Browsing by Author "Stevens M."
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smoke-free homes, 2002 to 2008.(2015-11-16) Thomas D.P.; Stevens M.Objective: To describe the social patterning of and trends in the prevalence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smoke-free homes, and the association between these smoke-free homes and smoking initiation, intensity and cessation. Methods: Analyses of responses to questions about whether any householders usually smoke inside in the 2004 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey, the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, and in the comparable National Health Surveys in 2004 and 2007. Results: The proportion of Indigenous children living with at least one daily smoker who smokes inside declined significantly from 28.4% in 2004 to 20.8% in 2008, with significant improvements only detected among the most disadvantaged categories of Indigenous children. The proportion of Indigenous daily smokers who lived in multi-person households where no daily smoker householder usually smoked inside increased significantly from 45.0% in 2004 to 56.3% in 2008. The absolute size of these changes was greater among Indigenous children and smokers than among all Australians. More disadvantaged Indigenous children were more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke at home, and more disadvantaged Indigenous smokers were more likely to live in households where smokers usually smoked inside. Indigenous smokers in smoke-free homes smoke significantly less cigarettes. Conclusions: The increases in Indigenous smoke-free homes are encouraging, especially as they are from the period before recent increased attention to Indigenous tobacco control, which should accelerate these trends and their resultant health benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families.Copyright © 2014 The Authors. ANZJPH © 2014 Public Health Association of Australia.Item Evaluation of an Australian Indigenous housing programme: community level impact on crowding, infrastructure function and hygiene.(2011-08-30) Bailie R.S.; McDonald E.L.; Stevens M.; Guthridge S.; Brewster D.R.Background and Aim: Housing programmes in Indigenous Australian communities have focused largely on achieving good standards of infrastructure function. The impact of this approach was assessed on three potentially important housing-related influences on child health at the community level: (1) crowding, (2) the functional state of the house infrastructure and (3) the hygienic condition of the houses. Method(s): A before-and-after study, including house infrastructure surveys and structured interviews with the main householder, was conducted in all homes of young children in 10 remote Australian Indigenous communities. Result(s): Compared with baseline, follow-up surveys showed (1) a small non-significant decrease in the mean number of people per bedroom in the house on the night before the survey (3.4, 95% CI 3.1 to 3.6 at baseline vs 3.2, 95% CI 2.9 to 3.4 at follow-up; natural logarithm transformed t test, t=1.3, p=0.102); (2) a marginally significant overall improvement in infrastructure function scores (KruskaleWallis test, chi2=3.9, p=0.047); and (3) no clear overall improvement in hygiene (KruskaleWallis test, chi2=0.3, p=0.605). Conclusion Housing programmes of this scale that focus on the provision of infrastructure alone appear unlikely to lead to more hygienic general living environments, at least in this study context. A broader ecological approach to housing programmes delivered in these communities is needed if potential health benefits are to be maximised. This ecological approach would require a balanced programme of improving access to health hardware, hygiene promotion and creating a broader enabling environment in communities.Item Learning from alcohol (policy) reforms in the Northern Territory (LEARNT): protocol for a mixed-methods study examining the impacts of the banned drinker register.(2022-05-20) Miller P.; Coomber K.; Smith J.; Livingston M.; Stevens M.; Guthridge S.; Room R.; Wright C.J.C.; Rung D.; Clifford S.; Baldwin R.; Das S.; Paradies Y.; Scott D.; Griffiths K.E.; Farmer C.; Mayshak R.; Silver B.; Moore S.; Mack J.; Mithen V.; Dyall D.; Ward J.; Boffa J.; Chikritzhs T.Introduction The Banned Drinker Register (BDR) was reintroduced in the Northern Territory (NT) in September 2017. The BDR is a supply reduction measure and involves placing people who consume alcohol at harmful levels on a register prohibiting the purchase, possession and consumption of alcohol. The current study aims to evaluate the impacts of the reintroduction of the BDR, in the context of other major alcohol policy initiatives introduced across the NT such as Police Auxiliary Liquor Inspectors and a minimum unit price for alcohol of US$1.30 per standard drink. Methods and analyses The Learning from Alcohol (policy) Reforms in the Northern Territory project will use a mixed-methods approach and contain four major components: epidemiological analysis of trends over time (outcomes include health, justice and social welfare data); individual-level data linkage including those on the BDR (outcomes include health and justice data); qualitative interviews with key stakeholders in the NT (n>=50); and qualitative interviews among people who are, or were previously, on the BDR, as well as the families and communities connected to those on the BDR (n=150). The impacts of the BDR on epidemiological data will be examined using time series analysis. Linked data will use generalised mixed models to analyse the relationship between outcomes and exposures, utilising appropriate distributions. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approvals have been obtained from NT Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), Central Australia HREC and Deakin University HREC. In addition to peer-reviewed publications, we will report our findings to key organisational, policy, government and community stakeholders via conferences, briefings and lay summaries.Copyright © 2022 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.