A maple leaf among the gum trees

Longer obstacle courses may not produce better doctors

Intern training is now formally under scrutiny. As part of a review commissioned by the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council (AHMAC) and led by Andrew Wilson and Anne Marie Feyer, a discussion paper was released in February this year that raised a number of questions and made a number of assumptions.1 That paper mentions the Canadian experience, and hence the internship described below is salutary.

One intern’s experience

Last year, one of the interns in my program in rural Victoria2 was a Canadian who had undertaken her undergraduate medical training in Australia. She had done so because, unlike in Canada, here she was not forced to make an irrevocable decision about her future career during her medical school years. She came from the prairie province, Saskatchewan. She had reasoned that early postgraduate years in Australia would give her “the breathing space” to make a more informed decision about the career she wanted to pursue.

However, she did not need the full year to decide. Near the end of her internship she made up her mind — she wanted to become a rural general practitioner in Canada. Complementing her hospital rotations in surgery, medicine and emergency medicine, she had undertaken extensive community practice through the combined 20-week rotation in the Victorian town of Bright and in the nearby Mount Hotham snowfields. This experience had sealed her intention.

In the snowfields, the exposure to medical emergencies and the number of trauma cases provided a busy and intensive learning experience. She was one of only two interns in Victoria licensed to take x-rays. The environment reminded her of Canada, and the experience was so rewarding that she needed no more time to sort out her career. Paradoxically, having such a wide variety of experience enhanced her ability to make a career decision early.

Her experience provided several insights.

First, the surgical, medical and emergency rotations provided worthwhile experience. She did not feel that she was being harnessed as cheap medical labour.

Second, in Canada with only 2 further years of training she will obtain her rural general practitioner certificate. Her intern year in Australia was recognised as part of her Canadian postgraduate training.

Third, one might ask: if the intern year satisfied the requirements for the first year of vocational training in Canada, why then would we encumber her in Australia, had she stayed, with a compulsory 4 years of vocational training before full registration? Turn the question around: does a well constructed intern year mean that vocational training could be shorter in Australia than it is at present?

Should hospital requirements come first?

The problem in Australia with not only the first but often the second postgraduate intern year is that the service requirements of hospitals have traditionally dominated the agenda. But if that service commitment is tempered by clear recognition of the educational value of these years, including community general practice experience as a component of a well constructed training program, then the first 2 intern years could surely contribute to specialty training programs.

The educational aspects of hospital-based programs for interns tend to abide by the requirements of the Australian Curriculum Framework for Junior Doctors (ACFJD). But the quality of an intern program should be defined by many features, including good organisation, innovative content, and the involvement of interested specialists, general practitioners, registrars and teachers who bring a high level of skills.

The Canadian intern appreciated the guidance and variety of experience of our program, which was innovative without infringing the ACFJD liturgy.

Longer is not necessarily better

The time taken to achieve a medical qualification is already long, but this has not stopped educators and others arguing progressively that more time is needed to achieve “full registration”, and then even more to achieve “independent practice”.

This phenomenon, which is as much sociological as economic, has been described in Social limits of growth by Fred Hirsch.3 Increasing the length of required education achieves social scarcity. It does not guarantee more skills and knowledge. Hirsch describes this as “the wasteful lengthening of the obstacle course”.

How might the intern years be made more useful for future practitioners?

The widespread introduction of a 20-week general practice rotation is a proposal worth exploring.2 Where it has been implemented, it has increased the complexity of organising training, but it has been warmly received by interns. They feel value has been added to their internship experience without making it longer. Were this to become more common, the role of directors of clinical training becomes critical in building and maintaining the bridge between community practice and the hospital environment.

The importance or otherwise of directors of clinical training is not canvassed in the AHMAC discussion paper1 — but it needs to be, as does the funding of such positions. Adequate supervision does not automatically follow just because the regulatory agencies deem it should be so. Nailing an Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency edict to the hospital board is not the solution. However, directors of clinical training who are appropriately resourced may be able to effectively interpret such edicts.

Nonetheless, innovation goes only so far, and funding is imperative for expanding internships into community practice. However, interns’ patients are ineligible to claim Medicare rebates directly. The Prevocational General Practice Placement Program used to provide funding, but that program has ceased. There has been no replacement.

When I graduated, I was unequivocally registered from Day 1. If translated into today’s world, that would mean eligibility for Medicare rebates for my patients. After all, the current intern already has a provider number; this is restricted to ordering tests, but what is the difference to allowing access to other areas of Medicare? If the government wants interns exposed to general practice then the government must pay for this experience, one way or the other.

In the end, the young Canadian doctor realised that she had had a firm base in generalist training. In Canada, she could progress more swiftly to a program tailored to be complementary. She also knew that it would take less time to complete her training. She has accepted a post in a small city in south-western Saskatchewan called Swift Current, where she will be able to put into practice what she has learned in Australia.

Lengthening time is not necessarily synonymous with acquiring greater expertise. What if one changed the metaphor and said expanding the time spent had a diluting effect? If so, further time spent in acquiring the right to practice independently without evidence as to its value could even have homoeopathic characteristics — perhaps like a drop of maple syrup into a firkin of eucalyptus oil.

Use of nicotine replacement therapy and stop-smoking medicines in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and ex-smokers

In 2012–2013, 44% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults smoked, 2.5 times the age-standardised prevalence among other Australian adults, and 26% were ex-smokers.1 Although the proportion of those who had ever smoked and had successfully quit was only 37%, compared with 63% of other Australians, this had increased from 24% in 2002.1,2 Several types of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; gum, patches, lozenges, sublingual tablets and inhalers) and two prescription-only stop-smoking medicines (SSMs; bupropion and varenicline) are available in Australia to assist cessation.3 All have been shown to increase the chance of successfully quitting, with varenicline and combinations of NRT being the most effective.4

Nicotine gum became available in Australia in the 1980s, followed by patches in the 1990s and other forms of NRT in the past decade.3 Over-the-counter availability of NRT occurred first in pharmacies, then supermarkets. Subsidised availability by prescription for patches followed listing with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for veterans from 1994, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from 2009, and all others from 2011. Bupropion was listed on the PBS in 2001, and varenicline in 2008.3 Since 1999, Aboriginal health services in remote areas have been able to dispense these PBS items at no cost through Section 100 of the National Health Act 1953.5 In addition, since July 2010, many non-remote Aboriginal health services and general practices participating in the Indigenous Health Incentive of the Practice Incentives Program have been able to reduce or eliminate the copayment for all PBS medicines, including SSMs, for their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients.6

Clinical guidelines suggest that NRT, bupropion or varenicline be recommended to all dependent smokers who are interested in quitting.7–9 Here, we explore the use of these medicines and beliefs about them among a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and ex-smokers. We also explore variation in their use among dependent smokers in this population, and make comparisons with smokers in the general Australian population.

Methods

The Talking About The Smokes (TATS) project surveyed 1643 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and 78 recent ex-smokers (who had quit ≤ 12 months before), using a quota sampling design based on the communities served by 34 Aboriginal community-controlled health services (ACCHSs) and one community in the Torres Strait. It has been described in detail elsewhere.10,11 Briefly, the 35 sites were selected based on the distribution of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population by state or territory and remoteness. In 30 sites, we aimed to interview 50 smokers or recent ex-smokers and 25 non-smokers, with equal numbers of women and men, and those aged 18–34 and ≥ 35 years. In four large city sites and the Torres Strait community, the sample sizes were doubled. People were excluded if they were aged under 18 years, not usual residents of the area, staff of the ACCHS or deemed unable to complete the survey. In each site, different locally determined methods were used to collect a representative, although not random, sample.

Baseline data were collected from April 2012 to October 2013. Interviews were conducted face to face by trained interviewers, almost all of whom were members of the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. The survey was completed on a computer tablet and took 30–60 minutes. A single survey of health service activities was also completed at each site. The baseline sample closely matched the distribution of age, sex, jurisdiction, remoteness, quit attempts in the past year and number of daily cigarettes smoked reported in the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS). However, there were inconsistent differences in some socioeconomic indicators: our sample had higher proportions of unemployed people, but also higher proportions who had completed Year 12 and who lived in more advantaged areas.10

The TATS project is part of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) collaboration. Interview questions were closely based on those in ITC Project surveys, especially the Australian surveys.12 We asked all smokers and recent ex-smokers whether they had ever used NRT or SSMs, and which they had used. For those who had used NRT, we asked if they were currently using it, when and for how long they last used it, where they got it and if it was free, and whether they would use it again in the future. We asked similar questions of those who had used SSMs. We asked all smokers and recent ex-smokers whether they thought NRT and SSMs help smokers to quit, and about their quit attempts and sociodemographic factors. The questions are described in detail in Appendix 1.

We used the Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) to assess dependence among daily smokers. The HSI was coded 0 to 6 based on the sum of the responses to two questions: cigarettes per day (CPD) and time to first cigarette (TTFC). These items were each coded as 0 (0–10 CPD; TTFC, ≥ 61 min), 1 (11–20 CPD; TTFC, 31–60 min), 2 (21–30 CPD; TTFC, 6–30 min) or 3 (≥ 31 CPD; TTFC, ≤ 5 min).13 We categorised HSI as low (0–1), moderate (2–3) or high (4–6).14,15 We also assessed the three criteria for dependence in the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) cessation guidelines: TTFC ≤ 30 min, > 10 CPD, and withdrawal symptoms on previous quit attempts (defined in our sample as strong cravings during the most recent quit attempt).7

TATS project results were compared with those of 1017 daily smokers surveyed in Wave 8 of the Australian ITC Project between July 2010 and May 2011. The ITC Project survey was completed by random digit telephone dialling or on the internet, and included smokers contacted for the first time and those who were recontacted after completing surveys in previous waves. For respondents who had completed surveys in previous waves, the ITC Project questions about use of NRT or SSMs were different to the TATS project questions, so for these comparisons we included only the 189 daily smokers who were newly recruited to the ITC Project.

The project was approved by three Aboriginal human research ethics committees (HRECs) and two HRECs with Aboriginal subcommittees: Aboriginal Health & Medical Research Council Ethics Committee, Sydney; Aboriginal Health Research Ethics Committee, Adelaide; Central Australian HREC, Alice Springs; HREC for the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin; and the Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee, Perth.

Statistical analyses

We calculated the percentages and frequencies of responses to the TATS project questions, but did not include confidence intervals for these as it is not considered statistically acceptable to estimate sampling error in non-probabilistic samples. We compared results for daily smokers with those from the Australian ITC Project, which were directly standardised to the distribution of age and sex of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers reported in the 2008 NATSISS.

Within the TATS project sample, we assessed the association between variables using logistic regression, with confidence intervals adjusted for the sampling design, using the 35 sites as clusters and the age–sex quotas as strata in Stata 13 (StataCorp) survey [SVY] commands).16 P values were calculated for each variable using adjusted Wald tests. However, we used χ2 tests to assess the association of variables with beliefs about whether NRT and SSMs help in quitting, and the association of past use with reasons for not intending to use them in the future. Median durations of NRT use are reported with interquartile ranges (IQRs) and were compared using the non-parametric equality of medians test.

Reported percentages and frequencies exclude those refusing to answer or answering “don’t know”, except for questions on future interest in NRT or SSM use and whether they help in quitting, which include those answering “don’t know”. Less than 2% of smokers and recent ex-smokers answered “don’t know” or refused to answer each of the questions analysed here.

Results

Compared with other daily Australian smokers in the ITC Project, lower proportions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers reported ever using any NRT or SSMs (37% [515/1379] v 58.5% [95% CI, 42.8%–72.6%]) and having used them in the past year (23% [318/1369] v 42.1% [95% CI, 29.4%–56.0%]).

Among all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers in the TATS project sample, 29% (501/1700) had ever used NRT and 11% (193/1700) had used SSMs. Nicotine patches were the most commonly used, by 24% (415/1699), followed by varenicline (11%; 183/1699), nicotine gum (10%; 174/1699), lozenges (3%; 50/1699), and inhalers (3%; 50/1699). Only 1% (17/1699) had used bupropion.

Of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers who had used NRT within the past year, most had last got it from an Aboriginal medical service (46%; 99/216), pharmacy (31%; 66/216) or another local health service (15%; 32/216), with only 3% (6/216) getting it from an ordinary store. Three-quarters (74%; 161/217) got their NRT at no cost, including almost all who got it from an Aboriginal medical service (93%; 92/99) or another local health service (91%; 29/32).

Of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers who had used NRT within the past year but were currently not using it, only 9% (16/174) had used it for the recommended period of more than 2 months;7–9 49% (85/174) used it for a week or less and 79% (138/174) for a month or less. The median duration of NRT use was 14 days (IQR, 3–30 days), with no significant differences by HSI score or whether it was free.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who were more dependent, according to the HSI and RACGP criteria, were more likely to have ever used NRT or SSMs than those who were less dependent (Box 1). Fewer non-daily smokers than daily smokers or recent ex-smokers had ever used them. These associations were similar but less marked for use in the past year.

Among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers who were at least moderately dependant (HSI score ≥ 2), the group for whom NRT and SSMs are recommended, those who were socioeconomically advantaged were more likely than the disadvantaged to have ever used NRT or SSMs and to have used them in the past year (Box 2). Use decreased with increasing remoteness and area-level disadvantage, increased with education, and was lower among those who reported being treated unfairly in the past year because they were Indigenous. Use also increased with age and was higher among smokers whose local health service had dedicated tobacco control resources. Those who were socioeconomically disadvantaged were even less likely to use SSMs than NRT (Appendix 2).

Most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers said NRT and SSMs help smokers to quit: 70% said they help “very much” or “somewhat”, 16% said “not at all” and 14% did not know (Box 3). Similarly, the Australian ITC Project reported that 74.2% (95% CI, 68.9%–78.9%) of Australian daily smokers agreed that NRT and SSMs would make it easier to quit, 11.0% (95% CI, 8.7%–13.8%) disagreed, and 14.8% (95% CI, 10.8%–20.0%) neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know.

Having used NRT or SSMs was strongly associated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers believing that they help in quitting. Heavy smokers were more likely to believe that they would not help at all (Box 3).

Dependent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers who believed NRT and SSMs would help in quitting and those who had used them (ever or in the past year) were more likely to be interested in using them in the future (Box 4). Frequency of strong urges to smoke and strong cravings on the most recent quit attempt were not associated with interest in future use of NRT and SSMs (data not shown).

The main reasons given by dependent smokers who were not interested in using NRT and SSMs in future were that they were not ready to quit (NRT, 36% [162/445]; SSMs, 29% [131/449]), because of side effects (19% [85/445]; 25% [114/449]), they did not think they would work (18% [81/445]; 16% [73/449]) and they preferred not to use them (16% [73/445]; 18% [82/449]). Cost was rarely mentioned as a reason (3% [15/445]; 2% [10/449]). There were significant differences between the reasons given by those who had and had not used NRT or SSMs in the past year (P < 0.001). Those who had used NRT were more likely than those who had not to say they would not use it in the future because of side effects (45% [26/58] v 15% [59/386]) and were less likely to report not being ready to quit (12% [7/58] v 40% [155/386]).

Discussion

We found lower use of NRT and SSMs among daily smokers in a large nationally representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sample than among those in the general Australian population. This is consistent with research in various countries that has found that smokers from more disadvantaged groups are less likely to use these medicines.17,18 We also found a social gradient of reducing use with increasing disadvantage (including perceived experiences of racism) within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. Consistent with previous research, we found this gradient was steeper for the use of varenicline (bupropion accounted for very little of the SSM use) than for NRT.18,19

In recent years, many ACCHSs and their government funders have increased their focus on, and directed significant resources towards, tobacco control and cessation support. Our finding of greater use of SSMs by smokers whose local ACCHS had dedicated tobacco control resources provides some evidence for the effect of these policy decisions. We explore other non-pharmacological cessation support elsewhere in this supplement.20

Early research into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers’ use of SSMs focused on the disincentive of the cost of NRT, and interventions to subsidise or provide free NRT.21–24 Covering the costs of treatment has been demonstrated to increase the use of NRT and bupropion in other contexts.25,26 Following policy changes, we found that nearly three-quarters of participants had got their most recent NRT at no cost, removing this financial impediment to its use. Unlike earlier research, cost was rarely given as a reason in our survey for not intending to use NRT or SSMs in the future.21,23 While some smokers are still paying a proportion of the cost, it is reassuring that policies to provide access to free NRT seem to be effectively reaching many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers.

It is encouraging that a similar proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers as those in the broader Australian population think these medicines assist cessation. Further, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers who were more dependent were more likely than the less dependent to have used them, in accordance with current clinical guidelines. However, there is still opportunity to improve their use. The clinical guidelines can be better promoted during the training and ongoing education of clinicians and tobacco control workers, to enable more frequent discussion about them with smokers. There remains a large proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers who have never used these medicines, are less likely to think they help and less likely to use them in the future, who could be informed about their effectiveness in assisting quitting.27

The frequent use of NRT for much less than the recommended 8 weeks is similar to earlier reports in this population; likewise, the median duration was similar to those found in other research in Australia and elsewhere, particularly the shorter durations reported when NRT is available over the counter rather than by prescription.22,28–31 Research into the common reasons for stopping NRT and SSMs (resuming smoking, side effects and the belief that it has already worked) suggests that these are generally legitimate and may not be cause for great concern. For example, data from other ITC Project surveys show that 66% of those who stopped early because they believed that they no longer needed the medication were still abstinent at 6 months.30

There has been a significant increase in the use of SSMs in Australia in recent years, especially associated with the release of varenicline in 2008.32 The release of new varieties of NRT and other SSMs has also been shown to be associated with this increase in the total use of SSMs, often with very little compensatory decline in the use of older medicines.19,26,32 We found that a variety of types of NRT were used (most commonly patches), as well as varenicline and a small amount of bupropion. The range of NRT formulations and other medicines is likely to increase in the future.3 The potential impact of e-cigarettes as an aid to cessation remains unclear and contested.33,34

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of our study is its large national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers, providing the first detailed national information about the use of NRT and SSMs in this population. However, it is a non-random, albeit broadly representative, sample, and caution is needed in interpreting the comparisons with the Australian ITC Project sample and in generalising the results to the whole Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. The use of NRT or SSMs in our sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in communities served by ACCHSs may be different to that in communities without access to an ACCHS, who use private general practices. Our self-reported data are probably limited by incomplete recall of past use of NRT and SSMs and quit attempts. The effect of these biases will be to weaken reported associations, leading to greater confidence in the significant associations but requiring caution in the implications of findings of no association.

1 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or stop-smoking medicines (SSMs)

Ever used NRT or SSMs

Used NRT or SSMs in the past year

Smoking characteristic

% (frequency)*

Odds ratio (95% CI)†

P‡

% (frequency)*

Odds ratio (95% CI)†

P‡

Smokers and recent ex-smokers (n = 1721)

Smoking status

Daily smokers

37% (515)

1.0

< 0.001

23% (318)

1.0

0.001

Non-daily smokers

17% (43)

0.35 (0.24–0.51)

12% (30)

0.46 (0.29–0.73)

Recent ex-smokers§

36% (28)

0.94 (0.57–1.55)

32% (25)

1.59 (0.95–2.66)

Daily smokers only (n = 1369)

Heaviness of Smoking Index score

Low (0–1)

30% (69)

1.0

< 0.001

18% (42)

1.0

0.06

Moderate (2–3)

36% (284)

1.34 (1.00–1.81)

23% (184)

1.39 (0.92–2.08)

Heavy (4–6)

45% (148)

1.98 (1.42–2.76)

27% (86)

1.65 (1.08–2.51)

RACGP criteria for dependence¶

None

24% (38)

1.0

< 0.001

13% (20)

1.0

< 0.001

One

27% (91)

1.23 (0.78–1.92)

17% (55)

1.38 (0.84–2.28)

Two

35% (192)

1.71 (1.12–2.61)

21% (118)

1.89 (1.11–3.22)

All three

59% (193)

4.66 (2.99–7.27)

39% (125)

4.39 (2.56–7.51)

RACGP = Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. * Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer. † Odds ratios calculated using simple logistic regression adjusted for the sampling design. ‡ P values for the entire variable, using adjusted Wald tests. § Those who had quit ≤ 12 months before. ¶ Time to first cigarette ≤ 30 min, > 10 cigarettes per day, and withdrawal symptoms on previous quit attempts (strong cravings during most recent quit attempt).

2 Use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or stop-smoking medicines (SSMs) by dependent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers,* by sociodemographic factors (n = 1124)

	Ever used NRT or SSMs			Used NRT or SSMs in the past year
Sociodemographic factor	% (frequency)†	Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§	% (frequency)†	Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§

All dependent smokers	39% (432)			24% (270)
Age (years)			0.002			0.08
18–24	28% (59)	1.0		18% (39)	1.0
25–34	35% (102)	1.43 (0.98–2.08)		23% (67)	1.35 (0.91–2.02)
35–44	40% (112)	1.78 (1.12–2.83)		24% (65)	1.37 (0.85–2.23)
45–54	44% (86)	2.07 (1.29–3.33)		29% (55)	1.78 (1.12–2.83)
≥ 55	53% (73)	3.00 (1.79–5.01)		32% (44)	2.13 (1.25–3.64)
Sex			0.18			0.11
Female	41% (233)	1.0		27% (150)	1.0
Male	36% (199)	0.80 (0.58–1.11)		22% (120)	0.77 (0.55–1.07)
Indigenous status			0.14			0.76
Aboriginal	40% (398)	1.0		25% (245)	1.0
Torres Strait Islander or both	31% (34)	0.70 (0.44–1.12)		23% (25)	0.93 (0.56–1.52)
Labour force status			< 0.001			0.02
Employed	45% (166)	1.0		29% (105)	1.0
Unemployed	30% (113)	0.51 (0.38–0.70)		20% (76)	0.62 (0.45–0.86)
Not in labour force	41% (151)	0.85 (0.64–1.14)		24% (88)	0.80 (0.56–1.14)
Highest education attained			0.001			0.03
Less than Year 12	35% (206)	1.0		21% (127)	1.0
Finished Year 12	38% (109)	1.18 (0.88–1.58)		26% (73)	1.28 (0.92–1.78)
Post-school qualification	50% (115)	1.90 (1.36–2.67)		30% (68)	1.58 (1.12–2.23)
Treated unfairly because Indigenous in past year			0.01			0.02
No	43% (207)	1.0		28% (135)	1.0
Yes	35% (214)	0.71 (0.54–0.92)		21% (129)	0.68 (0.50–0.93)
Remoteness			0.002			0.03
Major cities	43% (127)	1.0		29% (85)	1.0
Inner and outer regional	41% (239)	0.94 (0.60–1.47)		25% (141)	0.80 (0.53–1.20)
Remote and very remote	27% (66)	0.50 (0.31–0.80)		18% (44)	0.54 (0.34–0.86)
Area-level disadvantage			0.03			0.02
1st quintile (most disadvantaged)	33% (141)	1.0		19% (81)	1.0
2nd and 3rd quintiles	41% (189)	1.40 (1.01–1.94)		27% (122)	1.54 (1.09–2.17)
4th and 5th quintiles	45% (102)	1.64 (1.07–2.51)		30% (67)	1.78 (1.10–2.87)
Local health service has dedicated tobacco control resources			0.006			0.003
No	31% (97)	1.0		18% (57)	1.0
Yes	42% (335)	1.66 (1.16–2.37)		27% (213)	1.70 (1.20–2.39)

* Daily smokers with Heaviness of Smoking Index scores ≥ 2. † Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer. ‡ Odds ratios calculated using simple logistic regression adjusted for the sampling design. § P values for the entire variable, using adjusted Wald tests.

3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers’ beliefs about whether nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and stop-smoking medicines (SSMs) help smokers to quit*

	Do you think NRT and SSMs help smokers to quit?
Smoker characteristics	Very much	Somewhat	Not at all	Don’t know or haven’t heard of them	P†

Smokers and recent ex-smokers (n = 1721)	20% (337)	51% (867)	16% (274)	14% (234)‡
Ever used NRT or SSMs					< 0.001
Yes	31% (179)	55% (324)	9% (50)	5% (32)
No	14% (158)	48% (541)	20% (223)	18% (196)
Used NRT or SSMs in the past year					< 0.001
Yes	35% (132)	53% (197)	7% (27)	5% (17)
No	15% (203)	50% (659)	19% (245)	16% (211)
Smoking status					0.2
Daily smokers	19% (268)	51% (700)	16% (218)	14% (197)
Non-daily smokers	18% (45)	53% (132)	18% (44)	12% (30)
Recent ex-smokers§	31% (24)	45% (35)	15% (12)	9% (7)
Daily smokers only (n = 1383)
Heaviness of Smoking Index score					0.007
Low (0–1)	17% (39)	49% (115)	14% (33)	20% (46)
Moderate (2–3)	20% (161)	53% (416)	14% (112)	13% (103)
Heavy (4–6)	19% (61)	46% (149)	22% (70)	14% (45)

* Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer, except for whether NRT and SSMs help, which do include those answering “don’t know”. † P values were calculated using the χ2 test adjusted for sampling design. ‡ Comprises 19 smokers and recent ex-smokers who had not heard of NRT and SSMs, and 215 who did not know if they helped smokers to quit. § Those who had quit ≤ 12 months before.

4 Interest in using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or stop-smoking medicines (SSMs) to help quit smoking in the future among dependent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers* (n = 1124)

	Interested in using NRT in the future					Interested in using SSMs in the future
	% (frequency)†			Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§	% (frequency)†			Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§
Variable	Yes	No	Don’t know	Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§	Yes	No	Don’t know	Odds ratio (95% CI)‡	P§

All dependent smokers	54% (608)	41% (462)	4% (47)			51% (575)	42% (470)	7% (73)
Think NRT and SSMs help smokers to quit					< 0.001					< 0.001
Not at all	24% (43)	73% (132)	4% (7)	1.0		23% (42)	74% (134)	3% (6)	1.0
Somewhat	59% (335)	37% (211)	3% (19)	4.87 (3.19–7.45)		58% (325)	37% (209)	5% (31)	4.96 (3.18–7.73)
Very much	80% (177)	18% (40)	2% (4)	13.58 (8.29–22.26)		74% (164)	23% (51)	3% (7)	10.26 (6.3–16.7)
Don’t know or haven’t heard of them	36% (53)	53% (78)	11% (17)			30% (44)	51% (75)	20% (29)
Ever used NRT or SSMs					< 0.001					< 0.001
No	48% (352)	48% (354)	5% (34)	1.0		48% (461)	46% (438)	6% (62)	1.0
Yes	69% (255)	29% (106)	2% (8)	2.42 (1.82–3.22)		75% (112)	21% (31)	4% (6)	3.43 (2.22–5.31)
Used NRT or SSMs in the past year					< 0.001					< 0.001
No	49% (427)	46% (401)	5% (41)	1.0		49% (499)	45% (454)	6% (65)	1.0
Yes	74% (176)	25% (60)	1% (2)	2.75 (1.95–3.90)		78% (72)	17% (16)	4% (4)	4.09 (2.21–7.57)
Heaviness of Smoking Index score					0.05					< 0.001
Moderate (2–3)	56% (446)	39% (311)	4% (34)	1.0		53% (418)	41% (323)	6% (51)	1.0
Heavy (4–6)	50% (162)	46% (151)	4% (13)	0.75 (0.56–0.99)		48% (157)	45% (147)	7% (22)	0.83 (0.62–1.09)

* Daily smokers with Heaviness of Smoking Index scores ≥ 2. † Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer, except for questions on future interest in NRT or SSM use and whether they help in quitting, which include those answering “don’t know”. ‡ Odds ratios calculated using simple logistic regression adjusted for the sampling design. § P values for the entire variable, using adjusted Wald tests.

Smoking cessation advice and non-pharmacological support in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and ex-smokers

Quitting smoking reduces the risk of smoking-related death, with greater benefits from quitting at a younger age.1 Receiving brief advice to quit from health professionals and more intensive support from specialist clinics and courses, stop-smoking medicines, telephone quitlines, websites and printed materials have been shown to increase successful quitting.2–8 In Australia, just over half of smokers have been recently advised to quit, and a similar proportion of those who have tried to quit have used stop-smoking medicines.9,10 Fewer smokers are referred to or use other cessation support services.9–11

In 2012–2013, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults had 2.5 times the smoking prevalence of other Australian adults, and those who had ever smoked were less likely to have successfully quit (37% v 63%).12 There is a long history of widespread training in how to give brief advice for health professionals working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.13 In recent years, the national Tackling Indigenous Smoking program has increased funding to support this training, enhancement of the telephone Quitline service to be more culturally appropriate, and other local cessation support activities.14

Here, we describe recall among a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers of having received advice to quit smoking and referral to non-pharmacological cessation support from health professionals, and examine the association of advice and referrals with making a quit attempt. We examine the use of stop-smoking medicines elsewhere in this supplement.15

Methods

The Talking About The Smokes (TATS) project surveyed 1643 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and 78 recent ex-smokers (who had quit ≤ 12 months before), using a quota sampling design based on the communities served by 34 Aboriginal community-controlled health services (ACCHSs) and one community in the Torres Strait. It has been described in detail elsewhere.16,17 Briefly, the 35 sites were selected based on the distribution of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population by state or territory and remoteness. In 30 sites, we aimed to interview 50 smokers or recent ex-smokers and 25 non-smokers, with equal numbers of women and men, and those aged 18–34 and ≥ 35 years. In four large city sites and the Torres Strait community, the sample sizes were doubled. People were excluded if they were aged under 18 years, not usual residents of the area, staff of the ACCHS or deemed unable to complete the survey. In each site, different locally determined methods were used to collect a representative, although not random, sample.

We asked all smokers and recent ex-smokers whether they had seen a health professional in the past year and, if so, whether they had been asked if they smoke and, if so, whether they had been encouraged to quit. We asked those who had been encouraged to quit about pamphlets or referrals to the Quitline, quit-smoking websites, or quit courses or clinics they had received. We also asked all smokers and recent ex-smokers whether they had sought out these services themselves, and about quit attempts and sociodemographic factors. At each site, we asked questions about tobacco control funding and staff positions to determine if the health service had resources dedicated to tobacco control. The questions reported here are described in detail in Appendix 1.

The TATS project is part of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) collaboration. Interview questions were closely based on those in ITC Project surveys, especially the Australian surveys.18 TATS project results were compared with those of 1412 daily smokers newly recruited to Waves 5–8 (2006–2011) of the Australian ITC Project. The ITC Project survey was conducted by random digit telephone dialling. We only used data from the newly recruited participants as questions for recontacted participants referred to advice received since the previous survey rather than in the past year. Slightly different definitions of smokers between the TATS project and ITC Project surveys meant that only daily and weekly smoker categories were directly comparable. We concentrated our comparisons on daily smokers. We have also concentrated our other descriptions of recall of advice and associations between variables within the TATS sample on daily smokers.

Statistical analyses

We calculated the percentages and frequencies of responses to the TATS project questions, but did not include confidence intervals for these as it is not considered statistically acceptable to estimate sampling error in non-probabilistic samples. We compared results for daily smokers with those in the Australian ITC Project surveys, which were directly standardised to the distribution of age and sex of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers reported in the 2008 NATSISS.

Within the TATS project sample, we assessed the association between variables using simple logistic regression, with confidence intervals adjusted for the sampling design, using the 35 sites as clusters and the age–sex quotas as strata in Stata 13 (StataCorp) survey [SVY] commands.19 P values were calculated using adjusted Wald tests.

Reported percentages and frequencies exclude those refusing to answer or answering “don’t know”, leading to minor variations in denominators between questions. Less than 2% of daily smokers answered “don’t know” or refused to answer each of the questions analysed here.

Results

Three-quarters of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers (76%) reported having seen a health professional in the past year (Box 1). Of these, 93% said they were asked if they smoked, and 75% also reported being advised to quit. These proportions are higher than those among Australian daily smokers in the ITC Project.

Within the TATS project sample, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who had been advised to quit by a health professional had twice the odds of having made a quit attempt in the past year, compared with those who did not recall being advised to quit (Box 2).

The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who had been advised to quit increased with age and was higher among women, those with post-school qualifications and those whose local health service had dedicated tobacco control resources; the proportion was lower among the unemployed (Box 3). There was more sociodemographic variation in having seen a health professional than in recalling being advised to quit (Appendix 2).

Among all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and ex-smokers who were advised to quit, 49% were given a pamphlet or brochure on how to quit, and lower proportions were referred to the telephone Quitline (28%), a quit-smoking website (27%) or a local quit course, group or clinic (16%) (Box 4). Most of those who received pamphlets said they read them (70%, 321/457), but lower proportions reported following up on other referrals. Daily smokers who were referred to each resource were non-significantly more likely to have made a quit attempt in the past year than those who had been advised to quit but not referred (Box 2). We also found that 13% of smokers and recent ex-smokers (215/1696) had sought out quit information or services themselves, and that 62% (1047/1692) had been encouraged by family or friends to quit or to maintain a quit attempt.

A higher proportion of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who had been advised to quit by a health professional in the past year had been given a pamphlet, compared with other Australian daily smokers in the ITC Project (50% [390/778] v 29.6% [95% CI, 25.4%–34.3%]).

Discussion

Daily smokers in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sample were more likely than those in the broader Australian ITC Project sample to recall having been advised to quit by a health professional in the past year. This was in part due to being more likely to have been seen by a health professional, but mainly due to a greater proportion of those seen being advised to quit.

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of this study is its large, nationally representative sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and ex-smokers. However, the sample was not random and there were some sociodemographic differences compared with a random sample of the population.16

Our survey was conducted face to face, whereas the comparison Australian ITC Project surveys were conducted by telephone, potentially leading to differential social desirability bias. Further, some ITC Project surveys were conducted much earlier than the TATS project survey, and although many questions were identical on both surveys, the order and structure of the comparison ITC Project questionnaire was different. While we are confident that the large difference in recall of health professional advice between the TATS project and ITC Project samples is real, we have not described the differences in referral to cessation support as, except for the question about pamphlets, the questions were not directly comparable.

The main limitation of our study is that partnering with ACCHSs to recruit participants may have led to a selection bias towards people with closer connections to the health services, inflating the percentage who recalled being seen by a health professional. However, this percentage was similar to that reported in the 2004–2005 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey.16 We also report a higher prevalence of having received advice among only those who had seen a health professional, which would be less affected by this bias. Our results are also based on patient recall, not clinical records. Australian general practice research has found that clinical records poorly record health advice and poorly agree with patient recall of referrals to other cessation services.10 Some patients will have misremembered or forgotten advice and referrals they received, but we would expect that advice and referrals that were useful for quitting would be more likely to be remembered.

Comparisons with other studies

The proportion of smokers who had seen a health professional and recalled being asked if they smoke was similar to that among a sample of pregnant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women who smoked, who were only slightly more likely to be advised to quit (81% of pregnant smokers v 75% of daily smokers in our sample).20

SmokeCheck, a commonly used training program to increase health professionals’ skills in giving brief quit-smoking advice to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients, has been shown to improve participants’ confidence in regularly providing brief advice.21,22 The long history of such training programs, along with support for and promotion of brief interventions in ACCHSs, may have contributed to advice being given more often to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers than other smokers.

We found that the likelihood of receiving advice to quit from health professionals increased with participant age, as in earlier Australian ITC Project research.9 Most of the focus of chronic disease prevention is on older patients, but there is an opportunity to increase the provision of advice about smoking to younger patients.

Our finding that a high proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers recalled receiving this advice is encouraging, as even brief advice from a doctor increases cessation, with minimal additional benefit from more extensive advice or follow-up.2 Provision of brief advice is achievable even in very busy primary care settings and, as we found, can reach most of the population. In both urban and remote settings, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interviewees in qualitative research have emphasised that advice and support from health professionals was a significant factor in their quit attempts.23–25 Consistent with this, we found that recalling advice from a health professional to quit was associated with making a quit attempt. While it is possible that making an attempt may increase the likelihood of advice being recalled, or may have led to making a visit to a health professional, it seems reasonable to conclude that advice from health professionals is contributing to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers’ motivation to try to quit.

The frequent use of pamphlets by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers is positive but not likely to have much impact on cessation, as the additional effect of such printed material is only modest.6 In contrast, Cochrane reviews show a greater effect on cessation of telephone quitlines, more intensive individual counselling outside primary care, and quit groups.4,7,8 Currently, evidence for internet-based quit support is inconsistent but promising.5

A meta-analysis of two randomised controlled trials showed intensive cessation counselling programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers were effective in increasing cessation.26 We found that most people who attended special cessation programs said they were specifically designed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Quitlines can be a cost-effective element in cessation support, but there has been a perception of distrust and low usage of quitlines by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.13 In 2010, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander callers to the Quitline in South Australia received fewer calls back and were less likely to have successfully quit than non-Indigenous callers.27 Since then, the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program has funded activity to improve the appropriateness and accessibility of the Quitline.

These non-pharmacological cessation support options benefit smokers who use them, but we found that most do not, as has been found in other contexts.9–11 Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian research has shown that many smokers see using cessation support as a sign of weakness and lack of willpower, which is a challenge in promoting these evidence-based services.24,28

1 Daily smokers’ recall of receiving advice to quit when seeing a health professional in the past year*

Australian ITC Project, % (95% CI)†

TATS project, % (frequency)‡

Seen a health professional

68.1% (64.8%–71.1%)

76% (1047)

Of those seen

Asked if he/she smokes§

—

93% (968)

Advised to quit

56.2% (52.3%–59.9%)

75% (782)

ITC Project = International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project. TATS = Talking About The Smokes. * Percentages and frequencies exclude refused responses and “don’t know” responses. † Results are for daily smokers (n = 1412) newly recruited to Waves 5–8 of the Australian ITC Project (2006–2011) and were age- and sex-standardised to smokers in the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey. ‡ Results are for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers (n = 1377) in the baseline sample of the TATS project (April 2012 – October 2013). § Not asked in the Australian ITC Project.

2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who made a quit attempt in the past year, by recall of being advised to quit and referred to cessation support

	Attempted to quit in the past year
	% (frequency)*	Odds ratio (95% CI)†	P‡

All daily smokers (n = 1354)
Advised to quit by a health professional in the past year			< 0.001
No	39% (223)	1.0
Yes	56% (433)	2.00 (1.58–2.52)
If advised to quit by a health professional in the past year (n = 777)§
Given a pamphlet			0.053
No	52% (203)	1.0
Yes	60% (230)	1.34 (1.00–1.79)
Referred to telephone Quitline			0.15
No	55% (306)	1.0
Yes	60% (125)	1.25 (0.92–1.68)
Referred to quit-smoking website			0.48
No	55% (305)	1.0
Yes	58% (121)	1.13 (0.80–1.6)
Referred to quit course, group or clinic			0.19
No	55% (357)	1.0
Yes	61% (73)	1.30 (0.88–1.92)

* Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer. † Odds ratios calculated using simple logistic regression adjusted for the sampling design. ‡ P values calculated using adjusted Wald tests. § Only participants who recalled being advised to quit by a health professional were asked about referral to cessation support resources.

3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers who recalled being advised to quit by a health professional in the past year, by sociodemographic factors (n = 1366)

	Advised to quit by a health professional
Characteristic	% (frequency)*	Odds ratio (95% CI)†	P‡

Total	57% (782)
Age (years)			0.001
18–24	48% (136)	1.0
25–34	55% (203)	1.29 (0.93–1.79)
35–44	58% (188)	1.47 (1.01–2.16)
45–54	62% (145)	1.72 (1.15–2.57)
≥ 55	71% (110)	2.61 (1.67–4.06)
Sex			0.003
Male	52% (342)	1.0
Female	62% (440)	1.50 (1.15–1.95)
Indigenous status			0.74
Aboriginal	57% (694)	1.0
Torres Strait Islander or both	59% (88)	1.07 (0.73–1.56)
Labour force status			< 0.001
Unemployed	48% (226)	1.0
Not in labour force	65% (273)	2.00 (1.47–2.71)
Employed	59% (282)	1.57 (1.20–2.05)
Highest education attained			0.007
Less than Year 12	54% (380)	1.0
Finished Year 12	57% (206)	1.17 (0.91–1.51)
Post-school qualification	66% (194)	1.72 (1.23–2.41)
Treated unfairly because Indigenous in past year			0.72
No	58% (342)	1.0
Yes	57% (423)	0.96 (0.75–1.22)
Remoteness			0.33
Major cities	54% (194)	1.0
Inner and outer regional	60% (430)	1.25 (0.86–1.81)
Remote and very remote	54% (158)	0.98 (0.64–1.52)
Area-level disadvantage			0.18
1st quintile (most disadvantaged)	55% (285)	1.0
2nd and 3rd quintiles	61% (357)	1.28 (0.94–1.74)
4th and 5th quintiles	54% (140)	0.97 (0.68–1.38)
Local health service has dedicated tobacco control resources			0.05
No	52% (207)	1.0
Yes	60% (575)	1.38 (1.00–1.91)

* Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer. † Odds ratios calculated using simple logistic regression adjusted for the sampling design. ‡ P values calculated for the entire variable, using adjusted Wald tests.

4 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent ex-smokers who recalled receiving or being referred to cessation support resources when advised to quit by a health professional (n = 960)*

	Pamphlet	Quit-smoking website	Telephone Quitline	Quit course, group or clinic

Received information or a referral	49% (460)	27% (252)	28% (266)	16% (149)
If so, read, used or attended it	70% (321)	22% (54)	16% (43)	44% (65)
If so, it was specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples	52% (168)	48% (26)	44% (18)	88% (56)

* Data only include smokers and recent ex-smokers who recalled being advised by a health professional to quit. Percentages and frequencies exclude those answering “don’t know” or refusing to answer.

Smoking-related knowledge and health risk beliefs in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

Fifty years since the United States Surgeon General’s first report on smoking and health, smoking prevalence has reduced globally,1 in part due to increased public awareness that smoking causes death and disease.2,3 However, it is possible that gaps in knowledge are contributing to health inequalities.4,5 In Australia, the prevalence of daily smoking has declined to just over 16% among adults but is higher in disadvantaged populations.6 Among the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, 42% of people aged 15 years or older smoked daily in 2012–2013.7 Understanding and tackling the causes of this disparity is a public health priority accepted by all Australian governments.8

Communicating information about the harmful effects of tobacco use is a major focus of programs to reduce smoking among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.9 Some evidence suggests that most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people know that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease,10–12 and that second-hand smoke (SHS) is dangerous.13–15 However, there is no current national research that describes knowledge of the harms of smoking and SHS exposure among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers, or how it varies across this diverse population. Further, the extent to which lack of smoking-related knowledge contributes to the high smoking prevalence is unknown.

Greater knowledge and worry about future health effects of smoking have been shown to increase quit intentions and attempts in other settings.16–18 However, decisions to quit smoking are not one-dimensional, rational choices,19,20 and they may be obstructed by beliefs that diminish the likelihood or severity of smoking harms (risk minimisation).21,22 There has been some investigation into risk-minimising beliefs in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tobacco control research. For example, perceived risk and worry may be low where there is discordance between information about the health consequences of smoking and the individual’s lived experience,14,23 or where there are fatalistic views of health effects that are perceived to be outside an individual’s control.12,24 This may explain why smoking persists in some contexts where knowledge of health effects is found to be high.

This is the first broadly representative description of smoking-related knowledge and health risk beliefs of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. We also look at how this knowledge varies among smokers, and whether knowledge and health risk beliefs are related to quitting.

Methods

Survey design and participants

The Talking About The Smokes (TATS) project surveyed 2522 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (1643 current smokers, 311 ex-smokers and 568 never-smokers) from April 2012 to October 2013 (Wave 1, or baseline), and is described in detail elsewhere in this supplement.25,26 Briefly, we used a quota sampling design to recruit participants from communities served by 34 Aboriginal community-controlled health services (ACCHSs) and one community in the Torres Strait (project sites), which were selected based on the population distribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by state or territory and remoteness. In most sites (30/35), we aimed to interview samples of 50 smokers (or ex-smokers who had quit ≤ 12 months before) and 25 non-smokers (never-smokers and ex-smokers who had quit > 12 months previously), with equal numbers of men and women and those aged 18–34 years and 35 years or older. The sample sizes were doubled in four major urban sites and in the Torres Strait community. People were excluded if they were: not Indigenous, not aged 18 years or older, not usual residents of the area, staff members of the ACCHS, or unable to complete the survey in English (if there was no interpreter available), or if the quota for the relevant age–sex–smoking category had been filled.

In each site, different locally determined methods were used to collect a representative, albeit non-random, sample. The baseline sample closely matched the sample distribution of the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS) by age, sex, jurisdiction and remoteness, and also number of cigarettes smoked per day for current daily smokers. However, there were inconsistent differences in some socioeconomic indicators: our sample had higher proportions of unemployed people, but also higher proportions who had completed Year 12 and who lived in more advantaged areas.25

Interviews were conducted face to face by trained interviewers, almost all of whom were members of the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. The survey, entered directly onto a computer tablet, generally took 30–60 minutes to complete. A single survey of health service activities, including whether there were dedicated tobacco control resources, was completed for each site. The project was approved by three Aboriginal human research ethics committees (HRECs) and two HRECs with Aboriginal subcommittees (Appendix 1).25

Survey questions

As the TATS project is part of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project), survey questions were based on ITC Project surveys previously used in Australia and New Zealand (http://www.itcproject.org/surveys). The exact questions used for this article are listed in Appendix 2.

Knowledge and health risk beliefs

Four questions assessed knowledge of the direct health effects of smoking among smokers and non-smokers — whether it causes lung cancer, causes heart disease, makes diabetes worse and causes low birthweight (answer options: “yes”, “no” or “don’t know”). Three questions assessed knowledge of the effects of SHS exposure — whether it causes asthma in children (“yes”, “no” or “don’t know”) and whether it is dangerous to non-smokers and to children (both assessed on a five-point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). We also computed two summary items, for correct responses to all four direct effects questions (“yes” to all) and correct responses to all three SHS measures (“yes” or at least “agree”).

Two items assessed health risk beliefs among smokers. Smokers who responded “agree” or “strongly agree” to the statement that “Smoking is not very risky when you think about all the things that people do” (assessed on a five-point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”) were assessed as holding risk-minimising beliefs. Those who responded “very worried” to the question “How worried are you that smoking will damage your health in the future?” (assessed on a four-point scale from “not at all worried” to “very worried”) were assessed as having health worry.

Wanting and attempting to quit

Two quit-related outcomes were used: wanting to quit (“yes” or “no”) and having attempted to quit in the past year (“yes” or “no”), which was derived from questions on ever having tried to quit and timing of the most recent quit attempt.

Statistical analyses

Percentages and frequencies were calculated for all knowledge and health risk belief questions. Logistic regression was used to assess: (i) variation in correct responses among smokers, by daily smoking status, key sociodemographic variables, and presence of tobacco control resources at the local health service; and (ii) the association of knowledge and health risk beliefs with quitting interest and activity among smokers. Stata 13 (StataCorp) survey [SVY] commands were used to adjust for the sampling design, identifying the 35 project sites as clusters, and the quotas based on age, sex and smoking status as strata.27 Both unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed, with daily smoking status and key sociodemographic variables included as covariates in the adjusted analyses. As unadjusted and adjusted calculations were very similar, only adjusted odds ratios (ORs) are reported here, with 95% confidence intervals.

Less than 1.5% of responses to each question were excluded (due to missing or refused responses), with the exception of quitting outcomes, which excluded a further 79 participants (4.8%) who did not know if they wanted to quit and 21 (1.3%) who did not know whether they had attempted to quit within the past year.

Results

Knowledge and health risk beliefs

Knowledge that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease was high, and consistently over 90% of smokers and non-smokers knew about the harmful effects of SHS (Box 1). Knowledge that smoking makes diabetes worse was the lowest of all four direct effects, with 24% of daily smokers responding “don’t know” to this question (compared with 13% for low birthweight, 7% for heart disease and 3% for lung cancer). Among daily smokers, 44% held risk-minimising beliefs and 36% had health worry. Non-daily smokers had higher levels of risk-minimising beliefs and lower levels of health worry than did daily smokers.

Compared with daily smokers, non-daily smokers were more likely to respond correctly to all questions about the direct effects of smoking (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.32–2.43; P < 0.001) and the harms of SHS (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.08–2.62; P = 0.02) (Appendix 3).

There was some social patterning based on sociodemographic variables (Appendix 3). While knowledge of direct effects was significantly associated with employment and education, only area-level indicators were associated with both direct effects and SHS knowledge. Smokers were more likely to respond correctly to all questions if they were from a remote or very remote area (direct effects OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.16–2.57; SHS OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.61–4.52), compared with those from major cities, and smokers from an area of the highest level of disadvantage were more likely to respond correctly (direct effects OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.32–2.54; SHS OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.85–2.08) than were those from areas of least disadvantage.

Conversely, smokers from areas where the local health service had dedicated tobacco control staff or funding were less likely to respond correctly to all direct effects questions (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48–0.86) and all questions about the harms of SHS (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40–0.82), compared with those from areas where there were no dedicated resources (Appendix 3).

Relationship of knowledge and health risk beliefs with quitting

Smokers who responded correctly to all questions about harms of SHS were more likely to want to quit and to have attempted to quit in the past year, but those who responded correctly to questions about direct effects of smoking were not (Box 2). Similarly, smokers who responded correctly to all SHS knowledge questions were more likely to be very worried about their future health (OR, 4.74; 95% CI, 3.01–7.45; P < 0.001), but those with knowledge of all direct effects were not (Appendix 4). Those who were very worried about their health were more likely to want to quit and to have made a quit attempt in the past year (Box 2). Risk-minimising beliefs were not significantly associated with either wanting to quit or having attempted to quit in the past year.

Discussion

Our results show high levels of knowledge among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, along with strong awareness of the harms of SHS, consistent with previous tobacco control research in this population.10–14 Knowledge that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease and is dangerous to others was assessed at very similar levels among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander daily smokers and those in the general population, based on comparable measures last assessed by Australian ITC Project surveys from 2002 to 2004.16,28

The main gap in knowledge, which has also been reported elsewhere,12 concerned the role of smoking in exacerbating diabetes. As Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more than three times as likely as non-Indigenous Australians to report a diagnosis of diabetes or high blood or urine sugar levels,7 with diabetes prevalence estimates ranging from 3.5% to 33.1%,29 this gap highlights the need for targeted education about the link between smoking and diabetes. This applies to clinicians as well as the broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, particularly in light of updated evidence presented in the 2014 report of the US Surgeon General, which concludes that smoking increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in a clear dose–response manner.2

Our results also show a need to build knowledge that smoking causes low birthweight, which was either denied or not known by 18% of daily smokers, similar to previous findings.14,30 Messages that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease and is dangerous to children have all featured on cigarette pack warning labels.31 Together with other sources of health information, such as mass media, news stories, local health promotion strategies and advice from health professionals, these are likely to have contributed to the high knowledge about these health effects among our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants.

Given health services are an important source of health information, it was surprising that knowledge was lower among smokers surveyed by sites with dedicated tobacco control resources. Though difficult to explain, this may be an indirect effect of the prioritisation of limited tobacco control resources to areas of greatest need, particularly as these resources included federally funded positions that had not long been established.9 Alternatively, it may suggest that information about the health effects of smoking is more effective when incorporated into established routine health service activities that include other areas of health and wellbeing.

Our findings suggest that gaps in knowledge are not responsible for the high prevalence of smoking or the social patterning of smoking among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Contrary to the geographic and social patterning of smoking prevalence among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,7,32 we found that those from more remote and disadvantaged areas were more knowledgeable about the harmful effects of smoking and SHS. This is not to say that increasing knowledge is not important; prospective analyses from other ITC Project studies consistently show that knowledge, worry and risk beliefs contribute to motivation to quit.16,18,22,33 Though we have shown that knowledge is also related to interest in quitting among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers, other factors are likely to be more important in influencing the success of quit attempts (and their translation to reduced prevalence), as found in other populations.17 For example, stress is commonly cited by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers as a trigger for relapse,12,15,34,35 and it should be considered among other possible barriers including social normalisation of smoking, underlying social disadvantage, nicotine dependence and access to and uptake of services to support quitting.36

Among smokers, knowledge of SHS harms was associated with wanting to quit and attempts to quit, but knowing about direct, personal health consequences was not. Similarly, in an ITC Project survey in New Zealand, setting an example to children was more likely to be identified by Maori and Pacific peoples as a reason to quit, and was associated with SHS awareness and protective behaviour among smokers.37 Our findings are also consistent with qualitative research from the Northern Territory,15,24 in which Aboriginal participants expressed higher levels of concern for the health of others than for personal risk. Health is considered by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to include the health of others.38 This may also explain why risk-minimising beliefs did not reduce interest in quitting, as predicted from research in the general population, despite being held at similar levels.21,22 It may be that these counterarguments are an ineffective shield to risks that include the health of others, and so have little or no effect on interest in quitting among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Our findings weaken the argument that risk-minimising beliefs explain why smoking persists in contexts where knowledge is high, and provide evidence that challenging these beliefs is unlikely to increase interest in quitting among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Rather, health information may be interpreted with greater priority and relevance where negative health effects are framed in ways that include the health of others. This supports the approach used in the “Break the Chain” campaign, Australia’s first national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander antismoking campaign, launched in March 2011.39

Strengths and limitations

This is the first broadly representative survey of knowledge and health risk beliefs about smoking among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The survey design made it feasible to interview a large number of people and to explore variation within our sample.

However, use of closed-ended questions may have led to overestimation of knowledge,40,41 which was assessed for a limited number of general health consequences of smoking. Knowledge may also have been overestimated if participants responded “yes” without fully scrutinising each question or because they did not want to appear uninformed. However, variation in the proportion of respondents who showed uncertainty in response to each item is evidence against this being systematic. Repeating the analyses with the “no” response as the dependent variable found the same general pattern of results (reversed). This increased our confidence in the validity of these outcomes, but did show that respondents from the most remote and disadvantaged areas were less likely to respond “don’t know”, consistent with biases to acquiesce or provide socially desirable responses in these areas. Some of the differences found, particularly area-level ones, may be due to social desirability biases, which are thought to be moderated by culture.42 Although face-to-face interviews can increase perceived pressure to provide socially acceptable responses, we attempted to reduce any such effects by engaging local interviewers, to minimise the social distance between the interviewer and participant.42

The questions used to assess health worry and risk minimisation showed good face validity, but have not been previously used to investigate these constructs with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. While these results paint a broad, representative picture of general health knowledge, concern and influence on quitting among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, more detailed assessments of knowledge may identify other gaps to target in future health information campaigns.

In conclusion, this national study found that lack of basic knowledge about the health consequences of smoking is not an important barrier to wanting and attempting to quit for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers. Framing new messages in ways that encompass the health of others is likely to contribute to goal setting and prioritisation of quitting.

1 Smoking-related knowledge and health risk beliefs in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples*

Survey question and response	Daily smokers (n = 1392)	Non-daily smokers (n = 251)	Ex-smokers (n = 311)	Never-smokers (n = 568)

Knowledge of direct health effects of smoking
Does smoking cause lung cancer?
Yes	94% (1305)	96% (242)	96% (298)	99% (560)
No	2% (34)	1% (3)	2% (5)	1% (4)
Don’t know	3% (45)	2% (6)	2% (7)	1% (4)
Does smoking cause heart disease?
Yes	89% (1234)	92% (231)	92% (286)	93% (526)
No	4% (50)	2% (6)	4% (11)	2% (13)
Don’t know	7% (101)	6% (14)	4% (13)	5% (29)
Does smoking make diabetes worse?
Yes	68% (945)	78% (197)	71% (220)	77% (435)
No	7% (102)	6% (15)	5% (16)	5% (28)
Don’t know	24% (338)	16% (39)	24% (74)	18% (105)
Does smoking cause low birthweight?
Yes	82% (1131)	87% (218)	84% (261)	88% (499)
No	5% (75)	3% (7)	5% (15)	2% (9)
Don’t know	13% (179)	10% (25)	11% (33)	11% (60)
Correct response to all four questions on direct effects of smoking	59% (822)	72% (181)	61% (190)	71% (403)
Knowledge of health effects of second-hand smoke
Does smoking cause asthma in children from second-hand smoke?
Yes	91% (1265)	94% (235)	95% (293)	94% (535)
No	3% (38)	2% (6)	2% (7)	1% (6)
Don’t know	6% (82)	4% (10)	3% (10)	5% (27)
Cigarette smoke is dangerous to non-smokers
Agree or strongly agree	90% (1251)	95% (238)	95% (295)	96% (546)
Neutral or don’t know	7% (92)	3% (7)	2% (7)	2% (14)
Disagree or strongly disagree	3% (40)	2% (6)	2% (7)	1% (8)
Cigarette smoke is dangerous to children
Agree or strongly agree	95% (1317)	98% (245)	99% (306)	99% (560)
Neutral or don’t know	4% (52)	2% (4)	1% (2)	1% (6)
Disagree or strongly disagree	1% (14)	1% (2)	0 (1)	0 (2)
Correct response to all three questions on harms of second-hand smoke	85% (1173)	90% (227)	91% (282)	91% (518)
Health risk beliefs
Smoking is not very risky when you think about all the things that people do
Agree or strongly agree	44% (605)	50% (126)	—	—
Neutral or don’t know	18% (243)	16% (39)	—	—
Disagree or strongly disagree	39% (535)	34% (86)	—	—
How worried are you that smoking will damage your health in the future?
Very worried	36% (498)	27% (68)	—	—
A little or moderately worried	54% (735)	63% (156)	—	—
Not at all worried	10% (138)	10% (24)	—	—

* Results are based on the baseline sample (n = 2522) of the Talking About The Smokes project and are presented as % (frequency). Refused responses are excluded.

2 Association of knowledge and health risk beliefs with wanting and attempting to quit in a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers*

	Want to quit			Attempted to quit in the past year
Knowledge and health risk beliefs	% (frequency)†	Adjusted OR (95% CI)‡	P§	% (frequency)†	Adjusted OR (95% CI)‡	P§

Knowledge about direct effects of smoking
Fewer than all four questions correct	66% (395)	1.0	0.16	50% (312)	1.0	0.67
All four questions correct	72% (686)	1.21 (0.93–1.57)		49% (482)	0.95 (0.77–1.18)
Knowledge about harms of second-hand smoke
Fewer than all three questions correct	46% (101)	1.0	< 0.001	36% (83)		< 0.001
All three questions correct	74% (981)	3.26 (2.25–4.70)		52% (710)	1.89 (1.38–2.57)
Risk-minimising beliefs
Don’t know or disagree (neutral)	72% (622)	1.0	0.21	50% (440)	1.0	0.79
Agree	67% (461)	0.83 (0.62–1.11)		49% (353)	0.97 (0.78–1.21)
Health worry
Not at all or moderately worried	59% (576)	1.0	< 0.001	43% (450)	1.0	< 0.001
Very worried	90% (500)	6.17 (4.40–8.66)		60% (338)	2.14 (1.68–2.73)

OR = odds ratio. * Results are based on the baseline sample of current smokers (n = 1643) in the Talking About The Smokes project. † Percentages and frequencies exclude refused responses (for all variables) and “don’t know” responses (with the exception of knowledge questions, where “don’t know” is coded as incorrect). ‡ ORs are adjusted for daily smoking status and key sociodemographic variables (age, sex, identification as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, labour force status, highest level of education, remoteness and area-level disadvantage). § P values are reported for overall variable significance, using adjusted Wald tests.

Proton pump inhibitors: too much of a good thing?

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a mainstay in the management of acid peptic disorders; they are highly effective at relieving symptoms and are generally well tolerated. However, there is growing international concern about their increasing use. Long-term use is only recommended in specific clinical situations, yet data indicate that this accounts for the majority of total use and large numbers of PPI users do not actually have a clear indication for therapy (http://www.nps.org.au/publications/health-professional/medicinewise-news/2015/proton-pump-inhibitors).

A big problem is that once people are on a PPI, therapy is often not stepped down appropriately. Up to 30% of patients may be able to stop PPI therapy after the initial course of therapy without experiencing symptoms, but a step-down approach is not necessarily part of their ongoing management. Overuse of PPIs may increase risks of adverse effects and incur unnecessary costs for both taxpayers and individuals.

While PPIs are generally considered safe, there are reports (mostly from observational studies) about more serious, albeit rare, adverse events associated with their use, including enteric infections, pneumonia, fractures and acute interstitial nephritis. While reports are insufficient to establish a causal relationship, they may warrant consideration, especially against a backdrop of significant overprescribing of PPIs.

In the past decade, at least two PPIs have featured annually in the top 10 most prescribed Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)-subsidised medicines and, in the 2013–14 financial year, over 19 million prescriptions were issued, most of these for managing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The most commonly prescribed PPI in 2013–14 incurred a cost of over $200 million to the PBS.

NPS MedicineWise has recently published a suite of free resources (http://www.nps.org.au/heartburn-and-reflux) to support quality use of PPIs, including a symptomatic management pad for use with patients, and a clinical e-audit and interactive online case study (Continuing Professional Development points available).

Changes to the GP training environment

By Dr Sally Banfield, an Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM) trainee with Northern Territory General Practice Education in Central Australia, and is likely to complete vocational training in 2016 with an AST in remote medicine.

Like any changes, those made to the GP training environment in last year’s Federal Budget pose obvious threats but significant opportunities.

The medical community needs to remain united to sustain high-quality training and meet the diverse health needs of our country. To improve the training system, the experience, feedback and input of trainees is essential.

GP registrars often encounter undifferentiated patients and are required to make decisions on their own early on in their careers. We rely heavily on a broad prevocational training experience, followed by a well-structured and supportive vocational training program.

Currently, the delineation of training responsibilities between Government, colleges, regional training providers and the individual is often difficult to navigate.

Large variations in the delivery of vocational training programs mean confusion and often frustration for the registrar trying to meet the requirements for Fellowship.

As trainee numbers increase, both supervision and education capacity is being stretched, and new training methods need to be explored and shared between providers. This can all be improved in this time of change.

Current issues include defining the training and education roles of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine and the regional training providers.

The potential for greater college involvement could provide a more seamless general practice training pipeline, with a stronger link to our profession and our colleagues.

Ultimately, we need a system that challenges, supports and mentors registrars to meet the requirements for safe independent practice.

The sustainability of the ‘apprenticeship model’ of training relies on a system that supports the large investment supervisors, educators and registrars put into excellence.

The newly formed GP Training Advisory Committee must continue to foster medical education, supervision and research opportunities for trainees.

The profession must work closely with Government to ensure the ultimate goal of meeting health equality for our community.

This change to the GP training environment can place further focus on drivers for servicing the most disadvantaged. We should use our increasing evidence base to influence selection and training delivery to drive change in workplace shortages.

This will need support from all sectors of the health care system across the training pipeline.

The transition will create points of tension and hurdles to overcome; but we should use this as an opportunity for development.

The Government and the medical profession need to continue to involve future general practitioners in this conversation. Collectively, we have the vision and the passion to meet the future needs of our community.

Into the great unknown

Dr Danielle McMullen

As 2015 rolls rapidly on, current and future GP registrars grow ever more nervous about the uncertainties in GP training from 2016.

We’ve all heard about the GP co-payment, frozen Medicare rebates and planned changes to level B consultations.

But there is another, at least equally important, issue lurking quietly in the corner. In its 2014 Budget, the Commonwealth announced radical changes to GP training across Australia. General Practice Education and Training, which had coordinated and overseen the GP training provided by regional training providers (RTPs) since 2001, closed its doors last December and its functions were transferred to the Department of Health. In December this year, the RTPs will also be wound up, and their replacements are yet to be announced.

The boundaries for the new training organisations have recently been released. But, for current registrars in particular, these raise more questions than are answered given we still don’t know who will form these new organisations and what the transition process will look like.

The tender process for new training organisations has not yet begun, much less been completed. As the days and weeks and months tick by we grow ever more nervous as to when these doctors will have any certainty about their training location and governance.

In addition to the significant changes to vocational training, the 2014 Budget also scrapped the Prevocational General Practice Placements Program, which was the only avenue for prevocational doctors in their intern or PGY2 year to experience the general practice environment. This gaping hole in the general practice workforce pipeline will result in fewer interested GP trainees, and throw general practice back to being an option of last resort.

Excellent GP clinical supervisors will forever form the cornerstone of quality general practice training. But they need to be supported by high quality training organisations. And registrars deserve a well-organised, well-supported training environment.

Change is coming – that is for certain. And time is running short but it’s not out yet. We need urgent clarity and real consultation to plan and shape the future of general practice training in Australia.

In the short term, registrars need certainty around the transition to new training organisations. In the longer term, we need to ensure these organisations continue to provide the high quality, flexible general practice training we’ve become accustomed to.

General practice is an incredible career offering variety, flexibility and fantastic medicine. We need to sing its praises, protect its future, and safeguard its quality. The time for that is now!

GP training – the path ahead

This is a tumultuous time for GP practice and training.

A four-year freeze on Medicare rebate indexation is expected to force many doctors to abandon bulk billing for their patients, and may even threaten the viability of some practices, while the adoption and subsequent abandonment of several different proposals for a patient co-payment have jolted the specialty.

To top it all, the Government has launched a major overhaul of the GP training system, axing key bodies including General Practice Education and Training and the Prevocational General Practice Placements Program (PGPPP) in last year’s Budget.

Understandably, it is has been a deeply unsettling period for GPs that has done little to encourage aspiring family doctors to take up the speciality.

In a step toward giving shape to the new training system, Health Minister Sussan Ley last month revealed the Australian General Practice Training program would be delivered through 11 training regions, and announced the creation of the profession-led General Practice Training Advisory Committee to advise the Government on the design and delivery of training.

In addition, a tender process to select GP training providers for each of the regions is to get underway in time to enrol students in 2016.

But there remain many unanswered questions about the provision of GP training – the AMA, for example, has proposed a community residency program for junior medical officers to fill what it sees as a gaping hole left by the abolition of the PGPPP.

The issue of GP training and what can be done to attract trainees and ensure they get a quality education will the focus of discussion during a key session at the AMA National Conference being held in Brisbane from 29 to 31 May.

The General practice training – the future is in our hands session, to be held on Saturday, 30 May at 2.15pm, will feature presentations from leading GP practitioners and educators.

Three of the presenters, Dr Penny Need, Dr Sally Banfield and Dr Danielle McMullen, give their views on what lies ahead for GP training and the specialty.

Doctors get their own dedicated national health service

All doctors and medical students will have access to a health service dedicated to meeting their needs no matter where they live and work following a landmark agreement between the AMA and the Medical Board of Australia.

The Medical Board has contracted the AMA, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Doctors Health Services Pty Ltd (DHS), to ensure specific health services for medical practitioners and students are accessible nationwide.

The deal is the culmination of years of work to provide doctors with nationally consistent health services that cater specifically for their needs amid concerns that often practitioners have gone untreated for significant health problems that not only harm them but may place their patients at risk.

The Medical Board announced last year that it would fully fund a national health program for doctors and medical students, and Chair Dr Joanna Flynn said the contract with the AMA was an important milestone in achieving that goal.

“The Board is committed to supporting the wellbeing of all doctors and medical students in Australia,” Dr Flynn said. “Creating health services that are accessible and fair to everyone – and are targeted to meet doctors’ needs – is a really important contribution we are proud to make.”

The announcement of a dedicated national health program for medical practitioners has come just weeks after the medical community was rocked by the sudden death of four young doctors in Victoria. And a 2013 beyondblue report showed that psychological distress, burnout and suicide were disturbingly common among doctors and medical students.

There are long-standing concerns that many doctors with mental health problems, issues of substance abuse and physical ailments have been reluctant to seek help for fear it will harm their career.

There has been a call to rigorously address the reasons some doctors find it hard to seek and obtain help, including the culture of the profession, the work environment, the training culture, and mandatory reporting.

While there has been a gradual increase in the number of health services specifically for doctors, AMA Vice President Dr Stephen Parnis recently said current arrangements were inadequate, and the AMA had for a long time strongly advocated for a national model to support the work of the services that make up the Australasian Doctors’ Health Network.

AMA President Associate Professor Brian Owler said the establishment of Doctors Health Services would deliver on that goal.

While the Medical Board will fund the program, A/Professor Owler emphasised that it would play no role in its operation or the delivery of services.

“Critically, the services will remain at arm’s length from the Medical Board to ensure that doctors and medical students trust these services and use them at an early stage in their illness,” he said.

Existing doctor health services will be invited to express interest in continuing as a provider. Under the new contract arrangements, they will be required to provide confidential triage and referral services, health advice and education, training for practitioners to treat other doctors and facilitation of support groups.

DHS will have a five-member Board including an AMA representative, a doctor in training representative and a medical practitioners with experience in providing doctor health services. The Board will be supported by an expert advisory committee made up of service providers, medical students, doctors in training and AMA representatives.

Adrian Rollins

Reclaiming our future

‘Back in my day…’ is a phrase that every doctor in training is familiar with. Whether it ends with ‘…I used to work 60 hour shifts’, or ‘…people used to die of this condition’, it is blindingly clear that the medical world that you and I are a part of today is not the same one that our senior colleagues entered upon their graduation.

I found myself using a similar phrase just last week. While I didn’t jump to the cliché bestowed upon me by others many a time, I did find myself imparting wisdom about a medical world we left behind just a few short years ago, and was struck by the speed in which our environment is changing.

As I watch medicine evolve around me, it is easy to be proud of a profession that gives everything they can to their patients. I watch my colleagues change medical practice with their research, marvelling at all the names I recognise in the Medical Journal of Australia every month. I watch my colleagues battle day in and day out to make clinical practice just a little safer or more efficient.

I watch my colleagues promote primary health, fight for the health of those in need, or give up their own needs to change the health of someone else, and I am struck by just how powerful we can be as a profession.

Conversely, some days make it hard to remember that we work in one of the best health systems in the world. Some days, I watch the hospital system that I belong to bursting at the seams, with more patients and more doctors than ever before.

I watch my over-worked colleagues fight an impossibly bureaucratic system, just to achieve something that they believe is in the best interests of their patients. Put simply, I watch a health system in crisis being propped up by the hard work of those with limited resources and a whole lot of patience.

As we draw near to the 2015 AMA National Conference, this idea of change remains central. When we gather in Brisbane next week, the AMA hopes to provide a platform for Australia’s leading doctors to share their ideas on how we preserve the health system in the midst of this changing landscape.

This year, CDT’s policy session, ‘General Practice Training – Reclaiming Our Future’ looks at the recent plight of our general practice colleagues. This session will explore the impact of the abolition of General Practice Education and Training Ltd, the expansion of GP training places and proposals for governance arrangements with a view to making some clear recommendations about GP training and governance.

The only constant to all of this change is that none of it comes about through inaction. It only comes about through the hard and persistent work of those who want to change the system for the better. It is those who stand for what they believe to be right to whom we owe the most; both in what is right for their patients, and what is right for our colleagues.

While I watch the medical world evolve around me, I can’t help but think about what it will look like tomorrow.

I urge you to consider the change that you would like to see when you look back in years to come, and to be part of that change.

The AMA and CDT will continue to fight for our profession, for our health system and for our patients. Join us today to help shape medicine tomorrow.