Breast cancer is the most commonly reported cancer among women in India with an incidence rate of 25.8 percent per 100,000 women in 2012. A key strategy of India’s National Programme for the Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS) has been to carry out effective primary breast cancer screening among women. The Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Good Governance and Policy Analysis (AIGGPA), an autonomous policy think-tank under the Government of Madhya Pradesh, requested our RES team to review the existing evidence on the usability of palmer ATD-angle measurement to accurately screen women at-risk of breast cancer. The method was perceived as cost-effective, non-invasive and accessible.

The rapid evidence synthesis thus conducted provided AIGGPA with evidence-informed policy options on the use of ATD-angle measurement as an alternative to standard breast cancer screening methods.

Key policy options are:

1. Research done so far on ATD-angle measurement for breast cancer did not use appropriate and rigorous study designs. Further, the studies did not measure the required parameters (sensitivity and specificity) to understand if ATD-angle measurement could be used instead of CBE (alone or in conjunction with USG/mammography) for community screening.
2. Decision-makers may consider prioritising funding for a pilot study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ATD-angle measurement for breast cancer screening in women using an appropriate study design.

The full policy brief and technical supplement documents are available below:

• Download Policy brief (PDF 741 KB)
• Download Supplement document (PDF 1.1 MB)

A collective of public health and consumer advocates make the following statement in response to this review.

 
In Australia, almost one quarter of children aged 5-17 years are overweight or obese. We do not agree with the use of an industry self-regulated code on such an important public health issue. Consequently, we do not believe any current or previous AANA Review of Food and Beverage Advertising, or any resultant changes to the Code, will provide an adequate response to reducing children’s exposure to unhealthy food and drink advertising. We affirm our position that any action to address the persistently high levels of marketing of unhealthy products to children in Australia must come in the form of legislation supported by the Government. 

For our full statement please download the attached submission.

The George Institute’s food policy team work in Australia and overseas to reduce death and disease caused by diets high in salt, harmful fats, added sugars and excess energy. The team does multi-disciplinary research with a focus on outputs that will help government and industry deliver a healthier food environment for all. 

The George Institute strongly supports HSR as an important step forward in improving nutrition labelling for consumers and supporting healthier diets. Our research suggests HSR is performing well overall, while also highlighting areas where the system must be strengthened to retain consumer trust and maximise public health impact. As a public health organization, we are best able to support and promote a revised HSR that addresses the legitimate public health and consumer concerns raised in the Review.
 
In these final stages, our support relies upon attention being directed to the following:

• Strengthening HSR’s algorithm by adopting Calculator 2. 
• Avoiding further delay in delivering an improved HSR to consumers. While acknowledging the impact of COVID-19 on all system stakeholders, we believe the proposed start date and two-year implementation period is more than sufficient to take possible disruptions into account.
• Taking concrete action now to make HSR mandatory. 
• Implementing improvements to HSR’s governance. 

 
The George Institute welcomes this opportunity to engage on implementation of changes resulting from Health Star Rating’s Five Year Review (HSR Review). 

For our full comments and additional modelling, please download the attached submission.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian Government has made key decisions that directly impact the economy and the daily lives of every Australian. The purpose of these decisions has been to slow the rate of infection, otherwise known as to “flatten the curve”, and ensure the health system continues to operate efficiently and effectively, especially if presented with large numbers of infected patients. To date, this has resulted in Australia having one of the highest testing rates and lowest confirmed cases and deaths in the world, per capita. 

The George Institute believes the Australian Government’s long-term investment in health and medical research has helped Australia effectively respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes ongoing support for the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and establishing the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). In the post pandemic recovery, further government support and investment in health and medical research will ensure Australia remains innovative and competitive.  

Like most businesses and not-for-profit organisations, The George Institute has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a global medical research institute, we are continuing our work to improve the health of millions of people worldwide. There is much work ahead to better understand the long-term health implications from patients with COVID-19, particularly those who have co-morbidities and non-communicable diseases.

The George Institute welcomes the opportunity to make this submission to the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19. There are seven key recommendations related to the Australian Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and related matters, including the importance of investing in medical research and targeting non-communicable diseases.

Download full submission here.

The bushfires during the summer of 2019-20 were tragic for Australia, both for communities that were directly affected by fire through the loss of their homes and/or livelihoods; and for millions of Australians who were affected by the fires through exposure to smoke and witnessing the horrific scenes reported in the media. This has significantly impacted the health and wellbeing of Australians.  
 
Whilst bushfires raged, Australia experienced its hottest year on record in 2019 in addition to the ongoing drought impacting many parts of the country. The George Institute believes high temperatures, bushfires and drought is largely due to human-induced climate change.  
 
The long-term impacts of climate change on our health are not yet fully understood, particularly concerning prolonged exposure to smoke and pollutant particles. The Federal Government should be taking swift and comprehensive action to combat the impacts of climate change, according to recommendations by the World Health Organization, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and The Paris Agreement. 

The George Institute for Global Health welcomes the opportunity to contribute a submission to the Australian Senate on "Lessons to be learned in relation to the Australian bushfire season 2019-20". 

Download full submission here.

This project assessed the benefits of implementing the salt reduction programs throughout the whole of Australia, leading to the prevention of stroke and CHD events, reduction in healthcare need, informal care, and productivity costs. These benefits are compared with the cost of implementing the three different salt reduction programs.

The economic modeling explores the effect of varying levels of salt reduction through three types of salt reduction programs: (1) mandatory salt reduction legislation, which requires food manufacturers to comply with maximum salt targets across a wide range of processed foods, (2) voluntary participation of food manufacturers in limiting salt use in processed foods, and (3) a community health program for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases

Results showed that by reducing salt intake by 1 g/day across Australia, the number of potentially saved lives each year is estimated to be 1,364, with an estimated 2,626 strokes and 2,526 CHD events avoided.

The estimated social return on investment of implementing salt reduction programs across Australia is that for each dollar invested in a salt reduction program, $2.40 for a community program, $5.70 for a voluntary program, and $10 for a mandatory program are returned to society.

These findings demonstrate that whilst all programs produce a positive return on investment, the mandatory salt reduction program is likely to yield the best social return on investment from the prevention of cardiovascular events.

Many of the present discussions and debates in Australia relating to sugar have focused on the implementation of a sugar tax or sugar-sweetened beverage levy—policy concepts that are often polarising and that have currently exhibited little traction. Additionally, even where implemented, a tax on certain sugary products would only be one small step, part of a solution to a much greater problem. 

A new report builds on the comprehensive overview by Vanessa Clarkson commissioned by The George Institute and published on February 2020, ‘Sugar in Australia: A Food Systems Approach: Competing Issues, Diverse Voices, and Rethinking Pathways to a Sustainable Transition’, to broaden the debate on sugar in Australia so that the entire system is considered, including sugar’s effects on people and the environment.

One in two Australians has one or more chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, or diabetes. Two in three adults are either overweight or obese, and one in four children are obese, with excess sugar consumption being a key contributor to obesity and diabetes.

In terms of the environment, sugar cane production is a significant consumer of Australia’s water supplies and the polluted run-off is damaging to natural ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef.

The expert consensus report, Sweet Transition: Priorities for collaborating to transform the food system in Australia, is the outcome of a roundtable hosted by The George Institute for Global Health and calls for a whole of government, the whole of system approach to mitigate the broad impacts of sugar.

Women have a right to know if a product is going to cause harm to their unborn child. 

Alcohol is a ‘teratogen’, a known substance that can cause birth defects. Alcohol is the leading cause of non-genetic developmental disability in Australia in the form of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD). Yet one in four pregnant women in Australia continue to drink alcohol after knowledge of their pregnancy, resulting in approximately 75,000 alcohol exposed pregnancies annually. One reason that women continue to drink is that they are unaware of, or underestimate, the severity of the risk. Our research shows that older pregnant women in particular can be unaware of the potential risks of alcohol for the unborn child. 

On Friday 20 March 2020 the Ministerial Forum, made up of Ministers in Australia and New Zealand considered pregnancy warning labels on alcoholic products. The decision was made to further delay the introduction of pregnancy health warning labels

The George Institute for Global Health is pleased to make this submission to reducing trauma on local roads in NSW.

The George Institute is a leading injury research centre and its Injury Division is a designated World Health Organisation (WHO) Collaborating Centre in Injury Prevention and Trauma Care. The Injury team investigates solutions to prevent the world’s most significant injury problems and transform injury and trauma care globally. Harnessing the power of governments, markets and communities through research, advocacy and thought leadership, we are at the forefront of innovations to reduce the burden of injury.   We currently lead over 30 injury-related projects in Australia, India, Bangladesh, China, Uganda and South Africa, including developing Australia’s National Injury Prevention Strategy, and a specific focus of projects that aim to deliver tangible reductions in road trauma worldwide.

As our overall strategic aim is to reduce the burden of injury, we support any move towards the reduction of trauma on local roads in New South Wales.  

The George Institute for Global Health is pleased to make this submission to the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety. We have partnered with the Transurban Road Safety Centre at the Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) and the School of Public Health and Community Health at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney to develop this submission.

The George Institute is a leading injury research centre and its Injury Division is a designated World Health Organisation (WHO) Collaborating Centre in Injury Prevention and Trauma Care. The Injury team investigates solutions to prevent the world’s most significant injury problems and transform injury and trauma care globally. Harnessing the power of governments, markets and communities through research, advocacy and thought leadership, we are at the forefront of innovations to reduce the burden of injury.  

The George Institute currently leads over 30 injury-related projects in Australia, India, Bangladesh, China, Uganda and South Africa, including developing Australia’s National Injury Prevention Strategy, and a specific focus of projects that aim to deliver tangible reductions in road trauma worldwide.