Monthly Archives: January 2009

Coordinator : Pacific HIV & STI Research Centre, Fiji School of Medicine

This is a senior academic position. It will be reporting to the Director of Research, FSMed and supported by University of New South Wales partners.

The position will be based in Suva.

Job Purposemebeli
The Coordinator will have responsibility for establishing, building and managing the Pacific Centre for HIV and STI Research in accordance with the requirements of the funding agreement/s for the Centre.

Key Responsibilities – Please refer to the FSMed website for a detailed Job Description.

Qualifications & Experience

Essential
· Postgraduate degree in Public Health, Sociology or other related discipline.
· Evidence of active HIV, STI or related research interests
· Good understanding of Pacific culture
· Demonstrated success at management of people and organisational resources
· Excellent oral and written communication skills
· Experience in preparing applications for research funding.
Desirable
· PhD in Public Health, Sociology or other related discipline.
· Demonstrated ability to contribute to the research development of early career researchers, and postgraduate and honours students.
· Experience in budgeting for research projects
· Able to work independently and exercise initiative

Salary Range :- Senior Research Fellow 55,708 – 66,000 Fiji dollars p.a.

Application forms are available from our website at www.fsm.ac.fj or from the Human Resources Secretary, FSMed, Brown Street, Suva, Fiji.

Printed, electronic or faxed versions of the completed application forms, your curriculum vitae and certified photocopies of original certificates, together with the names of three professional referees must be received no later than 18th February, 2009 and sent to :-
The Human Resources Manager,
Fiji School of Medicine,
Private Mail Bag,
Suva.

NSW Opposition gaining credit for ATOD approach?

MEDIA RELEASE
For those outside of NSW who are unaware, the current Labor government has been in power since 1995 and to put it politely, is well and truly showing signs of disrepair. The current NSW Opposition has managed to stay disciplined since the 2007 election and under Barry O’Farrell has mad a much needed move to the centre-right.

NADA has put out a press release applauding the NSW Opposition for its call to improve funding for treatment services rather than the ever-expanding rollout of prison beds. Kudos to NADA for being vocal on this, and here’s to a lot more of that by ATOD peak bodies.

I’m far from a Liberal Party supporter but it shows how bizarre things have become where a Labor government are promising more and more prisons whilst the so-called conservatives are wanting an increased focus on treatment.

For those living in NSW, have you noticed whether things have deteriorated in regards to the government’s grasp of health issues? Post a comment below – feel free to use a psuedonym and fake email address if you’re worried about protecting your privacy. There’s not enough open discussion about the impact of politics on health and the current NSW situation is as good a place as any.

The NADA press release:

NADA applauds calls for the expansion of drug crime diversion programs

The Network of Alcohol and Drug Agencies (NADA) welcomes the NSW Opposition’s justice spokesperson’s call to end simplistic “tough on crime” approaches to deal with offenders with severe drug and alcohol and mental health issues. NADA CEO Larry Pierce thinks the NSW Opposition got it right in identifying that more funding for drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs are more effective than building more prisons. “There is strong evidence for the effectiveness of drug crime diversion programs like Drug Courts and magistrates referral to treatment in NSW and across the country” .

“it would be good to see real political bi-partisanship on this issue” says Mr Pierce. NADA also calls on the State and Australian government to further strengthen their current commitment to drug crime diversion and rehabilitation programs.

Virginity pledges: fail

Some interesting research that may interest harm reduction proponents. Anyone who’s worked in health promotion / community development knows there’s significant overlap between sexual health and ATOD topics.

The research below illustrates the potential downfalls of an abstinence based approach without wider strategies in place for those who don’t choose abstinence. In the case of this research it was in regard to ‘virginity pledges’ and their likelihood of preventing sexual activity in younger people.

The abstract:

Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers
Janet Elise Rosenbaum, PhD, AM
Health Policy PhD Program, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

OBJECTIVE. The US government spends more than $200 million annually on abstinence-promotion programs, including virginity pledges. This study compares the sexual activity of adolescent virginity pledgers with matched nonpledgers by using more robust methods than past research.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. The subjects for this study were National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health respondents, a nationally representative sample of middle and high school students who, when surveyed in 1995, had never had sex or taken a virginity pledge and who were >15 years of age (n = 3440). Adolescents who reported taking a virginity pledge on the 1996 survey (n = 289) were matched with nonpledgers (n = 645) by using exact and nearest-neighbor matching within propensity score calipers on factors including prepledge religiosity and attitudes toward sex and birth control. Pledgers and matched nonpledgers were compared 5 years after the pledge on self-reported sexual behaviors and positive test results for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis, and safe sex outside of marriage by use of birth control and condoms in the past year and at last sex.

RESULTS. Five years after the pledge, 82% of pledgers denied having ever pledged. Pledgers and matched nonpledgers did not differ in premarital sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and anal and oral sex variables. Pledgers had 0.1 fewer past-year partners but did not differ in lifetime sexual partners and age of first sex. Fewer pledgers than matched nonpledgers used birth control and condoms in the past year and birth control at last sex.

CONCLUSIONS. The sexual behavior of virginity pledgers does not differ from that of closely matched nonpledgers, and pledgers are less likely to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease before marriage. Virginity pledges may not affect sexual behavior but may decrease the likelihood of taking precautions during sex. Clinicians should provide birth control information to all adolescents, especially virginity pledgers.

Thanks to Paul D on the ADCA Update list for the heads-up. What are your thoughts – any surprises in the findings for you?