Gemma Skaczkowski

Influence of premium versus value brand names on the smoking experience in a plain packaging environment: an experimental study

Objective To examine the effect of branding, as indicated by brand name, on evaluation of the cigarette smoking experience. Design Between-subjects and within-subjects experimental study. Participants were randomly allocated to smoke a cigarette from a pack featuring a premium brand name and a cigarette from a pack featuring a value brand name. Within each condition, participants unknowingly smoked two identical cigarettes (either two premium or two value cigarettes). Setting Australia, October 2014, 2 years after tobacco plain packaging implementation. Participants 81 current cigarette smokers aged 19–39 years. From apparently premium and value brand-name packs, 40 smokers were allocated to smoke the same actual premium cigarettes and 41 were allocated to smoke the same actual value cigarettes. Primary outcome measures Experienced taste (flavour, satisfaction, enjoyment, quality, liking, mouthfeel and aftertaste), harshness, dryness, staleness, harm/strength measures (strength, tar, lightness, volume of smoke), draw effort and purchase intent. Results Cigarettes given a premium brand name were rated as having a better taste, were less harsh and less dry than identical cigarettes given a value brand name. This pattern was observed irrespective of whether the two packs actually contained premium or value cigarettes. These effects were specific: the brand name did not influence ratings of cigarette variant attributes (strength, tar, volume of smoke, lightness and draw effort). Conclusions Despite the belief that brand names represent genuine differences between cigarette products, the results suggest that at least some of this perceived sensory difference is attributable to brand image.

Do Australian adolescents' and young adults' experiences of cancer care influence their quality of life?

To examine the relationship between the cancer care experiences of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) and their quality of life.

Factors influencing the documentation of fertility-related discussions for adolescents and young adults with cancer

PURPOSE A cancer diagnosis and treatment may have significant implications for a young patients future fertility. Documentation of fertility-related discussions and actions is crucial to providing the best follow-up care, which may occur for many years post-treatment. This study examined the rate of medical record documentation of fertility-related discussions and fertility preservation (FP) procedures for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer in Australia. METHODS A retrospective review of medical records for 941 patients in all six Australian states. Patients were identified through population-based cancer registries (four states) and hospital admission lists (two states). Trained data collectors extracted information from medical records using a comprehensive data collection survey. Records were reviewed for AYA patients (aged 15-24 years at diagnosis), diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, central nervous system (CNS) tumours, soft tissue sarcomas (STS), primary bone cancer or Ewings family tumours between 2007 and 2012. RESULTS 47.2% of patients had a documented fertility discussion and 35.9% had a documented FP procedure. Fertility-related documentation was less likely for female patients, those with a CNS or STS diagnosis and those receiving high-risk treatments. In multivariable models, adult hospitals with an AYA focus were more likely to document fertility discussions (odds ratio[OR] = 1.60; 95%CI = 1.08-2.37) and FP procedures (OR = 1.74; 95%CI = 1.17-2.57) than adult hospitals with no AYA services. CONCLUSIONS These data provide the first national, population-based estimates of fertility documentation for AYA cancer patients in Australia. Documentation of fertility-related discussions was poor, with higher rates observed in hospitals with greater experience of treating AYA patients.

Clinical trial participation by adolescents and young adults with cancer: A continued cause for concern?

International data indicate that rates of clinical trial enrolment for Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) with cancer are markedly lower than for any other age group. This paper reviews the recent literature reporting international trends in clinical trial enrolment since 2010. Subsequently, we present the first population-based, national assessment of clinical trial enrolment for AYAs with cancer in Australia. Reported rates of trial enrolment from Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom were variable, though consistently low, ranging between 2% and 29%. Trial enrolment was higher for younger AYAs (typically 15-19 years) and those attending pediatric hospitals, and this was replicated in the recent Australian data. The findings highlight a lack of substantial improvement in AYA clinical trial enrolment and in particular, a need for improved opportunities to access trials for patients treated at adult centers.

Clinical management of Australian adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic and myeloid leukemias: A national population-based study.

While several studies have examined the treatment of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), studies of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are rare. Using national data for Australia, we describe (i) the number and type of treatment centers caring for AYAs, (ii) induction/first‐line treatments, and (iii) survival outcomes.

Factors influencing the provision of fertility counseling and impact on quality of life in adolescents and young adults with cancer

ABSTRACT Purpose: This study investigated the impact of fertility-related discussions on Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) cancer patients’ quality of life (QoL) and the factors influencing provision of these discussions. Methods: Recruitment was conducted through population-based state cancer registries. Eligible AYAs were 15–24 years at diagnosis, 3–24 months postdiagnosis, with any cancer (except early stage melanoma). As part of a larger survey, AYAs were asked about their experiences of fertility-related discussions and QoL (FACT-G). Results: Of the 207 AYAs returning surveys (29% response rate) 88% reported a discussion about infertility risks, 75% reported a discussion about preservation options and 59% were offered a referral to a fertility specialist. Patients attending health services with an AYA focus were more likely than those attending other types of centers to report discussions of fertility preservation (FP) options (85% versus 67%) and referrals (75% versus 49%). Social well-being was positively related to discussions about preservation options and being provided fertility risk information in a sensitive, supportive manner. Conclusions: Providing a sensitive and proactive discussion about fertility-related risks may benefit AYAs’ well-being. Services with an AYA focus are fulfilling their mandate of ensuring optimal fertility-related care for AYA cancer patients.