 (76.4%) completed the 3-month follow-up and 2666 (70.3%) completed the 6-month follow-up; most were aged 18–49 years (74–75%), female (66–67%), white (86.6–87.5%) and non-Hispanic (86.6–87.5%).
Prespecified primary outcomes were physical and mental health (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29 V.2.1 T-scores for depression, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain interference, physical function and social participation), cognitive function (PROMIS Cognitive Function Short Form 8 T-scores) and missed workdays due to illness (binary: >1 week vs ≤1 week, from a single-item survey). All measures were self-reported and collected at baseline, 3 months and 6 months; no changes from protocol.
LCA identified a 4-class model as optimal (lowest Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) after evaluating 1–7 class models; significant demographic differences (2 p
In this US prospective cohort, SDOH-based subgroups showed persistent disparities in health outcomes post-SARS-CoV-2 infection. Findings highlight the urgent need for intersectional approaches to address systemic inequities in post-COVID-19 recovery.