Dr Laura Wall

BackTrack is a multi-component, community-based intervention designed to build capacity amongst 14¿17-year-old high risk young people. The aim of the current study seeks to explore community value and preferences for reducing youth crime and improving community safety using BackTrack in a rural setting in Armidale, New South Wales, Australia. The study design used discrete choice experiments (DCEs), designed in accordance with the 10-item checklist outlined by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. The DCE was pilot tested on 43 participants to test feasibility and comprehension. A revised version of the survey was subsequently completed by 282 people over a 12-day period between 30 May 2016 and 10 June 2016, representing a survey response rate of 35%. Ninety per cent of respondents were residents of Armidale, the local rural town where BackTrack was implemented. The DCE generated results that consistently demonstrated a preference for social programs to address youth crime and community safety in the Armidale area. Respondents chose BackTrack over Greater Police Presence 75% of the time with an annual benefit of Australian dollars (AUD) 150 per household, equivalent to a community benefit of AUD 2.04 million. This study estimates a strong community preference for BackTrack relative to more policing (a community willing to pay equivalent to AUD 2.04 million) highlighting the clear value of including community preferences when evaluating community-based programs for high-risk young people.

It is commonly assumed that a specific testing occasion (task, design, procedure, etc.) provides insights that generalize beyond that occasion. This assumption is infrequently carefully tested in data. We develop a statistically principled method to directly estimate the correlation between latent components of cognitive processing across tasks, contexts, and time. This method simultaneously estimates individual-participant parameters of a cognitive model at each testing occasion, group-level parameters representing across-participant parameter averages and variances, and across-task correlations. The approach provides a natural way to "borrow" strength across testing occasions, which can increase the precision of parameter estimates across all testing occasions. Two example applications demonstrate that the method is practical in standard designs. The examples, and a simulation study, also provide evidence about the reliability and validity of parameter estimates from the linear ballistic accumulator model. We conclude by highlighting the potential of the parameter-correlation method to provide an "assumption-light" tool for estimating the relatedness of cognitive processes across tasks, contexts, and time.

Objective: To explore the preferences of people with cancer regarding the timing and format of information provision about emotional concerns that may occur when undergoing medical procedures. Methods: Eligible cancer survivors were mailed a survey containing discrete choice scenarios examining their timing and format preferences for information about potential emotional concerns associated with an upcoming hypothetical medical procedure. Results: Of 356 eligible patients, 271 (76 %) completed the survey. Both face-to-face discussion and written materials were preferred as the mode of information delivery over access to a website. In order of descending preference, participants preferred to receive the information 1 week, 3 days and the day of the procedure. There were no differences in preferences for timing or format between subgroups based on age, gender, education and cancer type. Conclusion: This study has demonstrated that cancer patients prefer receiving information about emotional concerns that might be experienced as part of a medical procedure in either written or via face-to-face format, and one week before the procedure. Practice Implications: In order to provide patient-centred care, clinicians and the healthcare system more broadly should consider patient preferences for information delivery about upcoming medical procedures. Information: preparation for medical procedures; discrete choice; oncology; patient preference; emotional response.

Purpose: To explore in a sample of adult cancer patients: (1) the relative influence of initiation source, information format and consultation format on preferred approach to life expectancy disclosure using a discrete choice experiment (DCE); and (2) whether patient age, cancer type and perceived prognosis were associated with preferences within the three attributes. Methods: A DCE survey of adult solid tumour and haematological cancer patients. Participants chose between three hypothetical scenarios about life expectancy disclosure consisting of three attributes: initiation source (i.e. doctor versus patient-initiated discussion), information content (i.e. estimate presented as best-worst-typical length of life case scenario versus median survival time) and consultation format (i.e. two 20-min versus one 40-min consultation). Respondents selected their most preferred scenario within each question. Results: Three hundred and two patients completed the DCE (78% consent rate). Initiation source was the most influential predictor of patient choice. More preferred a doctor deliver life expectancy information as soon as it is available rather than waiting for the patient to ask (59% vs 41% z = - 7.396, p < 0.01). More patients preferred the two 20-min rather than the one 40-min consultation format (55% vs 45%, z = 4.284, p < 0.01). Information content did not influence choice. Age, cancer type, and patient-perceived prognosis were not associated with preferences. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals should assess cancer patients' preferences for engaging in life expectancy discussions as soon as they have this information, and ensure patients have adequate time to consider the information they receive, seek additional information and involve others if they wish.

Objectives: Pandemics pressure national governments to respond swiftly. Mitigation efforts created an imbalance between population health, capacity of the healthcare system and economic prosperity. Each pandemic arising from a new virus is unknown territory for policy makers, and there is considerable uncertainty of the appropriateness of responses and outcomes. Methods: A qualitative approach was used to review mixed sources of data including Australian reports, official government publications, and COVID-19 data to discern robust future responses. Publicly available epidemiological and economic data were utilised to provide insight into the impact of the pandemic on Australia's healthcare system and economy. Results: Policies implemented by the Australian Government to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 impacted the healthcare sector and economy. This paper incorporates lessons learned to inform optimal economic preparedness. The rationale for an economic response plan concomitant with the health pandemic plan is explored to guide Australian Government policy makers in ensuring holistic and robust solutions for future pandemics. Conclusions: In future, an Australian Economic Pandemic Response Plan will aid in health and economic system preparedness, whilst a strong Australian economy and strategic planning will ensure resilience to future pandemics.

Objective: Using a vignette-style DCE in a sample of oncology patients, this study explored: (1) the relative influence of the patient's level of concern about their depression on preferences for care, (2) the relative influence of depression severity according to a mental health checklist on preferred treatment-seeking options, and (3) whether patient age and gender were associated with depression care preference. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey of cancer patients was conducted. Hypothetical vignettes to elicit care preferences were created using two attributes: the cancer patient's level of concern about depression (a little or a great deal) and results of a mental health checklist (not depressed or very depressed). Three response options for care preferences were presented, including a self-directed approach, shared care approach, and clinician-directed referral approach. Participants chose their most and least preferred options. Results: A total of 281 cancer patients completed the survey. There was a significant association between level of concern and the most preferred option. Those with a great deal of concern about depression preferred to receive referral from their clinician more than those with a little concern about depression. Males were significantly more likely to select a self-directed approach as their most preferred option. Conclusions: An oncology patient's level of concern about depression may influence the type of care they want to receive from their cancer doctor for depression. This finding has implications for depression screening in clinical practice.

Only 2¿3% of cancer patients enrol in a trial. We surveyed patients' willingness to change clinician or treating centre, or to travel, to participate in trials, to improve trial recruitment. Of 188 respondents, 79% were willing to participate in a trial in at least one scenario. Increasing travel time, change in oncologist, private health insurance and out of pocket expenses decreased likelihood of joining a trial. Rural and regional patients, and those from lower socio-economic areas, were more willing to travel. To optimise access to trials, clinicians should refer within and between institutions.

Objectives: To explore in a sample of medical oncology outpatients and their nominated support persons (SPs): (1) the relative influence of pain, consciousness and life extension on end-of-life choices using a discrete choice experiment (DCE); (2) the extent to which SPs can predict the choices of index patients and (3) whether having a previous end-of-life discussion was associated with dyad agreement. Methods: Adult medical oncology patients and their SPs were approached for consent to complete a survey containing a DCE. Participants chose between three unlabelled care scenarios characterised by three attributes: pain (mild, moderate or severe), consciousness (some, half or most of time) and extension of life (1, 2 or 3¿weeks). Respondents selected (1) most-preferred and (2) least-preferred scenarios within each question. SPs answered the same questions but from patient's perspective. Results: A total of 110 patients and 64 SPs responded overall (42 matched patient-SP dyads). For patients, pain was the most influential predictor of most- and least-preferred scenarios (z = 12.5 and z = 12.9). For SPs, pain was the only significant predictor of most and least-preferred scenarios (z = 9.7 and z = 11.5). Dyad agreement was greater for choices about least- (69%) compared to most-preferred scenarios (55%). Agreement was slightly higher for dyads reporting a previous EOL discussion (68 versus 48%; p = 0.065). Conclusion: Patients and SPs place significant value on avoiding severe pain when making end-of-life choices, over and above level of consciousness or life extension. People's views about end-of-life scenarios they most as well as least prefer should be sought.

Purpose: Cancer patients can be overwhelmed when being confronted with their diagnosis and treatment options. Such information is often provided during one consultation between the patient and treating clinician. In order to achieve optimal cancer care, there may be justification for alternative consultation styles. We assessed, in a sample of adult medical oncology patients, their preferences for (i) attending one 40-min consultation or two 20-min consultations and (ii) receiving written only or both written and online information, when making a cancer treatment decision. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey using a discrete choice design of 159 adult medical oncology patients presenting for their second or subsequent outpatient consultation. Participants were presented with a set of hypothetical scenarios and asked to indicate their most and least preferred scenario. The scenarios contained a caveat explaining that there would be no difference between the available treatment options in terms of when treatment would be initiated and the impact it would have on patients' life expectancy. Results: One hundred forty-seven patients completed the DCE. Of these, 70% (n¿=¿103) preferred being provided with written and online information rather than just written information. This preference was statistically significant (p¿<¿0.01). Fifty-nine percent (n¿=¿86) of patients preferred two 20-min consultations over one 40-min consultation when making a treatment decision. Significantly, more patients preferred two shorter consultations rather than one longer consultation when this was combined with written and online information (p¿<¿0.01). Conclusion: When making a cancer treatment decision, clinicians should consider offering patients written and online information, combined with two shorter consultations.