Background

Australian Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders (Indigenous Australians) smoke at much higher rates than non-Indigenous people and smoking is an important contributor to increased disease, hospital admissions and deaths in Indigenous Australian populations. Smoking cessation programs in Australia have not had the same impact on Indigenous smokers as on non-Indigenous smokers. This paper describes the protocol for a study that aims to test the efficacy of a locally-tailored, intensive, multidimensional smoking cessation program.

Methods/Design

This study is a parallel, randomised, controlled trial. Participants are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers aged 16 years and over, who are randomly allocated to a 'control' or 'intervention' group in a 2:1 ratio. Those assigned to the 'intervention' group receive smoking cessation counselling at face-to-face visits, weekly for the first four weeks, monthly to six months and two monthly to 12 months. They are also encouraged to attend a monthly smoking cessation support group. The 'control' group receive 'usual care' (i.e. they do not receive the smoking cessation program). Aboriginal researchers deliver the intervention, the goal of which is to help Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders quit smoking. Data collection occurs at baseline (when they enrol) and at six and 12 months after enrolling. The primary outcome is self-reported smoking cessation with urinary cotinine confirmation at 12 months.

Discussion

Stopping smoking has been described as the single most important individual change Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers could make to improve their health. Smoking cessation programs are a major priority in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and evidence for effective approaches is essential for policy development and resourcing. A range of strategies have been used to encourage Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders to quit smoking however there have been few good quality studies that show what approaches work best. More evidence of strategies that could work more widely in Indigenous primary health care settings is needed if effective policy is to be developed and implemented. Our project will make an important contribution in this area.

Trial Registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12608000604303)

Glutathione (GSH), a tripeptide antioxidant, is essential for cellular homeostasis and plays a vital role in diverse cellular functions. Individuals who are infected with Human immuno deficiency virus (HIV) are known to be susceptible to Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tb) infection. We report that by enhancing GSH levels, T-cells are able to inhibit the growth of M. tb inside macrophages. In addition, those GSH-replenished T cell cultures produced increased levels of Interleukin-2 (IL-2), Interleukin-12 (IL-12), and Interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), cytokines, which are known to be crucial for the control of intracellular pathogens. Our study reveals that T lymphocytes that are derived from HIV infected individuals are deficient in GSH, and that this deficiency correlates with decreased levels of Th1 cytokines and enhanced growth of M. tb inside human macrophages.

Atherosclerosis is a leading cause of coronary heart disease and stroke. Since 1981, more than 980,000 cases of AIDS have been reported in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 1 million Americans may be infected with HIV. By killing or damaging CD4+ T cells of the body’s immune system, HIV progressively destroys the body’s ability to fight infections. People diagnosed with AIDS often suffer from life-threatening diseases caused by opportunistic infections such as tuberculosis. HIV-infected individuals have increased risks for atherosclerosis. This review summarizes the effects of oxidized low density lipoproteins in impairing macrophage functions in individuals with atherosclerosis (with and without HIV infection) thereby enhancing the susceptibility to Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection.

Objectives

To examine the effect of patients’ causal attributions of common somatic symptoms on recognition by general practitioners of cases of depression and anxiety and to test the hypothesis that normalising attributions make recognition less likely.

Design

Cross sectional survey.

Setting

One general practice of eight doctors in Bristol.

Subjects

305 general practice attenders.

Main outcome measure

The rate of detection by general practitioners of cases of depression and anxiety as defined by the general health questionnaire.

Results

Consecutive attenders completed the general health questionnaire and the symptom interpretation questionnaire, which scores style of symptom attribution along the dimensions of psychologising, somatising, and normalising. General practitioners detected depression or anxiety in 56 (36%; 95% confidence interval 28% to 44%) of the 157 patients who scored highly on the general health questionnaire. Subjects with a normalising attributional style were less likely to be detected as cases; doctors did not make any psychological diagnosis in 46 (85%; 73% to 93%) of 54 patients who had high questionnaire and high normalising scores. Those with a psychologising style were more likely to be detected; doctors did not detect 21 (38%; 25% to 52%) of 55 patients who had high questionnaire and high psychologising scores. The somatisation scale was not associated with low detection rates. This pattern of results persisted after adjustment for age, sex, general health questionnaire score, and general practitioner.

Conclusions

Normalising attributions minimise symptoms and are non-pathological in character. The normalising attributional style is predominant in general practice attenders and is an important cause of low rates of detection of depression and anxiety.

Key messagesMany patients with psychological disorders present to their general practitioner with common somatic symptoms. This combination has been referred to as “somatisation” and is associated with lower rates of diagnosis of depression and anxietyWhen questioned directly about the cause of their symptoms most patients choose “normalising” attributions, which tend to minimise the importance of the symptoms; somatising attributions are uncommonThe more normalising attributions patients choose, the less likely are general practitioners to diagnose depression or anxiety; the association remain after adjustment for age, sex, general health questionnaire score, and which doctor the patient sawThe normalising attributional style makes a considerable contribution to the non-detection of depression and anxiety. A better understanding of how depressed patients view their symptoms may be the key to understanding low diagnostic rates