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
The central aim of any child protection system is in the name: protect children. But over the years, inquiries and media reports have shown fulfilling this goal has too often proved tragically elusive.
In response, governments across the country have poured more and more money into their child protection systems in the hope of getting better outcomes.
Our newly-published research shows total national spending has almost doubled over the decade, climbing from $5.4 billion in 2014–15 to $10.2 billion in 2023–24 (adjusted for inflation).
But we found this hasn’t been matched by changes in activity across systems, like increases in the rate of investigations for alleged maltreatment, or the number of children entering out-of-home care. Nor has it improved outcomes for children.
So if money alone isn’t the answer, what is? Here’s what the evidence shows would help.
A maze of moving parts
Protecting Australia’s children is not the job of a single system. It involves many overlapping systems – health, childcare, education, justice and policing, disability services, and other parts of the social welfare system – working together to prevent and respond to child abuse, neglect and exploitation.
In Australia, there is no national child protection system to bring these parts together. Each state and territory runs its own. They share the same guiding principles, such as acting in the best interests of the child. But how they operate in practice differs across the country.
The result is several systems made up of many moving parts that do not always work as a coordinated whole. And too often, prevention is left to the side, in favour of reacting to harm once it has already happened.
Recent inquiries in Queensland and Victoria show this fragmentation is not just inefficient, but may be causing more harm than good.
The concerns raised in the recent Queensland and Victorian inquiries about how we protect children are not new. They have been raised many times in recent history.
Queensland alone has had four inquiries in the past 30 years (1999, 2004, 2012–13 and 2025–26), while Victoria has had three (2012, 2024, and 2026).
But as the presiding commissioner for the 2025–26 Queensland inquiry, Paul Anastassiou put it:
[…] the child protection system continues to fail children and the community in serious respects.
So, what are the problems?
1. Child protection systems don’t work as a whole
Statutory child protection services hold decision-making authority over when and how to intervene in a child’s life, and ultimately, whether a child needs to be removed from their parent(s) to keep them safe.
But it doesn’t control the conditions that create harm in the first place. Those sit across other systems.
Similarly, other causes of harm such as family violence, mental illness, and substance use are addressed through justice, health, and alcohol and other drug systems.
This means responsibility for child safety is distributed across many systems. Accountability, however, is not.
Each system remains accountable for its own functions, rather than for whether children are kept safe, stable and supported. No single system is accountable for whether the child’s best interests are upheld across their life course.
This has real consequences for statutory child protection decision-making. Information about children and families sits across multiple systems, and those systems do not always communicate. So, child safety decisions are often made with incomplete, fragmented or selectively available information.
Together, this creates child protection systems where high-stakes decisions are made on shaky foundations.
2. Child protection systems act too late and can cause harm
Systems remain overwhelmingly reactive, responding only after harm has happened, rather than preventing it in the first place.
In more than 50% of cases, children and families in contact with systems have already been subject to a child protection investigation.
The Victorian inquiry revealed that once in contact with statutory child protection, children aged 15–17 years old can expect to be re-reported almost seven times.
While this is not a new problem, it is one that must be solved.
Worse still, child protection systems themselves can cause harm. Children might experience multiple placements, uprooting relational and environmental stability, as well as significant delays in receiving health and medical care.
The most recent Queensland inquiry also highlighted children placed in residential care in particular experience higher rates of trauma, unmet mental health needs, self-harm and suicide attempts.
The commission rightly recognised the state’s heavy reliance on residential care as one of its biggest failures.
3. Over-prioritising crisis responses
Both the Queensland and Victorian inquiries found most resources are spent on responding to crises rather than on early intervention.
Our research found while overall spending was increasing, out-of-home care saw most of the funding boost. Between 2014–15 and 2023–24, the proportion of all spending that was on activities associated with out-of-home care increased from 58.4% to 63.6%.
Meanwhile, investment in intensive family support reduced from 8.2% to 6.2% of the overall spend.
What needs to be done?
Together, findings from recent inquiries and our own research show child protection systems across Australia are not consistently delivering on their core aim: acting in the best interests of the child.
While state-level statutory child protection reform is welcome, addressing this will require federal leadership.
Alternatively, because child maltreatment is a significant public health issue, it could also be assigned to the Australian Centre for Disease Control: a national agency established to strengthen Australia’s prevention, preparedness and response to public health threats.
If the dental bill has ever made you gulp, you’re far from alone. Around three in ten Australian adults say they avoid or delay dental care due to costs. In Aotearoa New Zealand, almost half of adults overall have unmet dental needs due to cost.
Dental pain or symptoms of infection can be clear signs you might need a dental restoration such as a filling. But like tyres on a car or paint on a house, fillings and crowns wear over time and will eventually need to be replaced.
Let’s look at how long dental restorations usually last, what to ask your oral health practitioner if they’ve recommended these treatments, and how to get a second opinion if you’re still unsure.
How long are fillings, crowns and implants supposed to last?
How long they last depends on the material, how big the repair is, your oral habits, and even how well you care for your mouth at home.
Composite fillings are the most common type used today. They are made from a strong mix of resin and fine glass particles and are designed to blend in with your teeth and bond closely to the layers of teeth (enamel and dentine). Composites typically last 5–15 years. Their lifespan depends on your risk of dental decay, the force of your bite and the size of the cavity. Fillings most often fail when there is new decay or cracks in the surrounding tooth structure.
Crowns are used when a tooth needs more support than a filling can provide, for example after a root canal or when a tooth has large cracks. Most crowns last 10–15 years. Many last longer with regular check-ups and careful home care.
Dental implants are often described as the closest thing to a natural tooth replacement and with good care, can last decades. But they are not a “fit and forget” solution. Implants require long follow-up, not just the first year or two. This should include routine professional cleaning, checks for gum inflammation and monitoring that the implant and screws stay secure.
So your oral health practitioner has recommended treatment? What to ask
If your oral health practitioner recommends treatment, especially if it’s expensive or invasive, consider asking the following questions to get a better sense of your options:
can you explain what the problem is in plain language?
what are my options, including the least invasive?
what happens if I wait or choose not to treat this right now?
are there lower-cost options that would still work well?
are there habits or risk factors that could shorten this option’s lifespan?
can you give me a written treatment plan with itemised fees?
is there anything else I should know before deciding?
Your oral health practitioner should talk through what the treatment involves, why they’re recommending it, the alternatives (including choosing to do nothing), likely outcomes, costs and give you space to ask questions.
Treatment shouldn’t go ahead until you understand everything and feel comfortable agreeing.
If you want to explore your options, seek a second opinion. This is not a sign of distrust – it’s good self-advocacy and ensures your treatment choices align with your values, budget and long-term wellbeing.
So how do you get a second opinion? What might change?
Getting a second opinion can be simple as booking in with a second oral health practitioner and let them know you’re seeking their advice. You can ask your usual clinic to email your notes or X-rays if you want to take them to a second provider.
A second opinion means asking another oral health practitioner for their view on your diagnosis or recommended treatment. People usually seek a second opinion when:
the issue is complex
the treatment is major or expensive
they want to explore less invasive or more cost-effective options
they want to clarify before committing.
This advice can make it easier to decide what course of action aligns with your values, such as whether you favour low intervention or would rather avoid the risks of delaying treatment.
While the evidence is limited in oral health, a study of medical care found 37% of patients received a different treatment recommendation when they sought a second opinion.
Second opinions in medicine often lead to meaningful changes in diagnosis or treatment. Individual studies found changes in as few as 10% or as many as 62% of second opinion cases.
Most patients across the study and review reported high satisfaction with the process.
Australian patients have the right to access their dental records under Australian privacylaws. Clinics must keep accurate information about the patient’s care and provide it when asked.
Judging by recent headlines and policy ideas, you might think screen time is the only lifestyle behaviour influencing teen wellbeing.
But with young people struggling to deal with mounting mental health issues, it’s crucial we don’t get tunnel vision and instead remember all the lifestyle levers that can play a role.
Our research, published today, tracked Australian high school students from 71 schools across New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. Over time, improvements in sleep, fruit and vegetable intake, and exercise were associated with small but significant improvements in mental health.
The reverse was also true when it came to unhealthy behaviours like screen time, junk food, alcohol use and tobacco.
A comprehensive look at adolescent lifestyles
Our new study of more than 4,400 Australian high school students looks at a suite of lifestyle behaviours: sleep, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, sedentary (inactive) recreational screen time, fruit and vegetable intake, consumption of junk food and sugary drinks, alcohol use and smoking.
Firstly, we asked year 7 (students aged 12–13) to report their levels of these lifestyle behaviours and to rate their psychological distress (a general indicator of mental ill-health) using a well-known measurement scale.
Then we examined how changes in each of the lifestyle behaviours between year 7 and year 10 (age 15–16) were linked to psychological distress levels in year 10. Importantly, we accounted for the level of psychological distress participants reported in year 7, as well as their lifestyle behaviours in year 7. This means we can see the average benefits associated with behaviour change, no matter where people started out.
Our research showed increases over time in healthy behaviours were associated with lower psychological distress. Conversely, increases in health risk behaviours were associated with higher psychological distress.
How much makes a difference?
On average, when looking at the change between year 7 and 10, every one-hour increase in sleep per night was linked to a 9% reduction in psychological distress.
Each added day of 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week was linked to a 3% reduction in psychological distress. Each added daily serve of fruit or vegetables was linked to 4% lower psychological distress.
By contrast, each added hour of screen time was linked to a 2% increase in psychological distress, as was each unit increase in junk food or sugary drinks.
Because drinking alcohol and smoking are less common in early adolescence, we only looked at whether they had or hadn’t drank alcohol or smoked in the past six months. We saw that switching from not drinking in year 7 to drinking in year 10 was associated with a 17% increase in psychological distress. Switching from not smoking to smoking was linked to a 36% increase in psychological distress.
It’s important to note our study can’t definitively say lifestyle behaviour change caused the change in distress. The study also can’t account for changes in a student’s circumstances such as in their home life or relationships. With the baseline survey done in 2019 and the year 10 survey done in 2022, there was also the potential impact of COVID.
But our longitudinal design (tracking the same subjects over an extended period) and the way we structured the analysis does help illustrate the relationship over time.
National guidelines for these behaviours set out aspirational targets based on optimum health goals. But movement guidelines and dietary guidelines might seem out of reach for many teens. Indeed, most participants in our study were not meeting guidelines for physical activity, sleep, screen time, and vegetable consumption in year 10.
What our research shows is that a healthy lifestyle change doesn’t have to be all or nothing.
Even relatively small changes – getting an extra hour of sleep each night, eating one extra serve of fruit or vegetables each day, cutting out one hour of screen time, or adding an extra day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week – are linked to improvements in mental health. And stacking changes in multiple areas is likely to stand you in even better stead.
Parents can play a major role in shaping lifestyle behaviours (even into the teenage years!). Expense and time can be barriers, but anything parents can do within their means is a step in the right direction.
Lifestyle changes can support better adolescent mental health, but they’re only one piece of the puzzle. We can’t place the burden of addressing the youth mental health crisis solely on teen lifestyles. There is plenty to be done at a school, community, and policy level to create a society that supports youth mental health.
Young people who are struggling with their mental health may need professional support, which parents and carers can support them to access. Teenagers or young people can also contact ReachOut or Kids Helpline directly for resources and support.
Scarlett Smout, PhD Candidate (under examination) and Research Associate at The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health & Substance Use and Australia's Mental Health Think Tank, University of Sydney; Katrina Champion, Senior Research Fellow & Sydney Horizon Fellow, The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use and School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and Lauren Gardner, Senior Research Fellow & Program Lead of School-Based Health Interventions, University of Sydney
Intermittent fasting has become a buzzword in nutrition circles, with many people looking to it as a way to lose weight or improve their health.
But new research from the Cochrane Collaboration shows intermittent fasting is no more effective for weight loss than receiving traditional dietary advice or even doing nothing at all.
In this international review, researchers assessed 22 studies involving 1,995 adults who were classified as overweight (with a body mass index of 25–29.9 kg/m²) or obese (with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or above) to assess the effectiveness of intermittent fasting for up to 12 months.
The authors found, when compared to energy restricted dieting, intermittent fasting doesn’t seem to work for people who are overweight or obese and are trying to lose weight. However they note intermittent fasting may still be a reasonable option for some people.
Alternate day fasting, for example, resulted in more weight loss when compared to time-restricted eating.
This is because participants who fasted every second day consumed about 20% less energy than those following time-restricted eating.
What did the Cochrane review find?
Cochrane review use gold-standard techniques to give an objective overview of the evidence. This review looked at 22 individual randomised controlled trials published between 2016 and 2024 from North America, Europe, China, Australia and South America.
The trials compared the outcomes of almost 2,000 adults who were classified as being overweight or obese. These participants either:
received standard dietary advice, such as restricting calories or eating different types of foods
practised intermittent fasting
received either regular dietary advice, no intervention or were on a wait list.
The authors found:
1. Intermittent fasting was no better than getting dietary advice
The researchers found intermittent fasting and receiving dietary advice to restrict energy intake led to similar levels of weight loss.
This finding was based on 21 studies involving 1,713 people, with the researchers measuring the change from the participants’ starting weight.
Dietary advice (from registered dietitians or trained researchers) could include an eating plan focused on fruit, vegetables, whole grains and seafood, restricting calories, or any specific dietary advice for weight loss.
The amount of weight the participants lost ranged from a 10% loss to a 1% gain, with either intermittent fasting or dietary advice.
These findings are similar to several recentmeta-analyses which found intermittent fasting is no better than dieting.
Previous research has found most of the alternate day fasting and periodic diet studies leads to about 6% to 7% weight loss. This is compared to very low energy “shake” diets (about 10%), GLP-1 medications (15% to 20%) and surgery (above 20%).
The review also found intermittent fasting likely makes little difference to a person’s quality of life, based on only three studies.
2. Intermittent fasting was no better than doing nothing
The researchers found intermittent fasting and no intervention led to similar levels of weight loss. This finding was based on six studies involving 448 people.
In the intermittent fasting studies, participants experienced about 5% weight loss. The “no intervention” or control group lost about 2% of their original weight.
In research, a 3% difference in weight loss is not considered clinically meaningful. That’s why the authors of this review concluded intermittent fasting is no more effective for weight loss than doing nothing at all.
However, the result for the “no intervention” condition could be due to the Hawthorne effect: the tendency for people to behave differently because they know they are being watched, such as in a clinical trial.
What are the review’s limitations?
There were few large, high-quality randomised controlled trials to draw on.
Only six studies were included in the part of the review which compared intermittent fasting and doing nothing. Two of these focused on time-restricted eating, which is arguably the least effective weight-loss strategy. One looked at the effects of fasting for one day per week. The other three were intermittent fasting studies, each with varying control groups, where some received guidance and others did not.
Also, the review only looked at studies where the interventions lasted between six and 12 months. It’s possible intermittent fasting strategies could be a long-term tool for weight maintenance. So we need to do more research, and ideally studies of longer duration.
In one 2024 study, researchers found intermittent fasting may lead to changes in metabolism and the gut that restrict how cancer develops. Another study from 2025 found intermittent fasting could improve the metabolic health of shift workers.
So if you’re practising or considering intermittent fasting, the current evidence suggests it can be a safe and effective way to manage your weight.
But for any weight loss strategy to work, it needs to align with your personal preferences. And it’s best to consult a health-care professional before starting any new diet, especially if you have any underlying health conditions.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(Photo: AI generated image/IANS)
– credit Leighann Blackwood
