The success of Australia’s ‘No Jab,No Pay’ policy at a local level; retrospective clinical audit of a single medical practice assessing incidence of catch-up vaccinations

Vaccination is a vital health care initiative to prevent individual and population infection. To increase vaccination rates the federal government implemented the ‘No Jab, No Pay’ policy, where eligibility for several government benefits required children to be fully vaccinated by removing ‘conscientious objections’ and expanding the age range of children whose families receive benefits. This study assesses the impact of this policy at a local area within a single medical practice community in NSW, Australia. A retrospective clinical audit was performed between 2012 and 2017 on a single general practice's vaccination records for children ≤19 years. Catch-up vaccinations were assessed based on age at vaccination. Incidence of catch-up vaccinations was assessed for each of four years before and two years after the implementation of the ‘No Jab, No Pay’ policy in January 2016, along with the age of children and vaccination(s) given. Catch-up vaccinations were assessed temporally either side of implementation of ‘No Jab, No Pay’. Comparing the average annual vaccination catch-up incidence rate of 6.2% pre-implementation (2012–2015), there was an increase to 9.2% in 2016 (p < .001) and 7.8% in 2017 (p = .027). Secondary outcome measurement of catch-up vaccination incidence rates before (2012–2015) and after (2016–2017) ‘No Jab, No Pay’ implementation showed statistically significant increases for children aged 8–11 years (3.2%–5.6%, p = .038), 12–15 years (7.5%–14.7%, p < .001) and 16–19 years (3.3%–10.2%, p < .001) along with a statistically significant reduction in children aged 1–3 years (11.4%–6.2%, p = .015). Also, catch-up rates for DTPa significantly increased after program implementation. This study demonstrates that the Australian federal government vaccination policy ‘No Jab, No Pay’ was coincident with an increase in catch-up vaccinations within a rural NSW community served by one medical practice, especially for older children.     

Effects of age,gender and menstrual cycle on platelet function assessed by impedance aggregometry

Platelets are needed to prevent or arrest bleeding and aggregate at the site of injury upon vascular damage. Platelets express receptors for estrogens which might affect the function of the platelets and their hemostatic ability. The aim was to identify possible differences in platelet function related to age, gender, and phases of the menstrual cycle by use of impedance aggregometry with Multiplate. In the first part of the study, platelet function was assessed in 60 healthy individuals (30 men and 30 women) in each of three age groups (20–25, 40–45, and 60–65 years). In the second part of the study, the platelet function was analyzed on four occasions during the menstrual cycle in women without oral contraceptives (OCs) (n = 17) and compared to 19 women on OCs and 18 men of similar age (20–40 years). For the women on OCs, aggregation was analyzed once during the tablet-free week and once late during the period with OCs. The men were sampled once. Women of younger age (<45 years) had significantly higher agonist-induced aggregation response than both men and post-menopausal women (60–65 years). The agonist-induced aggregation response did not differ between phases of the menstrual cycle or OC use. The results suggest that estradiol and/or progesterone affect spontaneous aggregation since it was found to be lowest in the mid-luteal phase. Spontaneous aggregation was significantly lower in women on OCs than in both men and women without OCs. Our findings indicate that fertile age is associated with higher aggregation response capacity of the platelets, possibly to prevent excessive bleeding during menstruation, but this response capacity is not altered during the menstrual cycle or by use of OCs.     

Safety and Efficacy of the Moderate Sedation During Flexible Bronchoscopic Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Moderate sedatives have been increasingly used to improve patient comfort during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). However, routine use of moderate sedation during FB is controversial because its efficacy and safety are not well established.This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of moderate sedation during FB.A search was made of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to May 2014.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were included.The main analysis was designed to examine the efficacy of moderate sedation during FB in sedation than no-sedation.The willingness to repeat FB was significantly more in sedation than no-sedation (odds ratio [OR] 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–4.73; P = 0.02; I² = 22.5). The duration of FB was shorter in sedation group than no-sedation group (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.21; 95% CI −0.38 to −0.03; P = 0.02; I² = 78.3%). Event of hypoxia was not significantly different between sedation and no-sedation groups (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.42–1.73; P = 0.67; I² = 0%). The SpO₂ during procedure was not different between sedation and no-sedation groups (SMD −0.14; 95% CI −0.37 to 0.08; P = 0.21; I² = 49.9%). However, in subgroup analysis without supplemental oxygen, the SpO₂ was significantly lower in sedation than no-sedation group (SMD −0.45; 95% CI −0.78 to −0.11; P = 0.01; I² = 0.0%).According to this meta-analysis, moderate sedation in FB would be useful in patients who will require repeated bronchoscopies as well as safe in respiratory depression. To our knowledge, although the various sedative drugs are already used in the real field, this analysis was the first attempt to quantify objective results. We anticipate more definite and studies designed to elucidate standardized outcomes for moderate sedation in FB.