1340A Trial of Modern Sample Frames and Modes: The WA Health and Wellbeing Surveillance System

Background The Health and Wellbeing Surveillance System (HWSS) monitors the health status of the WA population. Its reliance on a landline sample frame and Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) must shift to mobile phone sample frames and novel online completion options, improving the representativeness of the HWSS data to the WA population. Methods Concurrent surveys in 2020 were run using three sample frames, the 2013 Electronic White Pages (EWP), the WA Electoral Roll (WAER) and a Sensis consumer database. The survey modes explored included CATI, online, and dual mode. Responses were weighted to the WA population. Response rates were compared between frames and modes. Differences in demographics, health risk factors, conditions and behaviours were investigated by comparing prevalence estimates and logistic regression modelling. Results Response rates were 20% for EWP CATI, 41% for Sensis CATI, 16% for Sensis online, and 10% for WAER online. Compared to EWP, the WAER and Sensis frame respondents were younger, had higher incomes and better education. Online respondents had higher prevalence of high psychological distress and lower prevalence of smoking compared with CATI. Conclusions The WAER and Sensis consumer database are valid sample frame options for the future of the HWSS. CATI gave the highest response rates, yet respondent differences by frame and mode were evident. WA Health is further exploring these options of modern sample frames and survey modes in 2021. Key messages Population health surveillance systems must modernise their sample frames and data collection modes to continue to provide reliable health prevalence estimates.

The Australian Community Does Not Support Gender Selection by IVF for Social Reasons

This study was carried out to determine the attitudes of the Australian community to IVF by a reliable community poll. Cross-sectional surveys, conducted by telephone of a random sample of 650 Australians were undertaken. The sample was drawn from the residential phone numbers in the Australian electronic “White Pages” and stratified by geographical area with quotas controlled by gender and age to be representative of the Australian population. The participants were asked to answer to three questions about gender selection, and their response was measured as “yes-allowed,” “no-not allowed,” or “undecided” for each of the questions. Whilst 91% of respondents supported the use of IVF to help infertile couples, only 20% supported gender selection within IVF or for family balancing. When it came to the use of IVF only for gender selection, only 17% were in favour. This survey shows that Australian community overwhelmingly opposes gender selection for social reasons.

A country not divided: A comparison of public punitiveness and confidence in sentencing across Australia

Changes to sentencing legislation are often introduced or justified on the basis of satisfying public opinion. If sentencing policy is a reflection of public opinion we should see a concordance between different sentencing policies and public opinion. This paper provides a comparison between Australian States and Territories in terms of two key measures of public attitude concerning sentencing: confidence in sentencing and punitiveness. These results are based on acomprehensive telephone survey ( N = 6005) of Australian adults which utilized a stratified random sample of households from the Electronic White Pages. It was found that there were only minor differences in the key measures of public attitude despite the notable differences between the States and Territories of Australia with respect to sentencing policy. Differences in public attitudes across jurisdictions were small, accounting for less than 2 per cent of variation in confidence in sentencing and punitive attitudes scores. In addition, despite the predicted moderately negative association between confidence in sentencing and punitiveness, neither of these variables was related in any systematic way to jurisdictional differences in imprisonment rates. The major implication of these findings is that the wide differences in sentencing practice and policy between jurisdictions in Australia are not linked to differences in public attitudes, supporting Beckett's (1997) argument that sentencing policy is better understood as a function of political initiative rather than a direct articulation of public attitude.