How to handle teen ‘big feelings’ as the social media ban kicks in

Christiane Kehoe, The University of Melbourne and Elizabeth Westrupp, Deakin University

Watching your teenager grieve the loss of their social media account can be confronting. Many are genuinely distressed or struggling with the change, and many parents are unsure how to respond.

Australia’s social media ban, which started this week, means teens under the age of 16, have lost accounts to platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram.

These are the platforms they relied on to talk to friends, find support, follow interests, or decompress after school.

While some teens feel relieved or not fussed, many are feeling sad, worried, powerless, helpless, disappointed or angry.

These aren’t signs of entitlement. They’re signs your teen may need support.

A mixed bag: here’s what more than 17,000 teenagers think of the ban.

Why losing social media hits some teens hard

There’s a neurological reason why the loss of social media can hit teens so hard.

Adolescence is a period of enormous social, neurological and emotional change. Teen brains are wired for peer connection, and their brains become more sensitive to feedback from their peers. Meanwhile the brain regions responsible for impulse control, managing strong emotions and long-term planning are still developing.

When teens say losing social media feels like being “cut off”, they aren’t being dramatic. Their neurological systems are reacting to a loss of social reinforcement.

Connect and validate their feelings

If your teen is upset, the instinct might be to justify the government’s decision or to explain why life offline is healthier. However, advice lands badly when a young person feels unheard. Teens often perceive even well-meaning advice as criticism.

Accepting their feelings about the changes helps validate their experience. You can say:

Feeling angry or sad makes total sense. I know you used those sites to stay connected with your friends.

Losing your account feels huge. It’s a big change to deal with.

Then pause and listen.

Or you can sit with them without saying much. Some teens prefer parents to just listen sympathetically.

Supporting your teen doesn’t mean you agree with their perspective. It means you’re acknowledging their emotional reality. When teens feel understood, they become more open to talking – and eventually, to problem-solving.

The first two weeks may be the toughest. Some teens may experience grief and withdrawal-like symptoms: boredom, anxiety, irritability, restlessness and a powerful urge to “just check once”.

Help teens understand these reactions are normal. Social media platforms are designed to keep users hooked.

Understand the ‘why’ together

It might help to explore the governement’s concerns about social media with your teen – but not as a lecture. The ban isn’t about social media being inherently bad, but about how platforms are designed.

You can talk about algorithms maximising engagement using the same mechanisms as gambling to encourage dependence and addiction. Or you can talk about how feeds are personalised to keep users scrolling for longer.

Ask your teen what they think about these concerns. This isn’t about convincing them the ban is right, but developing their awareness of how digital platforms work. This prepares them for use when they’re older.

Help teens rebuild what social media gave them

To support your teen, it helps to understand the function social media played in their life. Was it to:

• connect with friends?
• find community around a niche interest or identity?
• share creative work, or find outlets for self-expression?
• de-stress after a busy day?
• know what others are talking about?

Once you understand this, you can help them find alternatives that genuinely meet their needs. They might be able to maintain:

• connection by organising a get-together, make FaceTime calls, join clubs, or have group chats on allowed platforms
• creativity by finding other outlets such as photography, video-making, music, writing, art, or gaming communities with safe age settings
• relaxation by reading, exercise, podcasts, nature time, shows you can watch together.

Many teens won’t immediately know what they want to try. They may need time and space to have their feelings first. Once they are ready, inviting them to brainstorm a few options (without pressuring them) can help.

Problem-solve together, notice efforts

Once emotions settle, gently shift to collaborative problem-solving. You can ask:

What’s been the hardest part this week?

How could we help you stay connected in ways that are allowed?

What would make this change even a tiny bit easier?

Let your teen lead. Young people are much more likely to follow through on strategies they helped design.

Even small signs of coping deserve acknowledgement. You can say:

I can see you’ve been finding other ways to talk to friends. That takes maturity.

I’m proud of how open you’ve been about how you’re feeling.

But if something doesn’t work, treat it like an experiment. You can say:

OK, that didn’t help as much as we hoped. What else could we try?

Check in later

For teens, losing social media isn’t simply losing an app. It can feel like losing a community, a creative outlet, or a place where they felt understood.

Keep an eye out and offer opportunities to check in with how they are going. This ensures teens don’t navigate this transition alone or become secretive – and that your relationship remains a source of support.

---

The eSafety Commissioner website explains why the rules were brought in and how they will work; youth mental health service headspace has seven tips for navigating the social media ban; the Raising Children’s website explains how teens use technology for entertainment; tips for digital wellness and how to draw up a “contract” for use of a child’s first phone are also available.

Christiane Kehoe, Senior Lecturer in Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne and Elizabeth Westrupp, Associate Professor in Psychology, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→December 16, 2025

Study decodes how females and males experience depression

(Photo: AI generated image/IANS)

New Delhi, (IANS) A team of Australian researchers has decoded important genetic differences in how females and males experience depression for the first time, an advance that could pave the way for more targeted intervention and treatments.

In the study, published in Nature Communications, scientists found that genetic factors contribute more to depression risk in females than in males.

The team from QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute discovered about twice as many genetic "flags" for depression in the DNA of females as they did in that of males.

"We already know that females are twice as likely to suffer from depression in their lifetime than males," said Dr. Brittany Mitchell, Senior Researcher at QIMR Berghofer's Genetic Epidemiology Lab.

"And we also know that depression looks very different from one person to another. Until now, there hasn't been much consistent research to explain why depression affects females and males differently, including the possible role of genetics," Mitchell added.

The team identified about 7,000 changes in the DNA that could cause depression in both sexes, and about a further 6,000 DNA changes (a total of 13,000) that could cause depression in females only.

Researcher Dr. Jodi Thomas said the study also pinpointed how depression could show up differently for females and males.

The team found that the genetic factors linked to depression overlap more with those associated with metabolic traits in females.

"We found some genetic differences that may help explain why females with depression more often experience metabolic symptoms, such as weight changes or altered energy levels."

For the largest global study of its kind, the scientists analysed DNA from hundreds of thousands of people with and without depression, including around 130,000 females and 65,000 males with depression.

The changes in DNA that the scientists have identified are genetic differences people are born with, not changes that happen because of life experiences.

Traditionally, most drug trials and therapies are tested on males, but Drs Mitchell and Thomas hope their work will also translate to a greater clinical understanding of female depression.

"Unpacking the shared and unique genetic factors in males and females gives us a clearer picture of what causes depression -- and opens the door to more personalized treatments," Dr. Thomas said.The findings highlight the importance of considering sex-specific genetic influences in studying depression and other health conditions. Study decodes how females and males experience depression | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Read More........→December 10, 2025

Hope Is the Most Impactful Emotion in Determining Long-Term Economic, Social Outcomes

Photo by Carl Hunley Jr on Unsplash

Is hope just “a thing with feathers” as Dickenson wrote, or is it Aristotle’s “waking dream?”

Or instead. is it “a promise we live” rather than a “promise we give” as Amanda Gorman wrote in 2021.

According to new research examining the impact of hope as a positive emotion on long-term economic and social outcomes, it’s very much the Gorman definition.

That research presents evidence that not only is hope the least-studied dimension of positive emotional wellbeing, but that it’s also likely the most consequential in terms of long-term outcomes—beyond things like happiness or security.

Individuals in an Australian cohort of 25,000 randomly-sampled people that were more hopeful had on average improved wellbeing, education, economic, and employment outcomes measures years later, both better perceived health and objective measures of health, and were less likely to be lonely.

Hope in the researchers’ paper was also associated with higher resilience, the ability to adapt, and a robust internal locus of control. Hopeful individuals were also less likely to be influenced by negative life events and adapted more quickly and completely after these events.

Perhaps contrary to others’ definitions, the study authors defined hope as having a “strong grounding in individual agency.”

“Hope is not just a belief that things will get better (i.e., optimism), but the determination to make them better, which reflects agency and determination,” they wrote in their introduction. “The distinction between tragic optimists and hopeful pessimists is another way to think of this.”

Their data was pulled from the Household, Income and Labor Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, which began collecting self-completed questionnaires in addition to face-to-face interviews with members of the Australian public over the age of 15 in 2001.

The data used in the study goes as far back as 2007, and includes the years 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021. The measurements of hope were simply the reverse measurements for one of the survey questions on psychological distress which read, “In the past 4 weeks, how often have you felt hopeless?”

69% of respondents said “all of the time” over the last 4 weeks, and 18% said “most of the time.”

Not only did they enjoy more positive outcomes in health, education, and economic undertakings than those who were less hopeful on average, but that moving from less hopeful to more hopeful was correlated with improved attainment in these dimensions.

Moving from hopeless to hopeful correlated to better life outcomes credit – Mahdi Dastmard

Moving, for example, from totally hopeless to totally hopeful resulted in a 4% higher probability of achieving a bachelor’s degree in the next 2 years and a 2% lower probability of being unemployed in future years.

In the health realm, higher levels of hope were linked to a lower probability of being obese in the next 2 years, to reductions in smoking levels, and even to a lower likelihood of having a serious illness or injury. Hopeful people were more likely to have more friends, and less likely to be both lonely and being incarcerated in future years.

One caveat with the data follows the tendency typified by the famous “healthy user bias” in nutrition and fitness literature, where data can appear more impactful than it may actually be because of the way that people who are likely to make a choice regarding their health (for example, choosing to exercise thrice a week) are more likely to make further choices in regards to their health than those who avoid making any such choices.

Essentially, there was a 1.5% greater chance that previous survey respondents would undergo follow-up surveys if they were more hopeful, skewing the data slightly towards the hopeful over the hopeless.

The authors claim it’s the first large-scale analysis showing the links between hope and a range of long-term life outcomes.“We believe that better understanding the drivers of hope and its consequences can ultimately inform the ability of both individuals and of public policy to improve people’s lives,” the authors wrote in their conclusion. Hope Is the Most Impactful Emotion in Determining Long-Term Economic, Social Outcomes

Read More........→November 04, 2025

What cost-of-living crisis? Luxury travel is booming – and set to grow further

Anita Manfreda, Torrens University Australia

About ten years ago, while working at Badrutt’s Palace Hotel in the Swiss town of St Moritz, I was shocked to learn a guest once requested an elephant be brought in to deliver a birthday gift to his wife. And the hotel made it happen, squeezing the elephant into the lobby.

This over-the-top gesture symbolised what luxury travel once meant: wealth and power, expressed through grand displays. Think millionaires and billionaires in lavish suites and on private yachts, enjoying exclusive services most of us would never dream of, let alone actually ask for.

Consulting group McKinsey defines the luxury traveller as someone prepared to spend US$500 or more per night on accommodation. But luxury tourism is evolving. Thanks to demographic shifts, sustainability concerns, and a post-pandemic desire for connection, luxury travel has become more personal and meaningful. And luxury travellers these days aren’t always the super rich elites.

Despite the cost-of-living crisis, luxury travel is booming. So, what’s driving this growth and how is luxury travel changing?

A trillion dollar industry

The luxury travel sector has shown remarkable resilience, even during economic downturns and the COVID pandemic. Globally, it is projected to grow from US$1.4 trillion in 2024 to $2.2 trillion by 2030.

The Asia-Pacific region is leading the surge at a compound annual growth rate of 8.6% (a way of measuring growth that assumes profits are reinvested) from 2024 to 2030.

In Australia, the trend is similar: the luxury travel market generated US$37.4 billion in 2023 and is forecast to reach US$70 billion by 2032.

This growth is driven not just by affluence among the wealthy but by younger travellers. As Forbes magazine points out, these travellers are often non-millionaires who may not earn enormous salaries or even own their own homes – but are willing to pay top dollar for meaningful experiences.

And some are splurging on trips to make up for time and opportunities lost due to the pandemic – a trend industry experts sometimes refer to as “revenge” and “revelry” travel. As one luxury travel industry observer put it:

We’re seeing travel at all costs, where people are determined to have the experience they want, regardless of what that price is.

Many consumers are prioritising luxury travel experiences over other discretionary items, including luxury goods.

Luxury can have many meanings

Today’s luxury travel isn’t just about extravagance; it can also include forking out for meaningful experiences. Luxury travellers are willing to pay up for holidays that promise authenticity, wellness and connection with people and places.

It can mean access to something rare, like an uncrowded natural environment or an authentic cultural experience that feels deeply personal.

It can also come from expertise – like appreciating the nuances of a rare bottle of wine, or touring a place with an expert or celebrity guide who has been there many times before.

Where it was once defined by price and status symbols, luxury travel today is about stories worth sharing (on social media and in real life) and experiences that align with personal values.

Wellness, adventure and the digital detox

In my 17 years of working in and researching luxury travel, I have seen a lot of different luxury holidaymakers. Everything from humble retirees relishing the rewards of their hard work to VIP celebrities who send 32 pages of requests before even stepping foot in the hotel.

While older high-net-worth individuals from North America and Europe remain a significant demographic, a growing proportion of luxury travellers are millennials, Gen Z, and tourists from emerging markets like Asia and the Middle East.

Traditional hallmarks of luxury travel – like presidential suites and private islands – are still popular among high-net-worth individuals.

But a growing number of travellers seek cultural experiences, adventure, and small, intimate group trips.

These travellers are opting for off-peak seasons and less-visited destinations to avoid crowds, and may be more vocal about sustainable tourism.

The future of luxury travel lies in its ability to adapt to evolving consumer values. Wellness retreats, slow travel (including by train), and sustainability-focused experiences are becoming central to the luxury travel narrative.

In a hyper-connected world, luxury travel marketing is now often linked with the idea of a digital detox. The chance to disconnect and fully immerse in the moment has become a modern indulgence.

Luxury travellers today use their trips to explore and learn, and to reconnect with the world, their relationships, and themselves.

Anita Manfreda, Senior Lecturer in Tourism, Torrens University Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→October 31, 2025

Childbirth and Breastfeeding Can Reduce Breast Cancer Risk Shows New Study

– credit Leighann Blackwood

Scientists in Australia, which endures the highest rates of breast cancer in the world, have presented multiple lines of evidence to suggest that breastfeeding and childbearing reduces a woman’s risk for developing breast cancer.

The scientists started by first pointing out that as far back as 300 years ago, people noted that women who didn’t have children—nuns, in this case—suffered from the highest rates of breast cancer in society.

More modern research confirmed these early observations, but the mechanism behind why that might be remained hidden. While previously hypothesized to be the work of hormonal shifts, the answer now seems clear: breastfeeding works on the human immune system.

“Pregnancy and breastfeeding leave behind long-lived protective immune cells in the breast and the body, and these cells help to reduce risk and improve defense against breast cancer, particularly triple-negative breast cancer,” Professor Sherene Loi, a medical oncologist and lead author on the research, told ABC News Au.

Triple-negative breast cancer, one of several forms of the disease, is characterized by an absence of the three receptors commonly found on breast cancer cells. It’s common in younger women but is one of the less-common forms of the cancer, as well as the most lethal.

Cancer risk is determined by many factors, but Loi felt confidant is ascribing the decision by many modern women around the world to delay pregnancy and shorten, or even abandon breastfeeding, as contributing to cancer risk.

A study published last week in Nature found that women who had children and breastfed had more T cells in their breast tissue, which “act like local guards, ready to attack abnormal cells that might turn into cancer,” Loi said.

T cells are those which are activated to fight cancer in the Nobel Prize-winning treatment known as CAR-T cell therapy, and these were found to be more plentiful in the breast tissue of women who breastfed or had children, and that these elevated T cell counts were conserved for years and years after the mother had stopped breastfeeding.

To provide additional controls, Professor Loi and her co-authors performed a test with mice, implanting cancerous cells in the mammary fat of animals that had never reared offspring, that were rearing them, or who had had and finished rearing them.

Group 2 showed smaller tumor growth with a higher T cell count, while group 3—those who had reared and weened pups—showed the smallest tumors. To continue their tests, the scientists removed the T cells from the mammary tissue, and the cancer began to grow and spread unabated.

Lastly, the study presented an analysis on 2 papers totaling 1,000 women with triple-negative breast cancer to see if the effect in mice was replicated in humans.

“What we found is that women who had breastfed did better than those who had not breastfed, and their tumors actually had more immune cells … suggesting there was ongoing immune activation and regulation from the body against their breast cancer,” Professor Loi told ABC.

Though quantifying this protective effect is very nuanced, it seems that every child a woman has reduces her risk for breast cancer by 7%, and each 5 months of breastfeeding reduces it by an additional 2%.These are substantial differences when the average rate of breast cancer incidence is about 1 in 8 women Childbirth and Breastfeeding Can Reduce Breast Cancer Risk Shows New Study

Read More........→October 30, 2025

A healthier gut may help improve depression and anxiety, says study

(Photo: AI generated image/IANS)

New Delhi,  (IANS) Gut microbiome may hold the key to improving depression, anxiety and other mental health conditions -- one of the world’s most pressing health challenges affecting nearly one in seven people globally, according to a study.

Researchers from the University of South Australia explored the connections between the gut and the brain to decipher their role in mental health and wellbeing.

They examined the growing evidence that the gut and the brain are deeply connected. Their findings, published in the journal Nature Mental Health, found the strongest proof yet that changes in a person’s gut microbiome can directly affect their brain chemistry.

“The gut–brain connection is one of the most exciting frontiers in mental health research,” said lead author Srinivas Kamath, a doctoral candidate at the varsity.

“We already know that the trillions of microbes in our digestive system talk to the brain through chemical and neural pathways, affecting our mood, stress levels, and even cognition.

“But the big question is whether changes in gut bacteria actually drive mental illness or mirror what’s happening elsewhere in the body,” Kamath said

The team's review of studies found strong causal evidence that gut microbes can change brain chemistry, stress responses, and behaviours in animal models, as well as disrupted gut patterns in conditions like depression and schizophrenia.

They also found that early trials of probiotics, diet changes, and faecal microbiota transplants help improve mood and anxiety, and psychiatric medications can change the microbiome, demonstrating the gut-brain connection.

Globally, mental health disorders affect nearly 970 million people, with depression and anxiety ranking among the leading causes of disability. Yet up to one-third of patients do not respond to current medications or therapies, highlighting the need for new and accessible treatments.

“If we can prove that gut bacteria play a direct role in mental illness, it could transform how we diagnose, treat, and even prevent these conditions,” said co-researcher Dr Paul Joyce.

“Microbiome-based therapies such as probiotics, prebiotics, or tailored diets may offer accessible, safer, low-cost, and culturally adaptable options that complement existing care,” Joyce added.The researchers called for future studies to track gut changes over time and include more diverse, larger populations to better understand how diet, environment, and culture shape the gut-brain connection.A healthier gut may help improve depression and anxiety, says study | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com:

Read More........→October 12, 2025

A healthier heart can protect your brain too. 5 lifestyle changes to prevent dementia

Alexandra Wade, University of South Australia; Ashleigh E. Smith, University of South Australia, and Maddison Mellow, University of South Australia

When we think of dementia, we often fear a loss of control. But the reassuring news is up to 40% of dementias can be prevented or delayed if we change our health habits.

Nearly half a million Australians are living with dementia. Without a cure, this number is expected to reach 1.1 million by 2058.

Dementia shares key risk factors with cardiovascular (of the heart and blood vessels) disease, including high blood pressure, high blood sugar, being overweight and smoking. Inflammation and oxidative stress (where protective antioxidants are losing their fight with damaging free radicals) follow. This damages blood vessels and reduces the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain.

Without enough oxygen, brain cells can’t function effectively, and eventually die. Reduced blood flow also leaves the brain vulnerable to the plaques and tangles seen in forms of dementia.

But by changing our habits, we can both improve heart health and reduce the risk of dementia. Here are five lifestyle changes we can make now.

1. Eat 2–3 serves of oily fish each week

Oily fish, like salmon, sardines and mackerel are rich in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Omega-3’s have anti-inflammatory effects and have been shown to significantly reduce blood pressure.

Omega-3s are also needed to support the structure and function of our brain cells and are “essential nutrients”. This means we need to get them from our diet. This is especially true as we age, because reductions in omega-3 intake have been linked to faster rates of cognitive decline.

2. Eat plant foods with every meal

Plant foods – like leafy greens, extra virgin olive oil, blueberries, nuts and pulses - contain a range of vitamins and minerals, including polyphenols, flavonoids, carotenoids, vitamin C and vitamin E. These micronutrients have both antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects that protect and improve our blood vessel functioning.

Diets high in plant foods, like the Mediterranean diet, have been shown to improve blood pressure, glucose regulation and body composition, and have also been linked to lower rates of cognitive decline, better markers of brain health and lower risk of dementia.

3. Eat less processed food

On the other hand, saturated fats, refined carbohydrates and red and processed meats are believed to trigger inflammatory pathways and highly processed foods have been linked to hypertension, type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Eating more of these foods means we’re also likely to miss out on the benefits of other foods. Whole grains (like whole oats, rye, buckwheat and barley) provide fibre, vitamin B, E, magnesium and phytonutrients which have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Refined grains (like white bread, rice and pasta) are highly processed, meaning many of these beneficial nutrients are removed.

4. Get physical and make it fun

Physical activity can reduce inflammation and blood pressure, while improving blood vessel functioning. This helps the body deliver more oxygen to the brain, improving memory and other cognitive functions affected by dementia.

Guidelines suggest adults should engage in physical activity on most days, break up long bouts of inactivity (like watching TV) and incorporate some resistance exercises.

The key to forming long-term exercise habits is choosing physical activities you enjoy and making small, gradual increases in activity. Any movement that raises the heart rate can be classified as physical activity, including gardening, walking and even household chores.

5. Quit smoking

Smokers are 60% more likely to develop dementia than non-smokers. This is because smoking increases inflammation and oxidative stress that harm the structure and function of our blood vessels.

Quitting smoking can begin to reverse these effects. In fact, former smokers have a significantly lower risk of cognitive decline and dementia compared to current smokers, similar to that of people who have never smoked.

Is it too late?

It’s never too early, or too late, to begin making these changes.

Obesity and high blood pressure in midlife are key predictors of dementia risk, while diabetes, physical inactivity and smoking are stronger predictors later in life. Regular physical activity earlier in life can reduce blood pressure and decrease your risk of diabetes. Like giving up smoking, changes at any stage of life can reduce inflammation and change your dementia risk.

Little by little

It can be overwhelming to change your whole diet, start a new exercise program and quit smoking all at once. But even small changes can lead to significant improvements in health. Start by making manageable swaps, like:

• use extra virgin olive oil in place of butter, margarine and other cooking oils
• swap one serve of processed food, like chips, white bread, or commercial biscuits, for a handful of nuts
• swap one serve of meat each week for one serve of oily fish
• swap five minutes of sedentary time for five minutes of walking and slowly increase each day.

Alexandra Wade, Research associate, University of South Australia; Ashleigh E. Smith, Associate professor - Healthy ageing, University of South Australia, and Maddison Mellow, PhD candidate, University of South Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→October 01, 2025

Nothing beats a child's smile when it comes to true happiness: Telegraph reports

A leading English Newspaper of Australia 'Daily Telegraph' has reported that according to the latest survey, Australians derive true happiness by simply looking at their children's smile. According to Daily Telegraph, an exclusive survey has found that Australians are a happy bunch overall, thanks largely to their children, loving partners and good friends. The survey, in which around 2,000 persons participated, reveals that 56.8 percent respondents insisted that their children gave them the most joy while 50.3 percent said favoured to their partners. The survey, which was based on a scale from from "extremely happy" to "extremely unhappy" also revealed that three in five or 59.3 per cent, ranked spending time with friends highly. About 14 per cent said their jobs made them "extremely happy" while 7.7 per cent said that getting rid of their boss would improve their mood. '63.1 per cent respondents said more money might make them even happier while some said extra holidays and rest of them asserted to better health', the Daily Telegraph reported. Almost 70 per cent considered themselves happy people but opinions were evenly divided when it came to whether married or unmarried people were happier or which gender was more cheerful. 44 per cent asserted that money could buy happiness, 45 percent said it couldn't and 11.1 per cent were undecided. For 54.4 per cent of people those little bundles of joy are just that, while 45.6 per cent said childless people were happier. Baby boomers were believed to be the happiest age group. Source: Newstrack India

Read More........→August 11, 2025

What’s the difference between medical abortion and surgical abortion?

Lydia Mainey, CQUniversity Australia

In Australia, around one in four people who are able to get pregnant will have a medical or surgical abortion in their lifetime.

Both options are safe, legal and effective. The choice between them usually comes down to personal preference and availability.

So, what’s the difference?

What is a medical abortion?

A medical abortion involves taking two types of tablets, sold together in Australia as MS2Step.

The first tablet, mifepristone, stops the hormone progesterone, which is needed for pregnancy. This causes the lining of the uterus to break down and stops the embryo from growing.

After taking mifepristone, you wait 36–48 hours before taking the second tablet, misoprostol. Misoprostol makes the cervix (the opening of the uterus) softer and starts contractions to expel the pregnancy.

It’s normal to have strong pain and heavy bleeding with clots after taking misoprostol. Pain relief including ibuprofen and paracetamol can help.

After two to six hours, the bleeding and pain usually become like a normal period, although this may last between two to six weeks.

Haemorrhage after a medical abortion is rare (occurring in fewer than 1% of abortions). But you should seek help if bleeding remains heavy (if you soak two pads per hour for two consecutive hours) or if you have have signs of infection (such as a fever, increasing abdominal pain or smelly vaginal discharge).

Do I have to go to hospital?

It is legal to have a medical abortion outside of a hospital up to nine weeks of pregnancy.

Depending on state or territory law, the medication can be prescribed by a qualified health-care provider such as a GP, nurse practitioner or endorsed midwife. These clinicians often work in GP surgeries or sexual and reproductive health clinics and they may use telehealth.

Medical abortions also occur after nine weeks of pregnancy, but these are done in hospitals and overseen by doctors alongside nurses or midwives.

Medical abortions after 20 weeks are done by taking medications to start early labour in a maternity unit. Often, medications are first given to stop the foetal heartbeat so it is not born alive. Then, other medications are given to manage pain.

These types of abortions are very rare. They may be used when an obstacle has prevented someone accessing an abortion earlier, continuing with the pregnancy is dangerous for the pregnant person’s health or if there is a serious problem with the foetus.

What is a surgical abortion?

Surgical abortions are performed in an operating unit, usually with sedation, so you will not remember the procedure. Surgical abortions are sometimes preferred over medical abortions because they are quicker. But the decision should be between you and your health-care provider.

In the first 12–14 weeks of pregnancy, a surgical abortion takes less than 15 minutes and patients are usually discharged a few hours after the procedure.

Medications may be given before surgery to soften and open the cervix and to ease pain. During the procedure, the cervix is gently stretched open and the contents of the uterus are removed with a small tube. This procedure is carried out by trained doctors with the assistance of nurses.

Surgical abortions after 12–14 weeks are more complex and are performed by specially trained doctors. Similar to medical abortions, medications may be given first to stop the foetal heartbeat.

It is normal to experience some cramping and bleeding after a surgical abortion, which can last about two weeks. However, like medical abortion, you should seek help for heavy bleeding or signs of infection.

Do I need an ultrasound?

It used to be common before an abortion to have an ultrasound scan to check how far along the pregnancy was and to make sure it was not ectopic (outside the uterus).

However, this is no longer recommended in the early stages of pregnancy (up to 14 weeks) if it delays access to abortion. If the date of the last menstrual period is known and there are no other concerning symptoms, an ultrasound scan may not be necessary.

This means people can access medical abortion much sooner, even from the first day of a missed period, without waiting for the embryo to be big enough to be seen on an ultrasound scan. This is called “very early medical abortion”.

Before and after care

Before having an abortion, a health-care provider will explain common side effects and when to seek urgent medical attention. For people who want it, many types of contraception can be started the day of abortion.

Even though the success rate of medical abortion is very high (over 95%) it is routine to make sure the person is no longer pregnant.

This is usually done two to three weeks after taking the first tablet mifepristone, either by a low-sensitivity urine pregnancy test (which you can do at home) or a blood test.

In the rare case a medical abortion has not worked, a surgical abortion can be done.

Sometimes after a medical or surgical abortion, tissue is left behind in the uterus. If this happens you may need another dose of misoprostol (the second tablet) or a surgical procedure to remove the tissue.

Some people may also seek support-based counselling or peer support to help them work through the emotions that might accompany having an abortion.

Understanding the differences and similarities between medical and surgical abortions can help individuals make informed decisions about their reproductive health.

It’s important to speak with an unbiased health-care provider to discuss the best option for your circumstances and to ensure you receive the necessary follow-up care and support.

Lydia Mainey, Senior Nursing Lecturer, CQUniversity Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→March 11, 2025

Your fuzzy flannel pyjamas could be incredibly flammable – here’s what to know

Rebecca Van Amber, RMIT University

Last year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) issued at least nine recall notices on products that didn’t comply with the mandatory standard for nightwear for children. All of these items posed a fire hazard, but didn’t have the required labelling.

The latest of these recalls, a glow-in-the-dark jumper sold on the website Temu, caused severe burn injuries to an 8-year-old Queensland girl. The incident has exposed significant gaps in Australian product safety standards.

Brands will use warning labels to meet legal requirements (such as the mandatory standard mentioned above), but they continue producing and selling these dangerously flammable textiles. This shifts the responsibility to shoppers who purchase items with fire warning labels, but may not fully understand the implications of the warning.

Highly flammable fabrics are far more common than you might realise – and it’s not just synthetic ones that can easily catch flame.

What makes a fabric flammable?

Textiles are lightweight materials, often with a high surface area meaning they ignite and burn easily. The next time you light a candle, just look at the wick – it’s usually a cotton yarn.

The only naturally flame-resistant fibre is wool, along with all other animal protein fibres such as silk, alpaca, mohair, cashmere and others. These fibres are slow to ignite and form ash when burned.

Synthetic materials melt when burning. If they stick to the skin, they can cause severe injuries that are difficult to treat. Polyester made up over 57% of global fibre production in 2023.

Acrylic is the most flammable of all synthetics. Acrylic fibres are commonly used to make jumpers that look and feel like wool, but are much less expensive to produce. Without checking the label, shoppers can easily mistake acrylic sweaters for wool ones.

Not all synthetic fibres are equally flammable. Somewhat confusingly, there is a flame-resistant fibre called modacrylic. Modacrylic was developed to address the flammability problems with acrylic. Other flame-resistant human-made fibres are kevlar and glass.

However, there is more to fabric flammability than just the fibres alone. Textile fabrics are complex materials – a fabric’s flammability is affected by the fibres, yarns, structure (knit or weave), and any finishes used.

For example, smooth, tightly woven or knitted fabrics will be slower to burn than lightweight or fuzzy fabrics. Fabrics can also be treated with flame retardant finishes.

Fabrics with the highest fire risk are those with a pile or brushed surface (think cosy, fuzzy or furry fleeces, flannelettes and faux furs) and are composed of cotton, acrylic, polyester and other synthetic fibres. These soft and fuzzy (and highly flammable) textile products are everywhere, and often at affordable prices.

‘Not intended for children’s sleepwear’

Despite well-known fire risks of different materials, Australian rules for fibre content labelling lapsed in 2019. Now, products only legally need care instructions.

Most brands still list the fibre content (for example, “100% cotton”) to meet American and European requirements, but it’s no longer legally required here.

Current safety rules focus mainly on protecting children, particularly in sleepwear and some daily clothes. However, risk from flammable clothing extends beyond children. Women, older people and any person who tends to wear loose-fitting garments that can catch fire more easily are at risk.

Many costume pieces like capes, hoods, wings and tutus are also excluded from children’s product safety rules in Australia. The exclusion of these types of items from regulation is especially baffling, as they often pose a high flammability risk due to their combination of materials and loose-fitting designs.

All this means shoppers may not know the item they are purchasing is highly flammable.

Consider a shopper who encounters flannel fabrics printed with bunnies and dogs at a major Australian retailer. These fabrics come with mandatory warnings like “not intended for children’s sleepwear” or “fire warning: flannelette is a flammable material and care should be taken if using flannelette for children’s sleepwear and loose-fitting garments”.

What are these cutesy flannel fabrics to be used for, if not children’s products?

We need stronger consumer protection

While Australia has consumer protection laws, the ACCC has acknowledged there is no direct ban on selling unsafe products.

Without stronger legislation prohibiting the production and sale of highly flammable textiles, Australia risks becoming a market for hazardous clothing and textile products that don’t meet stricter international standards.

At the very minimum, Australia needs to reintroduce mandatory fibre content labelling for textiles and clothing products to be in line with US and EU requirements.

In the meantime, consumers need to take action in other ways. Take any product with a “fire warning” label seriously – don’t let children wear fuzzy, fleecy, furry or loose clothing items such as costumes around open flames or as sleepwear. Older adults can also be at risk. Wearing a favourite fuzzy bathrobe when cooking over open flames, such as a gas stove top, is extremely dangerous.

Better yet, don’t purchase any items with a “fire warning” label – brands will stop producing items that don’t sell.

Consumers are encouraged to report any products they suspect are unsafe to the ACCC.

Rebecca Van Amber, Senior Lecturer in Fashion & Textiles, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→January 24, 2025

Planning kids? You should know the major parties’ parental leave policies before you vote

Anam Bilgrami, Macquarie University

Most new Australian mothers receive government paid parental leave to support health, encourage workforce participation and balance work and family life equally with their partners. Despite this, Australia still has one of the least generous parental leave schemes in the developed world.

Both major parties propose to improve the paid parental leave scheme this election.

If you plan on having children, it’s worthwhile understanding what each party promises. Their policies may impact your health, income and the opportunity to pursue your career differently.

What are the major parties promising?

The Australian government provides working parents with paid leave at the minimum wage for up to 18 weeks. This scheme was introduced by Labor in 2011 and represented a “giant leap” in social policy, but it came quite late by OECD standards.

It has since been adjusted to provide partners with two weeks of leave and increase leave-taking flexibility.

This election, the Coalition promises to “enhance” the scheme, although it will keep the total leave amount shared between parents unchanged at 20 weeks. It will also leave payments fixed at the minimum wage.

Instead, the Coalition will allow parents to completely share this leave flexibly between them as they choose, with no separate amounts earmarked for mothers or “dads and partners”.

The Coalition will fix a design flaw in the income test by connecting scheme eligibility to household income, rather than individual income. It will also increase the income threshold that cuts off access at $350,000, allowing 2,200 more families to access the scheme.

Labor has a more generous plan, although they have not set an implementation date and have walked back making their policy a campaign promise. Its eventual goal is to increase total leave from 20 to 26 weeks to be shared between parents. It also seeks to pay benefits at a person’s full salary.

Labor aims to fund their proposed scheme from employer and government contributions. But their plan is scant on details, including how much this policy would cost, what proportion would be funded by business and government, and whether each parent will have leave earmarked for them.

A group that would be better off under either plan is single parents. They would be able to access more leave than the current 18 weeks available to them (Labor’s plan increases leave and the Coalition’s collapses leave for partners into the total leave entitlement).

---

---

Leave-taking, gender equality and scheme fairness

Take-up of the current scheme is low among Australian fathers. Some economists have criticised the Coalition’s proposal to remove leave earmarked for fathers and partners, saying it would discourage them from taking any leave at all.

The argument is that if households want to maximise their income, lower paid parents (on average, mothers) would be the ones taking the entire 20 weeks’ leave, since it will be paid at the minimum wage. This means the Coalition’s plan may work against “promoting equality between men and women” in work and family life, despite offering more flexibility.

Labor’s plan better promotes equal leave-taking, since it will pay either parent taking leave their full salary.

Parental leave schemes in other countries offering higher salary replacement are funded by a combination of government, employer and employee contributions.

The Australian scheme already works together with employer-paid leave as 60% of Australian employers also offer paid leave.

This arrangement creates differences in leave-taking between parents who can also use employer-paid leave and those without this privilege. This is inequitable and may translate to differences in mothers’ health outcomes.

Labor has not clarified the details of their proposed government/employer-funded approach. More details are needed on how their scheme would interact with existing employer-paid parental leave policies and whether it would help address existing inequities.

Effects on health

Labor’s plan better supports parent and child health (particularly for those without any employer-paid leave). Research has found six months’ leave after birth for mothers is optimal for their mental health, a minimum amount also suggested by the World Health Organisation for promoting breastfeeding and infant health.

Labor will get Australia’s scheme closer to this benchmark.

When fathers take leave, this is associated with better health outcomes for both mothers and fathers. It also supports children’s development.

The Coalition’s plan doesn’t increase leave from the currently low entitlement. It also only allows mothers to take more leave at the expense of fathers (and vice versa), which may compromise health.

Women’s workforce participation

Any changes to parental leave need to balance health promotion and gender equality with supporting women’s workforce participation.

Overly short leave increases the risk of women exiting the labour force, while overly long leave (more than one year) can result in women losing valuable skills and weaken workforce attachment. (Although neither party’s plan is anywhere near generous enough to create this issue).

The current scheme includes six weeks’ paid leave that can be used flexibly between parents any time over the first two years after birth, including while working part-time. This feature potentially supports skill retention and employment attachment, and is probably what the Coalition had in mind when proposing complete flexibility in leave-taking.

Future changes needed to support Australian women

Labor’s plan provides a health-promoting boost to leave, while the Coalition’s recognises the value of flexibility in supporting women’s work. Both plans are lacking in execution; Labor’s on details and the Coalition’s on policy design that promotes equality in leave-taking and caring.

Both parties should consider providing longer and equally split leave for each parent with an additional “flexible” component, or rewarding “bonus” leave to parents who share leave more equally.

Australia has one of the most highly educated and skilled working age female workforces in the OECD. Sadly, this still isn’t reflected in women’s workforce participation, with women more likely than men to work part-time, be under-represented in most industries and earn less.

Policy design matters, but broader changes are needed to draw on this “productivity gold”. This includes promoting high-quality flexible work and normalising fathers taking extended leave to care for children.

---

Update: this piece was amended to update the fact on Thursday 12 May 2022, Labor Leader Anthony Albanese stated the Labor party is no longer taking its 26 week paid parental leave policy to the election (although it remains a stated “goal” within Labor’s national policy platform).

Anam Bilgrami, Research Fellow, Macquarie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→January 01, 2025

Fluoride in drinking water is in the spotlight again. Let’s not forget how it transformed our oral health

Oliver A.H. Jones, RMIT University

Fluoride is back in the news, after incoming US “health czar” Robert F. Kennedy Jr called for its removal from drinking water.

At the same time, the Australian Medical Association (Queensland) recently urged local councils to reintroduce fluoride to water supplies, amid rising incidence of oral disease.

So what is fluoride, and why is it so controversial?

What is fluoride?

Fluoride is a natural substance found in rocks (for example, the mineral fluorite) as well as water sources, soils and plants.

The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines recommend three compounds for fluoridating water: sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid.

Usually, one of these compounds is added – under carefully monitored conditions – during drinking water treatment before it is sent to the tap.

Is it good for our teeth?

Fluoride helps prevent cavities by making tooth enamel more resistant to acids from bacteria in your mouth.

The addition of small amounts of fluoride to drinking water to prevent dental decay began in the United States in 1945. This resulted from health officials in a Colorado City noticing residents had stained but remarkably healthy teeth.

This was traced to the high levels of fluoride naturally present in the local water. Research later confirmed while excess fluoride can cause cosmetic discoloration, lower concentrations still prevented cavities without harmful side effects.

In Australia, fluoride was first added to water in Beaconsfield, Tasmania in 1953.

Today, around 90% of Australians can access fluoridated water at levels of between 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L. This is estimated to have reduced tooth decay in Australia by 26–44%.

This does depend on where you live as there are different policies in different states and territories. For example, about 28% of Queenslanders do not have fluoridated water.

What are people worried about?

There has always been opposition to fluoridation. This includes the argument it is “government overreach” since we can’t easily opt out from drinking tap water.

A 2019 study also claimed fluoride affected the IQ of children. But this work has been roundly criticised and a 2024 study detailed serious weaknesses in the study design.

Multiple reviews of high-quality studies from many different countries, including the US and Australia, have found no evidence of harm.

One study followed people over 30 years, testing their IQs at various ages, and found no link between fluoride levels and IQ scores.

Working out what’s safe

It’s reasonable to want to know what’s in our drinking water and to ensure it is safe. But discussions about toxicity are meaningless without context.

Excessive fluoride intake can have harmful effects, such as weakened bones (skeletal fluorosis). But the key word is “excessive”.

Anything can be toxic to humans if the dose is too high, even water itself. The amount of fluoride needed to cause harm is much higher than you get from drinking water.

In Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council recommends states and territories fluoridate their drinking water supplies within a range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L.

Recently, authorities decided to deliver bottled water for children under 12 and pregnant women in two remote Northern Territory communities with high natural levels of fluoride (1.7 to 1.9 mg/L). This measure was taken as a precaution in response to community concerns, not because any harmful effects were recorded.

Lessons from places that removed fluoride

The risks of adding fluoride to water are extremely low. But several recent cases demonstrate the very real health risks of not fluoridating water.

The Canadian city of Calgary removed fluoride from drinking water in 2011. Seven to eight years later, dental cavities in children were significantly higher in Calgary compared to nearby Edmonton, which did not remove fluoride.

In 2015, Buffalo, New York removed fluoride from its water supply. Dental problems increased so much parents sued the city for harming their children.

Israel is another interesting case. The introduction of nationwide water fluoridation in 2002 significantly reduced children’s dental issues. This trend reversed in 2014, when fluoridation was discontinued – despite the government introducing free dental care for children in 2010.

An equity issue

The evidence has continually demonstrated fluoride is not only safe – it has significant benefits for oral health.

Some of the benefits of fluoride can be achieved via fluoridated toothpaste or fluoride treatments at the dentist.

But dentistry is not included in Medicare. Fluoridating water (or table salt, as used in many European countries) remains one of the most equitable ways to ensure these benefits are not only for those who can afford it.

Oliver A.H. Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→December 12, 2024

Why won’t my kids listen to me? A psychologist explains

Ketut Subiyanto/Pexels , CC BY Cher McGillivray, Bond University

Have you ever asked your child to do something simple but no matter how many times you ask, they keep ignoring you?

For example, on a school morning you may call out, “Sarah, put your shoes on. We have to go!” as you are trying to finish an email, clean up breakfast dishes and make it to work on time yourself.

You get no answer and no signs of shoe wearing. So you repeat it, this time a little louder and then again. You finally get a frustrated response from your child: “but I can’t find my shoes!”. And so you yell back, “well you should have had them organised last night like I told you!” Yet again, you are all starting the day stressed.

You may find yourself wondering why it seems your kids listen to their teachers, coaches, friends’ parents … basically anyone else but you.

Why is this? And how can you talk to your child so they listen?

Your child’s development and their ability to listen

As a starting point, it may help to understand children don’t have the same capacity to listen as adult. Or the same capacity to care about what you are asking them.

Children between two and seven are naturally ego-centric.

This means they think mostly about themselves and their immediate needs. They are not are likely to to be able to take on other people’s perspectives. So they don’t care that if they muck around and don’t put their shoes you might miss your important 9 o'clock meeting.

Around 13, the brain starts to change. Research shows teenagers start to find voices that are not from their family more interesting. This is part of growing up, preparing them for life beyond their family.

This marks a significant shift from younger children, whose brains are primarily attuned to prioritise their parents’ voices. But it also means when you ask your adolescent to unpack the dishwasher before they leave for school, they are less likely to think it is important.

This situation can be made more complex if a child is neurodivergent and has issues with attention or taking on new information. Or if they have hearing issues.

 

Teenagers start to value other voices, away from their parents. Karolina Grabowska/Pexels, CC BY

Why do they listen to their teacher but not me?

Kids also tend to be more comfortable with their parents than any other adults. So they know they can zone out from us and we will still love them.

This is not the same with a school teacher, netball coach or other adult they are less familiar with. There are extra factors working in a teacher’s favour (although teachers will tell you, students do not listen all the time).

Schools have a structured approach that naturally enforces rules and consistency. For examples, bells ring to signal the start of the day, the teacher stands at the front of the class to signal the start of a lesson. Teachers are also trained in how to teach as well as skills to manage classroom dynamics effectively.

Peer pressure – and the desire to fit in – can also work in a positive way here, too. If all the other kids in the class or soccer team are doing what they are told, other kids are likely to follow suit.

Communication is not just talking

So there are some things stacked against us as parents. But there are things we can do to approach this parent-child dynamic differently.

According to psychologist Albert Mehrabian’s model of communication, only 7% of our feelings and attitudes are conveyed through the words we use in spoken communications. He suggests 38% is via tone and voice and the remaining 55% is conveyed through body language.

So when our children are not speaking back, they are still communicating with us. They could be doing this via facial expressions, posture and hand gestures. These can all give us clues to help us connect and communicate with them.

For example, their silence may mean, “I can’t find my shoes. But I’m worried I might get in trouble” Or it could mean, “I don’t want to go to school today”. Or, “I am finding this drawing I am doing really fun and I don’t want to stop”.

Just because a child is not speaking does not mean they are not saying anything to you. Pixabay/Pexels, CC BY

What can you do differently?

So if Sarah has not responded or appeared with her shoes on, instead of yelling out again, you could try going and finding where she is. Crouch down to her level, make eye contact and with a smile, ask if she has any ideas where her shoes are? Would she like some help?

Where you can, it is important to give children choice, so they feel like they have some control over their life.

You are also being what psychologists call a “trustful parent” here. You are signalling to your child they are competent and their opinion matters. You are supporting them to find their lost shoes (rather than fighting against them).

Tips for getting your child to listen

There are also some things we can do as parents to stack the odds in our favour:

• try not to communicate when we are distracted or on the go. This is more likely to result in a calm and gentle instruction or request to your child. If children feel like they are “in trouble” they can go into a defensive mode and zone out

• keep your instructions simple and achievable. Break things down if needs be

• thank your child for doing things.

In the meantime, keep observing the world through their eyes. This may not always result in them doing what you ask, when you ask it. But hopefully it will mean less parental angst for you and your child will also feel heard.

Cher McGillivray, Assistant Professor Psychology Department, Bond University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→July 05, 2024