An antidepressant containing a form of the drug ketamine has been added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), making it much cheaper for the estimated 30,000 Australians with treatment-resistant depression. This is when a patient has tried multiple forms of treatment for major depression – usually at least two antidepressant medications – without any improvement.

From May 1, a dose of Spravato (also known as esketamine hydrochloride) will cost $A31.60 and $7.70 for concession card holders.

However, unlike oral antidepressants, Spravato can’t be taken at home. Here’s how it works, and who it’s expected to help.

What is Spravato?

The chemical ketamine is used as an anaesthetic. In this formulation it combines both the right-handed (designated “R”) and left-handed (called “S”) forms of the molecule.

This means they are mirror images of each other, similar to how your left hand is a mirror image of your right hand. The left- and right-hand forms can have different effects in the body.

Spravato contains only the left-handed version, giving the drug its generic name esketamine.

Spravato works by increasing the levels of glutamate in the brain. Glutamate is a key chemical messenger molecule that excites brain nerve cells, lifting and improving mood. It also plays a role in learning and forming memories.

How is it taken?

Spravato cannot be taken at home.

A patient can self-administer, but it must be done at a registered treatment facility, such as a hospital, under the supervision of medical staff so they can look out for blood pressure changes and monitor potential side effects.

The drug is provided as a single-use nasal spray. This application means it’s absorbed directly through the nasal lining into the brain, so it starts to work within minutes.

Spravato must also be taken alongside an oral antidepressant. This will be a new one the patient hasn’t tried before. In clinical trials, it was usually an SNRI or SSRI medication.

When a patient first starts on Spravato, they are given the spray twice a week in the first month. It is then administered once a week for the second month, and then weekly or fortnightly after that.

Once there are signs the medicine is working, treatment is continued for at least six months.

How effective is it?

Spravato was approved for sale in Australia based on clinical trial data from more than 1,600 patients who were administered the drug for a period of four weeks. Each was given either Spravato, or a nasal placebo, and an oral antidepressant.

Patients were given a starting dose of either 28 or 56mg, which could be then increased up to 84mg by their doctor.

By the end of the four weeks, a greater percentage of patients who were given Spravato were found to have had a meaningful response to the treatment when compared with patients who received the placebo. Patients who were taking Spravato were also found to relapse at a lower rate. For those who did relapse, it took the Spravato patients longer to relapse when compared with patients who took the placebo.

It is expected Spravato will benefit a wide range of patients. The clinical trials demonstrated effectiveness for men and women, people aged 18 to 64, and those from a range of different ethnic backgrounds.

Potential side effects

As with any medicine, Spravato may cause side effects, some of which can be serious. The most common include:

• dissociation (feeling disconnected from yourself or what is around you)
• dizziness
• nausea and vomiting
• drowsiness
• headache
• change in taste
• vertigo.

Because Spravato can potentially increase blood pressure, medical staff will monitor a patient before and after it is administered.

Usually, blood pressure spikes around 40 minutes after taking the drug, so a reading is taken around this time. After taking Spravato, if their blood pressure has stayed low, or it’s dropping, the patient is given the all-clear to go home.

Due to the potential for this and other serious side effects, Spravato carries a black triangle warning. This means medical staff are encouraged to report any problem or side effect to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. A black triangle warning is generally used for new medicines or medicines that are being used in a new way.

Who will be eligible?

To be eligible for a prescription, a patient will need to have been diagnosed with treatment-resistant depression. In practice, this means they will have unsuccessfully tried at least two other antidepressant drugs first.

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration approved Spravato for use in Australia in 2021, meaning it was available but not subsidised. Since then, the sponsoring company, Janssen-Cilag (an Australian subsidiary of the multinational Johnson & Johnson), applied to have it added to the PBS four times.

In December 2024, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommended a PBS listing.

The new PBS listing, capping the price of a single treatment at $31.60, is a significant price drop. In 2023, single doses of branded Spravato were reported to cost anywhere between $500 and $900.

However, patients may still have to pay hundreds of dollars for appointments at private clinics where Spravato can be administered. Public places are available but limited.

Spravato may be suitable for you if you’ve tried different antidepressants without success. If it is suitable for you, then your doctor can discuss the next steps.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University and Shoohb Alassadi, Associate Lecturer and Registered Pharmacist, University of Sydney

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

According to a study from the United States, women experience weight stigma in maternity care at almost every visit. We expect this experience to be similar in Australia, where more than 50% of women of reproductive age live in larger bodies.

Weight stigma can present as stereotyping, negative attitudes and discriminatory actions towards larger-bodied people.

It occurs in other areas of health care and in society at large. But our research is focused on weight stigma in maternity care, which can cause significant harm for larger-bodied women and their babies.

What does weight stigma look like in maternity care?

Sometimes weight stigma is explicit, or on purpose. Explicit weight stigma includes health-care professionals having negative attitudes towards caring for larger-bodied pregnant women. This might present, for instance, when health professionals make negative comments about weight or accuse women of dishonesty when they discuss their dietary intake.

Sometimes weight stigma is implicit, or unintentional. Implicit weight stigma includes maternity care providers avoiding physical touch or eye contact during consultations with larger-bodied women.

Policies, guidelines and environments also contribute to weight stigma. Women in larger bodies frequently report feeling stigmatised and unable to access the type of maternity care they would prefer. Lack of availability of adequately fitting hospital clothing or delivery beds are other notable examples.

In a review published last year, we looked at weight stigma from preconception to after birth. Our results showed larger-bodied women are sometimes automatically treated as high-risk and undergo extra monitoring of their pregnancy even when they have no other risk factors that require monitoring.

This approach is problematic because it focuses on body size rather than health, placing responsibility on the woman and disregarding other complex determinants of health.

How does this make women feel?

Qualitative evidence shows women who experience weight stigma during their maternity care feel judged, devalued, shamed and less worthy. They may feel guilty about getting pregnant and experience self-doubt.

As one research participant explained:

One doctor told me I was terrible for getting pregnant at my weight, that I was setting up my baby to fail […] I was in tears, and he told me I was being too sensitive.

A 2023 Australian paper written by women who had experienced weight stigma in maternity care recounted their care as hyper-focused on weight and dehumanising, robbing them of the joy of pregnancy.

According to one woman, “there was no compassion or conversation, just blame”.

Beyond making women feel humiliated and disrespected, weight stigma in maternity care can affect mental health. For example, weight stigma is linked to increased risk of depressive symptoms and stress, disordered eating behaviours and emotional eating.

One of the key reasons why weight stigma is so damaging to pregnant women’s health is because it’s closely linked to body image concerns.

Society unfairly holds larger-bodied women up to unrealistic ideals around their body shape and size, their suitability to be a mother, and the control they have over their weight gain.

Self stigma occurs when women apply society’s stigmatising narrative – from people in the community, the media, peers, family members and health-care providers – to themselves.

Impacts on mum and baby

Several adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes have been linked to weight stigma in maternity care. These include gestational diabetes, caesarean birth and lower uptake of breastfeeding.

While we know these things can also be linked to higher body weight, emerging evidence shows weight stigma may have a stronger link with some outcomes than body mass index.

There are a variety of possible reasons for these links. For example, weight stigma may result in delayed access to and engagement with health-care services, and, as shown above, poorer mental health and reduced confidence. This may mean a woman is less likely to initiate and seek help with breastfeeding, for example.

Experiencing weight stigma also leads to a stress response in the body, which could affect a woman’s health during pregnancy.

In turn, the adverse effects of weight stigma can also affect the baby’s health. For example, gestational diabetes has a range of potential negative outcomes including a higher likelihood of premature birth, difficulties during birth, and an increased risk of the child developing type 2 diabetes.

But the burden and blame should not fall on women. Pregnant and postpartum women should not have to accept experiences of weight stigma in health care.

What can we do about it?

While it’s essential to address weight stigma as a societal issue, health services can play a key role in undoing the narrative of blame and shame and making maternity care more equitable for larger-bodied women.

Addressing weight stigma in maternity care can start with teaching midwives and obstetricians about weight stigma – what it is, where it happens, and how it can be minimised in practice.

We worked with women who had experienced weight stigma in maternity care and midwives to co-design resources to meet this need. Both women and midwives wanted resources that could be easily integrated into practice, acted as consistent reminders to be size-friendly, and met midwives’ knowledge gaps.

The resources included a short podcast about weight stigma in maternity care and images of healthy, larger-bodied pregnant women to demonstrate the most likely outcome is a healthy pregnancy. Midwives evaluated the resources positively and they are ready to be implemented into practice.

There is a long road to ending weight stigma in maternity care, but working towards this goal will benefit countless mothers and their babies.

Briony Hill, Deputy Head, Health and Social Care Unit and Senior Research Fellow, Monash University and Haimanot Hailu, PhD Candidate, Health and Social Care Unit, Monash University

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

As the world’s only surviving egg-laying mammals, Australasia’s platypus and four echidna species are among the most extraordinary animals on Earth.

They are also very different from each other.

The platypus is well adapted for a semi-aquatic lifestyle, spending up to 20 hours a day swimming in Australian waterways to forage for freshwater invertebrates. Echidnas, on the other hand, live entirely on land. They are widely distributed across Australia and New Guinea, and adapted for feeding on termites, ants and earthworms.

How did these differences emerge? Some researchers think echidnas evolved from a swimming, platypus-like ancestor. This hypothesis is based on evidence from aspects of their genes and anatomy, and from hypotheses about their evolutionary history.

However, this idea is controversial because fossil evidence for such a profound evolutionary transformation has been lacking – until now.

A bone from 108 million years ago

In our study published today in PNAS, we gleaned new data from a 108-million-year-old mammal humerus (arm bone), found 30 years ago at Dinosaur Cove, Victoria, by a team from Museums Victoria.

This arm bone, from a species called Kryoryctes cadburyi, belongs to an ancestral monotreme – a semi-aquatic burrower like the platypus. Our findings support the hypothesis that land-living echidnas evolved from a swimming ancestor.

Kryoryctes lived during the Age of Dinosaurs (the Mesozoic), when monotremes and monotreme relatives were more common than they are today. Glimpses of this past diversity are found in the fossil record in southern Victoria and Lightning Ridge, New South Wales.

Nevertheless, Australian Mesozoic mammal fossils are exceedingly rare, and mostly consist of teeth and jaws. Kryoryctes is the only one known from a limb bone, which provides significant information about its identity, relationships and lifestyle.

Tiny clues inside bones

In order to test the evolutionary relationships of Kryoryctes, we added it to a broader data set of 70 fossil and modern mammals. From there, we calculated an evolutionary tree. This showed Kryoryctes is an ancestral monotreme.

We also compared the external shape of the Kryroryctes humerus bone to living monotremes. These analyses indicated the bone is more like those of echidnas, rather than platypuses.

But it was a different story on the inside. When we looked at the internal structure of the Kryoryctes humerus with several 3D scanning techniques, we uncovered microscopic features of this arm bone that were actually more like those of the platypus.

Such tiny features inside bones yield crucial clues about the lifestyle of an animal. Numerous previous studies link bone microstructure in mammals and other tetrapods (four-limbed animals) with their ecology.

Using the wealth of data available for living mammals, we compared characteristics of the Kryoryctes humerus microstructure to those in platypuses, echidnas and 74 other mammal species.

These analyses confirmed that the Kryoryctes humerus has internal bone features found in semi-aquatic burrowing mammals (such as the platypus, muskrat and Eurasian otter), rather than land-living burrowing mammals such as the echidna.

From water to land

This discovery suggests that a semi-aquatic lifestyle is ancestral for all living monotremes. It also suggests the amphibious lifestyle of the modern platypus had its origins at least 100 million years ago, during the Age of Dinosaurs.

In this scenario, the modern platypus lineage has retained the ancestral semi-aquatic burrowing lifestyle for more than 100 million years. Echidnas would have reverted to a land-based way of life more recently.

For echidnas, a return to land appears to have resulted in adaptations such as their long bones becoming lighter, as shown in our study.

They possibly also lost several other features more useful for spending time in the water rather than on land, including the loss of a long tail, reduction of webbing between fingers and toes, reduction of the duck-like bill to a narrow beak, and a reduced number of electroreceptors on that beak.

However, precisely when this evolutionary transformation occurred is not yet known. The answer must wait until early echidna fossils are found – so far, nothing definitive has turned up anywhere.

The modern habitats of monotremes are increasingly under threat from environmental degradation, interactions with humans and feral predators, and climate change. This is especially true for platypuses. To ensure the survival of this ancient lineage, we need to better understand how their unique features evolved and adapted.

Sue Hand, Professor Emeritus, Palaeontology, UNSW Sydney; Camilo López-Aguirre, Adjunct Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto; Laura A. B. Wilson, ARC Future Fellow, Head of Biological Anthropology, Australian National University, and Robin Beck, Lecturer in Biology, University of Salford

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

In front of a crowd of party faithful last weekend, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton referred to the ABC, Guardian Australia and other news platforms as “hate media”. The language was extreme, the inference being these outlets were not simply doing their jobs, but attacking him and his side of politics because of ideological bias.

Speaking at a Liberal Party campaign rally in the Melbourne western suburb of Melton, Dutton said:

Forget about what you have been told by the ABC, The Guardian and the other hate media. Listen to what you hear [at] doors. Listen to what people say on the pre-polling. Know in your hearts that we are a better future for our country.

Melton is in the Labor-held seat of Hawke, which the Liberals believe they can win.

Dutton provided no evidence to support his accusation, for the good reason that there has been nothing in the ABC’s or Guardian Australia’s coverage of Dutton that could remotely justify it.

By a process of elimination, the “other hate media” to which he referred can only be The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, given the News Corporation mastheads have been unflagging in their support for him throughout the campaign.

What has been common to the campaign coverage by the ABC, Guardian Australia, The Age and the SMH has been close scrutiny of both sides and both leaders.

The three newspapers in particular have put renewed resources into independently fact-checking claims made by both Dutton and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and have caught out both men telling falsehoods.

The broadcast news media on the whole have played it straight, except of course for Sky News after dark, which has been as relentlessly pro-Coalition as their News Corp newspaper stablemates.

Beyond these professional mass media platforms, there have been clearly partisan social media influencers working on both sides, as well as a range of podcasters, but none of these has been guilty of hate speech towards Dutton or anyone else.

The inescapable conclusion is that Dutton equates scrutiny of him by journalists with hate speech.

This is where his attitude becomes dangerous to democracy. It comes straight from US President Donald Trump’s playbook, where the professional mass media are “fake news” and the “enemy of the people”.

It is designed to play not just on people’s longstanding distrust of the news media in general – though not of the ABC – but on some voters’ sense of grievance at the way governments have treated them.

This worked for Trump in the United States, but it became obvious early in the campaign that any association with Trumpism was a strong political negative in Australia, particularly in the atmosphere of alarm generated by his tariff war.

Dutton then took pains to distance himself from Trumpism, and at the Liberal launch in Western Australia his face was a picture of alarm when Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, whom he had appointed to the Trumpian-sounding post of shadow minister for government efficiency, used the slogan “Make Australia Great Again”.

But it is typical of his incoherent campaign that at the start of the last week he should be echoing the Trumpian view of the media in such extreme terms, creating even more instability. In an ABC interview, his shadow minister for finance, Jane Hume, refused to support him, saying “that wouldn’t be a phrase I would use”.

It also raises legitimate questions about how Dutton would treat the media should he become prime minister. For example, if a media platform refused to obey his wishes, or provide him with coverage of which he approved, would its representatives be excluded from prime ministerial access?

Not long ago, such a proposition would have been inconceivable, but Trump banned the Associated Press (AP) from presidential access because it would not obey his instruction to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. A federal judge later found the ban violated the First Amendment, and ordered AP’s access to be restored.

It is very improbable Dutton would even try to impose his will on the commercial media in Australia, especially the newspapers.

In fact, Guardian Australia has turned his remark into a fundraising opportunity. It emailed subscribers with the subject line “A note from the ‘hate media’,” comparing Dutton’s language to that of Trump, and asking for financial support to keep holding figures like Dutton to account.

But his potential to punish the publicly funded ABC is another matter.

From statements he has made during the campaign, it seems certain the ABC would be in for more funding cuts and an investigation into its operations of the kind Trump has launched into America’s National Public Radio.

Coalition prime ministers going back to John Howard have had a hostile relationship with the ABC. Howard stacked the ABC board, and the panel that nominates its members, with ideological mates.

In the eight years from 2014 to 2022, under the Coalition governments of Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison, $526 million was cut from the ABC’s budget.

During that time, there was also a series of inquiries into the ABC, set up to satisfy politicians with a beef against the ABC, notably Pauline Hanson.

The day after Dutton’s “hate media” statement, the ABC’s 4 Corners program revealed he failed for two years to disclose he was the beneficiary of a family trust that operated lucrative childcare businesses when he was a cabinet minister.

This is unlikely to improve his view of the national broadcaster. He may even see it as more hate. In fact, it is just good journalism.

Denis Muller and Nicole Chvastek will discuss this further on their Truth, Lies and Media podcast on Wednesday April 30.

Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

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

Another election, another wave of unsolicited political texts. Over this campaign, our digital mailboxes have been stuffed with a slew of political appeals and promises, many from the new party Trumpet of Patriots (backed by Clive Palmer, a veteran of the mass text campaign).

The practice isn’t new, and it’s totally legal under current laws. It’s also non-partisan. Campaigns of all stripes have partaken. Behold, the Liberal Party’s last-minute SMS to voters about asylum seekers before the 2022 federal election, or Labor’s controversial “Mediscare” text before the 2016 poll. Despite multiple cycles of criticism, these tactics remain a persistent feature of Australian election campaigns.

A recent proposal to update decades-old rules could help change things – if a government would put it into practice.

What does the law say about political spam?

Several laws regulate spam and data collection in Australia.

First, there is the Spam Act. This legislation requires that organisations obtain our consent before sending us marketing emails, SMSs and instant messages. The unsubscribe links you see at the bottom of spam emails? Those are mandated by the Spam Act.

Second, the Do Not Call Register (DNCR) Act. This Act establishes a “do not call” register, managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which individuals can join to opt out of telemarketing calls.

Finally, there is the Privacy Act, which governs how organisations collect, use and disclose our personal information. Among other things, the Privacy Act requires that organisations tell us when and why they are collecting our personal information, and the purposes for which they intend to use it. It restricts organisations from re-purposing personal information collected for a particular purpose, unless an exception applies.

This trio of laws was designed to offer relief from unsolicited, unwanted direct marketing. It does not, however, stop the deluge of political spam at election time due to broad political exemptions sewn into the legislation decades ago.

The Spam Act and DNCR Act apply to marketing for goods and services but not election policies and promises, while the Privacy Act contains a carve-out for political parties, representatives and their contractors.

The upshot is that their campaigns are free to spam and target voters at will. Their only obligation is to disclose who authorised the message.

How do political campaigns get our information?

Secrecy about the nature and extent of campaign data operations, enabled by the exemptions, makes it difficult to pinpoint precisely where a campaign might have obtained your data from.

There are, however, a number of ways political campaigns can acquire our information.

One source is the electoral roll (though not for phone numbers, as the Australian Electoral Commission often points out). Incumbent candidates might build on this with information they obtain through contact with constituents which, thanks to the exemptions, they’re allowed to re-purpose for campaigning at election time.

Another source is data brokers – firms which harvest, analyse and sell large quantities of data and profiles.

We know the major parties have long maintained voter databases to support their targeting efforts, which have become increasingly sophisticated over the years.

Other outfits might take more haphazard approaches – former MP Craig Kelly, for example, claimed to use software to randomly generate numbers for his texting campaign in 2021.

What can be done?

Unwanted campaign texts are not only irritating to some. They can be misleading.

This year, there have been reports of “push polling” texts (pseudo surveys meant to persuade rather than gauge voter options) in the marginal seat of Kooyong. The AEC has warned about misleading postal vote applications being issued by parties via SMS.

Generative AI is hastening the ability to produce misleading content, cheaply and at scale, which can be quickly pushed out across an array of online social and instant messaging services.

In short, annoying texts are just one visible symptom of a wider vulnerability created by the political exemptions.

The basic argument for the political exemptions is to facilitate freedom of political communication, which is protected by the Constitution. As the High Court has said, that freedom is necessary to support informed electoral choice. It does not, however, guarantee speakers a captive audience.

In 2022, the Attorney-General’s Department proposed narrowing the political exemptions, as part of a suite of updates to the Privacy Act. Per the proposal, parties and representatives would need to be more transparent about their data operations, provide voters with an option to unsubscribe from targeted ads, refrain from targeting voters based on “sensitive information”, and handle data in a “fair and reasonable” manner.

The changes would be an overdue but welcome step, recognising the essential role of voter privacy in a functioning democratic system.

Unfortunately, the government has not committed to taking up the proposal.

A bipartisan lack of support is likely the biggest obstacle, even as the gap created by the political exemptions widens, and its rationale becomes flimsier, with each election cycle.

Tegan Cohen, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology

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

In the lead-up to the 2025 Australian federal election, political advertising is seemingly everywhere.

We’ve been mapping the often invisible world of digital political advertising across Facebook, Instagram and TikTok.

We’ve done this thanks to a panel of ordinary Australians who agreed to download an ad tracking app developed through the Australian Internet Observatory.

We’re also tracking larger trends in political ad spending, message type and tone, and reach via the PoliDashboard tool. This open source tool aggregates transparency data from Meta (including Facebook and Instagram) which we use to identify patterns and items of concern.

While the major parties are spending heavily and are highly visible in the feeds of our participants, it is the prevalence of third-party political advertising that is most striking. We’ve observed a notable trend: for every ad from a registered political party, there is roughly one ad from a third-party entity.

Astroturfing and the illusion of grassroots support

One of the most concerning trends we’re seeing is a rise in astroturfing. This refers to masking the sponsors of a message to make it appear as though it originates from ordinary citizens or grassroots organisations.

Astroturfing ads do often adhere to the formal disclosure requirements set out by the Australian Electoral Commission. However, these disclosures don’t meaningfully inform the public on who is behind these misleading ads.

Authorisation typically only includes the name and address of an intermediary. This may be a deliberately opaque shell entity set up just in time for an election.

A key example seen by participants in our study involves the pro-gas advocacy group Australians for Natural Gas.

It presents itself as a grassroots movement, but an ABC investigation revealed this group is working with Freshwater Strategy – the Coalition’s internal pollster. Emails obtained by the ABC show Freshwater Strategy is “helping orchestrate a campaign to boost public support for the gas industry ahead of the federal election”.

Other examples we’ve encountered in our monitoring include groups with benign-sounding names like Mums for Nuclear and Australians for Prosperity. These labels and the ads they are running suggest grassroots concern, but they obscure the deeper agendas behind them.

In the case of Australians for Prosperity, an ABC analysis revealed backing from wealthy donors, former conservative MPs and coal interests.

The battle over energy

Nowhere is this more evident than in messaging around energy policy, especially nuclear power and gas.

In recent months, both major parties and a swathe of third-party advertisers have run targeted online campaigns focused on the costs and benefits of different energy futures. These ads play to deeply felt concerns about cost of living, action on climate change, and national sovereignty.

Yet many of these messages, particularly those that promote gas and nuclear, come from organisations with opaque funding and undeclared political affiliations or connections. Voters may see a slick Facebook ad or a sponsored TikTok explainer without any idea who paid for it, or why.

And with no obligation to be truthful, much of this content may be deeply misleading. It muddies public understanding at a critical moment for climate action.

Truth not required

Truth in political advertising isn’t legally required in all of Australia. While businesses can’t mislead consumers under consumer law, political parties and third-party campaigners are exempt from those same standards.

This means misleading or outright false claims – about opponents, policies or the state of the economy – can be repeated and amplified without consequence, provided they’re framed as political opinion.

Despite calls for reform from politicians, experts and civil society groups, federal legislation continues to lag behind community expectations.

South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory do have truth in political advertising laws, but there is still no national standard.

In the digital advertising environment, where ads are fast, fleeting, and often tailored to individuals, the absence of such independent scrutiny allows misinformation to flourish unchecked.

Most people are seeing very little – or so it seems

Paradoxically, our data shows the majority of participants are seeing very few political ads. Of the total ads seen, less than 2% pertained to political topics or the election specifically.

This is partly a result of how the advertising products offered by platforms like Meta and TikTok allow ads to be targeted to specific demographics, locations or interests. This means even two people in the same household may have entirely different ad experiences.

But it’s also a reminder social media ads are just the tip of the iceberg. Much political persuasion online happens outside paid ad campaigns – via influencer content, YouTube recommendations, algorithmic amplification, mainstream media coverage and more.

Because platforms and publishers aren’t required to share this broader content with researchers or the public, we can’t easily track it – although we are trying.

We need meaningful observability

If democracy is to thrive in a digital age, we need to be able to independently observe online political communication, including advertising.

Existing measures like campaign finance disclosures and transparency tools provided by platforms will never be enough. They don’t include user experiences or track patterns across populations and over time. This inevitably means some advertising activity flies under the radar.

We lack robust tools to understand and analyse our current fragmented information landscape.

Where platforms don’t provide meaningful data access to researchers and the public, tools like the Ad Observatory and PoliDashboard offer valuable glimpses into a fragmented information landscape, while remaining incomplete.

However, tools on their own are not enough. We also need to be willing to call out and act when politicians mislead the public.

Acknowlegement: The Australian Ad Observatory is a team effort. The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Jean Burgess, Nicholas Carah, Alfie Chadwick, Kyle Herbertson, Tina Kang, Khanh Luong, Abdul Karim Obeid, Lina Przhedetsky, and Dan Tran.

Daniel Angus, Professor of Digital Communication, Director of QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology; Christine Parker, Professor of Law, The University of Melbourne; Giselle Newton, Research Fellow, The Centre for Digital Cultures and Societies, The University of Queensland; Kate Clark, Node Administrator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making & Society, Monash University, and Mark Andrejevic, Professor of Media, School of Media, Film, and Journalism, Monash University

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

Did you start 2025 with a promise to eat better but didn’t quite get there? Or maybe you want to branch out from making the same meal every week or the same lunch for work almost every day?

Small dietary changes can make a big difference to how you feel, how your body functions and health indicators such as blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels.

You can meet your nutrient needs by eating a range of foods from the key food groups:

• vegetables and fruit
• protein (legumes, beans, tofu, meats, poultry, fish, eggs, nuts, seeds)
• grains (mostly wholegrain and high-fibre)
• calcium-rich foods (milk, yoghurt, cheese, non-dairy alternatives).

But you also need a variety of foods to get enough vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients from plant foods. Phytonutrients have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer and other functions that help keep you healthy.

Use these five dietary tweaks to boost your nutrient intake and add variety to what you eat.

1. Include different types of bran to boost your fibre intake

Different types of dietary fibre help improve bowel function through fermentation by gut microbes in the colon, or large bowel. This creates larger, softer bowel motions that then stimulate the colon to contract, leading to more regular bowel movements.

Add different types of dietary fibre – such as oat bran, wheat bran or psyllium husk – to breakfast cereal or add some into recipes that use white flour:

• psyllium husk is high in soluble fibre. It dissolves in water forming viscous gel that binds to bile salts, which get excreted and your body is then not able to convert them into cholesterol. This helps lower blood cholesterol levels as well as with retaining water in your colon, making bowel motions softer. Soluble fibre also helps slow the digestive process, making you feel full and slows the normal rise in blood sugar levels after you eat

• wheat bran is an insoluble fibre, also called roughage. It adds bulk to bowel motions, which helps keep your bowel function regular

• oat bran contains beta-glucan, a soluble fibre, as well as some insoluble fibre.

Try keeping small containers topped up with the different fibres so you don’t forget to add them regularly to your breakfast.

2. Add a different canned bean to your shopping list

Dried beans are a type of legume. From baked beans to red kidney beans and chickpeas, the canned varieties are easy to use and inexpensive. Different colours and varieties have slightly different nutrient and phytonutrient profiles.

Canned beans are very high in total dietary fibre, including soluble fibre and resistant starch, a complex carbohydrate that resists digestion in the small intestine and then passes into the colon where it gets fermented.

The body digests and absorbs the nutrients in legumes slowly, contributing to their low glycemic index. So eating them makes you feel full.

Regularly eating more legumes lowers blood sugar levels, and total and LDL (bad) cholesterol.

Add legumes to dishes such as bolognese, curry, soups and salads (our No Money No Time website has some great recipes).

3. Try a different wholegrain, like buckwheat or 5-grain porridge

Wholegrain products contain all three layers of the grain. Both the inner germ layer and outer bran layer are rich in fibre, vitamins and minerals, while the inner endosperm contains mostly starch (think white flour).

Wholegrains include oats, corn (yes, popcorn too), rye, barley, buckwheat, quinoa, brown rice and foods made with wholegrains, like some breads and breakfast cereals such as rolled oats, muesli and five-grain porridge.

Wholegrains aren’t just breakfast and lunch foods. Dinner recipe ideas include tuna and veggie pasta bake, chicken quesadillas and buckwheat mushroom risotto.

4. Try a different vegetable or salad mix every week

A review of the relationship between plant-based diets and dying of any cause followed more than half a million people across 12 long-term studies.

It found people who ate the most plants had a lower risk of dying during the study and follow-up period than those who ate hardly any.

Try adding a new or different vegetable or salad item to your weekly meals, such as rainbow coleslaw, canned beetroot, raw carrot, red onion, avocado or tomatoes.

Or try a stir-fry with bok choy, celery, capsicum, carrot, zucchini and herbs.

The more variety, the more colour, flavour and textures – not to mention phytonutrients.

5. Go nuts

Cashews, walnuts, almonds, macadamias, pecans and mixed nuts make a great snack.

(Peanuts are technically a legume because they grow in the ground but we count them as nuts because their nutrient profile is very similar to the tree nuts.)

You have to chew nuts well, which means your brain receives messages that you are eating and should expect to soon feel full.

Nuts are energy-dense, due to their high fat content. A matchbox portion size (30 grams) contains about 15 grams of fat, 5 grams of protein and 740 kilojoules.

While some people think you need to avoid nuts to lose weight, a review of energy restricted diets found people who ate nuts lost as much weight as those who didn’t.

My colleagues and I at the University of Newcastle have created a free Healthy Eating Quiz where you can check your diet quality score, see how healthy your usual eating patterns are and how your score compares to others. You can also get some great ideas to make your meals more interesting .

Clare Collins, Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

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

E-cigarettes or vapes were originally designed to deliver nicotine in a smokeless form. But in recent years, vapes have been used to deliver other psychoactive substances, including cannabis concentrates and oils.

Cannabis vapes, also sometimes known as THC vape pens, appear to have increased in popularity in Australia over the past few years. Among those Australians who had recently used cannabis, the proportion who reported ever vaping cannabis increased from 7% in 2019 to at least 25% in 2022–23.

The practice appears to be gaining popularity among young people, who are reportedly using devices called “penjamins” to vape cannabis oil. These are sleek, concealable vapes disguised as everyday objects such as lip balms, earphone cases or car keys.

On social media platforms such as TikTok, users are sharing tips and tricks for how to carry and use penjamins undetected.

So what’s in cannabis vapes, and should we be worried about young people using them?

Are cannabis vapes legal in Australia?

While medicinal cannabis is legal for some users with a prescription, recreational cannabis use remains illegal under federal law.

In Australia, recent vaping reforms have made it illegal to sell disposable vapes such as penjamins.

But there appears to be a robust illicit market for vaping products, including cannabis vapes.

Are cannabis vapes safe?

Cannabis vaping is often perceived to be less harmful than smoking cannabis as it does not involve combustion of the cannabis, which may reduce some respiratory symptoms. But that doesn’t mean it’s without risk.

Most forms of cannabis can be vaped, including cannabis flower and cannabis oil. The difference is, cannabis oil typically contains much higher concentrations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) compared to cannabis flower.

THC is the ingredient responsible for the “high” people feel when they use cannabis. THC works by interacting with brain receptors that influence our mood, memory, coordination and perception.

The strength of these effects depends on how much THC is consumed. Vaping can produce a more intense high and greater cognitive impairment compared to smoking cannabis, as less THC is lost through combustion.

Our research in the United States and Canada found many people who vape cannabis are moving away from traditional cannabis flowers and increasingly preferring highly potent products, such as oils and concentrates.

Prolonged consumption of products with high THC levels can increase the risk of cannabis use disorder and psychosis.

Young people are particularly vulnerable to the risks of high THC exposure, as their brains are still developing well into their mid-20s. Those without previous experience using cannabis may even be more susceptible to the adverse effects of vaping cannabis.

Our study found those who vape and smoke cannabis reported more severe mental health symptoms, compared to those who only smoke cannabis.

Cannabis vaping can also affect the lungs. Findings from large population-based surveys suggest respiratory symptoms such as bronchitis and wheezing are common among those who vape cannabis.

Cannabis vapes don’t just contain cannabis

The risks associated with cannabis vapes do not just come from THC, but also from the types of solvents and additives used. Solvents are the chemicals used to extract THC from the cannabis plant and produce a concentrated oil for vaping.

While some can be safe when properly processed, others, such as vitamin E acetate, have been linked to serious lung injuries, including E-cigarette or Vaping Use-Associated Lung Injury (EVALI).

This condition hospitalised more than 2,500 people and caused nearly 70 deaths in the US between late 2019 and early 2020. Common symptoms of EVALI include chest pain, cough, abdominal pain, vomiting and fever.

This raises concerns about product safety, particularly when it comes to unregulated cannabis oils that are not subjected to any quality control. This may be the case with penjamins.

Which is worse: cannabis or nicotine vapes?

There’s no simple answer to this question. Both nicotine and cannabis vapes come with different health risks, and comparing them depends on what you are measuring – addiction, short-term harms or long-term health effects.

Nicotine vapes can be an effective way of helping people quit smoking. However, these vapes still contain addictive nicotine and other chemicals that may lead to lung injuries. The long-term health effects of inhaling these substances are still being studied.

Cannabis vapes can be used to deliver highly potent doses of THC, and pose particular risk to brain development and mental health in young people. Regular cannabis use is also linked to lower IQ and poorer educational outcomes in young people.

In unregulated markets, both these products may contain undisclosed chemicals, contaminants, or even substances not related to nicotine or cannabis at all.

The “worse” option depends on the context, but for non-smokers and young people without any medical conditions, the safest choice is to avoid both.

If you or anyone you know needs help to quit vaping, you can contact Quitline on 13 78 48, Healthdirect on 1800 022 222, or the Alcohol and Drug Foundation on 1800 250 015.

Jack Chung, PhD Candidate, National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland; Carmen Lim, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland, and Wayne Hall, Emeritus Professor, National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland

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

If you’ve ever tried to build a new habit – whether that’s exercising more, eating healthier, or going to bed earlier – you may have heard the popular claim that it only takes 21 days to form a habit.

It’s a neat idea. Short, encouraging and full of promise. But there’s just one problem: it’s not true.

The 21-day myth can be traced back to Maxwell Maltz, a plastic surgeon in the 1960s, who observed it took about three weeks for his patients to adjust to physical changes. This idea was later picked up and repeated in self-help books, eventually becoming accepted wisdom.

But as psychologists and behavioural scientists have since discovered, habit formation is much more complex.

How long does it really take?

A 2010 study followed volunteers trying to build simple routines – such as drinking water after breakfast or eating a daily piece of fruit – and found it took a median of 66 days for the behaviour to become automatic.

We recently reviewed several studies looking at how long it took people to form health-related habits. We found, on average, it took around two to five months.

Specifically, the studies that measured time to reach automaticity (when a behaviour becomes second nature) found that habit formation took between 59 and 154 days. Some people developed a habit in as few as four days. Others took nearly a year.

This wide range highlights that habit formation isn’t one-size-fits-all. It depends on what the behaviour is, how often it’s repeated, how complex it is, and who’s doing it.

What determines whether a habit will stick?

Habit strength plays a key role in consistency. A 2021 systematic review focused on physical activity and found the stronger the habit (meaning the more automatic and less effortful the behaviour felt) the more likely people were to exercise regularly.

It’s not entirely surprising that easy, low-effort behaviours such as drinking water or taking a daily vitamin tend to form faster than complex ones like training for a marathon.

But whatever the habit, research shows sticking to it is not just about boosting motivation or willpower. Interventions that actively support habit formation – through repetition, cues and structure – are much more effective for creating lasting change.

For example, programs that encourage people to schedule regular exercise at the same time each day, or apps that send reminders to drink water after every meal, help build habits by making the behaviour easier to repeat and harder to forget.

Our research, which drew on data from more than 2,600 people, showed habit-building interventions can make a real difference across a range of behaviours – from flossing and healthy eating to regular exercise.

But what stood out most was that even small, everyday actions can grow into powerful routines, when repeated consistently. It’s not about overhauling your life overnight, but about steadily reinforcing behaviours until they become second nature.

8 tips for building lasting habits

If you’re looking to build a new habit, here are some science-backed tips to help them stick:

1. Give it time. Aim for consistency over 60 days. It’s not about perfection – missing a day won’t reset the clock.

2. Make it easy. Start small. Choose a behaviour you can realistically repeat daily.

3. Attach your new habit to an existing routine. That is, make the new habit easier to remember by linking it to something you already do – such as flossing right before you brush your teeth.

4. Track your progress. Use a calendar or app to tick off each successful day.

5. Build in rewards, for example making a special coffee after a morning walk or watching an episode of your favourite show after a week of consistent workouts. Positive emotions help habits stick, so celebrate small wins.

6. Morning is best. Habits practised in the morning tend to form more reliably than those attempted at night. This may be because people typically have more motivation and fewer distractions earlier in the day, making it easier to stick to new routines before daily demands build up.

7. Personal choice boosts success. People are more likely to stick with habits they choose themselves.

8. Repetition in a stable context is key. Performing the same behaviour in the same situation (such as walking right after lunch each day) increases the chances it will become automatic.

Why the 21-day myth matters

Believing habits form in 21 days sets many people up to fail. When change doesn’t “click” within three weeks, it’s easy to feel like you’re doing something wrong. This can lead to frustration, guilt and giving up entirely.

By contrast, understanding the real timeline can help you stay motivated when things feel slow.

Evidence shows habit formation usually takes at least two months, and sometimes longer. But it also shows change is possible.

Our research and other evidence confirm that repeated, intentional actions in stable contexts really do become automatic. Over time, new behaviours can feel effortless and deeply ingrained.

So whether you’re trying to move more, eat better, or improve your sleep, the key isn’t speed – it’s consistency. Stick with it. With time, the habit will stick with you.

Ben Singh, Research Fellow, Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia and Ashleigh E. Smith, Associate Professor, Healthy Ageing, University of South Australia

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