Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neil Munro, PhD Candidate in Psychology, James Cook University

Depression and anxiety affect millions of people worldwide.

While treatments such as medication and psychotherapy (sometimes called talk therapy) can be very effective, they’re not always an option. Barriers include cost, stigma, long waiting lists for appointments, and potential drug side effects.

So what about exercise? Our new research, published today, confirms physical activity can be just as effective for some people as therapy or medication. This is especially true when it’s social and guided by a professional, such as a gym class or running club.

Let’s take a look at the evidence.

What we already knew

Physical activity has long been promoted as a treatment option for anxiety and depression, largely because it helps release “feel good” chemicals in the brain which help boost mood and reduce stress.

But the evidence can be confusing. Hundreds of studies with diverse results make it unclear how much exercise is beneficial, what type, and who it helps most.

Over the past two decades, researchers have conducted dozens of separate meta-analyses (studies that combine results from multiple trials) examining exercise for depression and anxiety. But these have still left gaps in understanding how effective exercise is for different age groups and whether the type of exercise matters.

Many studies have also included participants with confounding factors (influences that can distort research findings) such as other chronic diseases, for example, diabetes or arthritis. This means it can be hard to apply the findings more broadly.

What we did

Our research aimed to resolve this confusion by conducting a “meta-meta-analysis”. This means we systematically reviewed the results of all the existing meta-analyses – there were 81 – to determine what the evidence really shows.

Together, this meant data from nearly 80,000 participants across more than 1,000 original trials.

We examined multiple factors that might explain why their results varied. These included differences in:

• who they studied (for example, people with diagnosed depression or anxiety versus those just experiencing symptoms, different age groups, and women during pregnancy and after birth)

• what the exercise involved (for example, comparing aerobic fitness to resistance training and mind-body exercises, such as yoga; whether it was supervised by a professional; intensity and duration)

• whether the exercise was individual or in a group.

We also used advanced statistical techniques to accurately isolate and estimate the exact impact of exercise, separate from confounding factors (including other chronic diseases).

Our data looked at the impact of exercise alone on depression and anxiety. But sometimes people will also use antidepressants and/or therapy – so further research would be needed to explore the effect of these when combined.

What did the study find?

Exercise is effective at reducing both depression and anxiety. But there is some nuance.

We found exercising had a high impact on depression symptoms, and a medium impact on anxiety, compared to staying inactive.

The benefits were comparable to, and in some cases better than, more widely prescribed mental health treatments, including therapy and antidepressants.

Importantly, we discovered who exercise helped most. Two groups showed the most improvement: adults aged 18 to 30 and women who had recently given birth.

Many women experience barriers to exercising after giving birth, including lack of time, confidence or access to appropriate and affordable activities.

Our findings suggest making it more accessible could be an important strategy to address new mothers’ mental health in this vulnerable time.

How you exercise matters

We also found aerobic activities – such as walking, running, cycling or swimming – were best at reducing both depression and anxiety symptoms.

However, all forms of exercise reduced symptoms, including resistance training (such as lifting weights) and mind-body practices (such as yoga).

For depression, there were greater improvements when people exercised with others and were guided by a professional, such as a group fitness class.

Unfortunately, there wasn’t available data on group or supervised exercise for anxiety, so we would need more research to find out if the impact is similar.

Exercising once or twice a week had a similar effect on depression as exercising more frequently. And there didn’t seem to be a significant difference between exercising vigorously or at a low intensity – all were beneficial.

But for anxiety, the best improvements in anxiety symptoms were when exercise was done:

• consistently, for up to eight weeks, and

• at a lower intensity, such as walking or swimming laps at a gentle pace.

So, what does all this mean?

Our research shows exercise is a legitimate and evidence-based treatment option for depression and anxiety, particularly for people with diagnosed conditions.

However, simply telling patients to “exercise more” is unlikely to be effective.

The evidence shows structured, supervised exercise with a social component is best for improving depression and anxiety. The social aspect and the accountability may help keep people motivated.

Clinicians should keep this in mind, offering referrals to specific programs – such as aerobic fitness classes or supervised walking and running programs – rather than general advice.

The findings also suggest this kind of exercise can be particularly effective when targeted to depression in younger adults and women who’ve recently given birth.

The takeaway

For people who are hesitant about medication, or facing long waits for therapy, supervised group exercise may be an effective alternative. It’s evidence-based, and you can start any time.

But it’s still best to get advice from a professional. If you have anxiety or depression symptoms, you should talk to your GP or psychologist. They can advise where exercise fits in your treatment plan, potentially alongside therapy and/or medication.

Samantha Teague receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

James Dimmock, Klaire Somoray, and Neil Munro do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Exercise can be as effective as medication for depression and anxiety – new study – https://theconversation.com/exercise-can-be-as-effective-as-medication-for-depression-and-anxiety-new-study-272243

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Byers, PhD Candidate & Research Assistant, Faculty of Engineering & IT, The University of Melbourne

As with all creative industries, generative artificial intelligence (AI) has been infiltrating video games.

Non-generative AI has been in the industry long before things like ChatGPT became household names. Video games would contain AI-driven gameplay systems such as matchmaking, non-player character (NPC) behaviour, or iconic fictional AI characters such as SHODAN and GLaDOS.

Now, generative AI is being used to produce game assets and speed up development. This is threatening creative jobs and fuelling worries about low-effort releases or “slop”.

If you buy a video game today, you may have no reliable way of knowing whether generative AI was used in any part of its development – from the art and voice work to the code and marketing.

Should developers disclose it? Since 2023, AI disclosure in video games has gone from non-existent to patchy. It’s arguably more to do with copyright concerns than being transparent with players.

A messy baseline

Steam, owned by US video game company Valve, is the largest digital storefront for PC games. It’s also the closest thing to a baseline for AI disclosure – simply because it was the first major platform to formalise a position.

Amid the rise of AI in 2023, Valve rejected AI-produced games on Steam, citing legal uncertainty and stating the company was “continuing to learn about AI”.

By January 2024, Valve formalised its disclosure rules, requiring developers to declare two categories of AI use: pre-generated content (made during development) and live-generated content (created while the game runs).

While industry leaders are optimistic about AI’s role in game development, disclosure remains contentious. Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Steam’s competitor Epic Games, mocked Steam’s AI disclosure in late 2025 as being akin to telling players what shampoo developers use.

In recent weeks, Valve has narrowed its disclosure rules, clarifying that developers who submit games to their platform only need to report AI if the output is directly experienced by players.

This changes what counts as relevant transparency, effectively giving a green light to AI coding and other behind-the-scenes processes.

Valve’s focus on player-facing AI does provide consumers with some transparency and the game submissions are checked before release. However, it’s not clear what happens if the makers of a game don’t disclose AI when they should have.

The disclosure system also keeps Steam ahead of a legal grey area regarding copyright and generative AI output. If needed, Valve could quickly pull titles affected by AI copyright claims. Some AI models can memorise copyrighted material and reproduce it when prompted, so this is not an entirely hypothetical scenario.

AI disclosure on Steam doesn’t have a consistent format – developers simply have a text field where they can write their disclosure in free form. Since it’s not treated as an official tag, consumers also can’t search or filter for AI content when browsing for games in the store.

At the time of writing, a search of SteamDB – a third-party catalogue of Steam’s database – lists more than 15,000 games and software with Steam’s AI disclosure label, with no total count available on Steam itself.

In response, user watchdogs have stepped in. The Steam curator group AI Check tracks games with AI-generated assets and flags whether developers disclose AI use – and how.

Players are largely in the dark

Outside Steam, disclosure is inconsistent if not absent. Indie storefront itch.io provides a searchable “AI Generated” tag, but no disclosure is required on game pages.

There’s currently no clear AI disclosure on mobile app stores or console storefronts (Nintendo, PlayStation, Xbox), and they’ve been criticised for letting “AI slop” flood their stores.

Epic Games Store and another major distribution platform, GOG.com, also lack clear AI disclosures. GOG recently faced backlash for using AI-generated artwork in its own storefront promotion.

All this leaves players in the dark, while developers face backlash for AI use that many consider harmful for the industry.

Transparency is important

Many players care about AI use in games and when disclosure is missing. There are plenty of cases in which developers were “caught out” using generative AI and responded with ad hoc statements, asset changes, or even had Game of the Year awards rescinded.

But there are also cases in which suspicion has caused cancellations or wrongful accusations of games using AI art when it was actually drawn by a human artist.

Read more:
Distrust in AI is on the rise – but along with healthy scepticism comes the risk of harm

This is why transparency on AI use is important. Many Australians report low familiarity with AI, and research suggests having more information can shift people’s views, helping people make informed choices and avoid witch hunts.

Many people have ethical concerns about AI use, or are worried about environmental consequences due to how many resources the AI data centres chew up.

All this means AI disclosure is currently a consumer rights issue, but it’s governed entirely by the platforms where people purchase the games.

Players don’t need to know what shampoo a developer uses. But they do deserve a clear view of whether the art was AI-generated, whether writers or voice actors were replaced, and whether a game built on AI-generated code is likely to survive an update.

Steam’s disclosure system is a start, but it means little if the information can’t be found or filtered for. Every game storefront should make generative AI use clear at the point of purchase – because players deserve better.

Thomas Byers receives funding from The Research Training Program Scholarship, supported by the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne.

Bjorn Nansen receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Are video game developers using AI? Players want to know, but the rules are patchy – https://theconversation.com/are-video-game-developers-using-ai-players-want-to-know-but-the-rules-are-patchy-274850

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jen Purdie, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago

The government’s announcement this week that it would move ahead with plans for a new facility to import liquefied natural gas (LNG), potentially as early as next year, was framed as a way to shore up energy security.

But the decision instead marks another major step backwards for domestic efforts to decarbonise.

Notably, it comes as communities across the North Island – including Mount Maunganui – are recovering from just the kind of extreme weather events climate change is projected to intensify.

With the United States now withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, and New Zealand simultaneously weakening its own climate settings, it is easy to feel a sense of drift.

Despite 89% of people globally wanting stronger climate action, the erosion of the international rules-based order risks pulling more countries away from cooperative solutions.

But the energy transition now has real momentum. So how much difference does the US withdrawal from Paris – and New Zealand’s turn back towards fossil fuels – actually make?

A setback, not a stop

Before the US withdrew, 93% of global emissions came from countries with net-zero policies in place; that figure has now fallen to 83%. The drop would have been larger if not for pledges by 24 US states, along with many cities and corporations, to stick to Paris Agreement targets.

So, while the US exit might be a massive blow, it is far from the end of global climate action. Current Paris Agreement pledges and targets would see global emissions peak in the next few years, if countries follow through.

Many states – including the US, United Kingdom, China, Australia and Canada – are already recording declines. New Zealand’s emissions have flatlined since 2008 but it is still doing less than its fair share on a per-capita basis.

Globally, the race is now on between avoiding dangerous climate tipping points and fostering self-reinforcing momentum in clean energy, which is already at an all-time high.

This is important, as around 70% of the emissions cuts the world needs to make will likely come from the energy transition. Despite more than half of New Zealand’s emissions coming from agriculture, energy remains a strong focus of the government’s emissions reduction plan.

All the while, solutions to renewable intermittency – the problem of wind and solar not always generating power when it is needed – are expanding.

Read more:
NZ’s rejection of emission targets fuels risk of international law breach

In hydro-heavy systems like New Zealand’s, dry periods can be covered by pumped hydro, biomass, battery storage and overbuilding cheap wind and solar. Importing LNG to “firm” electricity instead undermines these options and puts the brakes on clean investment.

Worldwide, solar and wind capacity has doubled every three years for the past two decades, with each doubling of solar cutting prices by about 25%.

China installed half of all new solar last year and its emissions have now peaked. The European Union now generates more power from renewables than fossil fuels, and Pakistan has imported solar panels equivalent to 40% of its total demand.

Electric vehicles have reached price parity with internal combustion engines. Globally, 25% of new car sales were electric last year, rising to 96% in Norway and 59% in China, with 39 countries now above a 10% sales share. In China’s heavy truck fleet, around half of new sales are electric.

Fossil fuel use is already declining in the developed world: oil use in the OECD peaked in 2005, and coal in 2008. While consumption is still rising in poorer countries, many projections see global oil demand peaking in the next few years. And there is broad agreement coal use will begin to fall before 2030.

As fossil fuel use declines, shipping emissions will fall too. And using existing technology to stop methane leaks from oil and gas wells – which is profitable – would cut emissions by more than all global air travel.

Geopolitics is accelerating the energy transition

Geopolitical tensions are driving a push for energy independence, accelerating the growth of renewables. As Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney recently noted, as the international rules-based order and multilateralism fray, countries are realising they must build greater strategic autonomy, including in energy.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, disrupted gas supplies drove prices higher, leaving Europe paying about €650 billion more for fossil fuels than it otherwise would have – around 40% of the cost of building a 95% renewable power system for the continent.

In 2022–23, the EU built 37% more new renewable capacity than the year before, stepped up energy efficiency and electrification, and set out a strategy to cut reliance on Russian gas.

There is strong global momentum for emissions cuts, and renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels while offering energy security. New Zealand should also be strengthening its own energy independence, while moving quickly away from importing fossil fuels.

As the US steps back from multilateral climate action, New Zealand must work with other countries to keep momentum growing: holding to existing treaties, and joining new agreements such as the “roadmap” away from fossil fuels put forward at COP30 in Brazil last year.

At the very least, New Zealand should shoulder its fair share of per-capita emissions reductions if it wants to leave a liveable world for future generations.

Jen Purdie has received government science (MBIE) funding in the past.

– ref. Importing gas locks NZ into fossil fuels for longer – just as clean energy surges – https://theconversation.com/importing-gas-locks-nz-into-fossil-fuels-for-longer-just-as-clean-energy-surges-275548

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirsty Forsdike, Principal Research Fellow and Associate Professor, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University

Research shows gender-based violence in sport is widespread: between a quarter and three-quarters of women within sport report experiencing some form of psychological, physical or sexual violence during their sporting lives.

These experiences happen across all levels of sport and affect not only athletes but also coaches, officials, volunteers and administrators.

And too often, when those affected try to speak up, systems fail them.

Our research team recently examined how reports of gender-based violence in sport are currently experienced and managed.

Based on what we found, we designed a new resource to help sporting organisations handle issues that arise and support victims.

What is gender-based violence in sport?

Gender-based violence can include sexist jokes, humiliation, exclusion from leadership roles, coercive coaching practices, sexual harassment and assault.

These behaviours are often normalised or minimised in sport but their impact is serious: women leave sport, their health is affected, teams dissolve, talent is lost and trust in sporting institutions is eroded.

What our research found

We examined how reports of gender-based violence in sport are currently managed.

We reviewed policies, interviewed women and gender-diverse people who had disclosed gender-based violence in sport, and also interviewed people working in national and state sport integrity and safeguarding roles.

We found policies related to violence in sport to be legalistic, inaccessible and almost entirely gender-blind.

Women and gender-diverse participants shared uncertainty about who to approach, what the process would entail and whether they would be believed.

Some felt re-traumatised by systems meant to support them. One woman told us:

[the sport] never followed any of their own written processes around safety and supporting us. They made promises and then actively went against them. They pretty much gaslit us the whole way.

The people we interviewed said they stayed engaged when listened to, believed and offered choices. When dismissed or blamed, many left – not just the organisation, but sport.

A clear message emerged from those working in integrity and safeguarding roles: many want to do the right thing but are often constrained by unclear policies, limited guidance and support and a lack of training.

They described feeling overwhelmed, unsure of what steps to take and concerned about their organisation’s reputation or getting it wrong.

One person working in integrity and safeguarding roles said:

I’ll be quite candid with you […] they’re protecting the business. They’re not protecting the member.

Another sad:

One time I got one [a report] and I had to run out the door here to throw up. It was just so terrible.

Where current systems fall short

In Australia, Sport Integrity Australia responds to breaches of integrity through the National Integrity Framework and its complaints handling system.

But our research shows when it comes to gender-based violence against adults, significant gaps remain.

While Sport Integrity Australia’s suite of policies include the “safeguarding of children and young people” there is no equivalent for adults.

Also, Sport Integrity Australia can only implement its policies with sports that signed up to its national framework, and only if the issue being reported occurred after the sport signed up.

This means in many cases, gender-based violence against an adult will fall outside of its policies.

In these cases, responsibility falls back to sporting organisations – many of which are under-resourced, unclear about their role or ill-prepared to respond.

For women and gender-diverse people, this often results in confusion, inadequate or inconsistent responses and an increased risk of ongoing harm.

In the absence of sufficient national policy, sport organisations must therefore be better prepared to respond to and address gender-based violence, from the grassroots to elite levels.

Why disclosures so often go wrong

Our research shows reports of gendered violence go wrong not because people don’t care but because systems are not designed with victim-survivors in mind.

Policies are frequently written to protect organisations rather than support those who experience harm.

Reporting pathways mimic legal and criminal justice pathways rather than trauma-informed practices.

Power imbalances – between athletes and coaches, volunteers and boards, players and administrators – are not acknowledged or addressed.

At the same time, those tasked with responding are often unsupported.

Integrity managers, volunteers and administrators told us they regularly absorb traumatic stories without adequate supervision or specialist support and without the ability to address the root causes of the issue. This increases the risk of burnout and turnover.

A practical roadmap for safer responses

In response we developed a practical, evidence-based toolkit designed to help sporting organisations at every level respond better when gender-based violence is reported.

This new guide translates research and best-practice principles from health, trauma and violence-prevention sectors into the sport context in ways that are easy to understand and implement.

It sets out five core principles for good responses:

• making reporting easy

• having clear and fair policies

• supporting choice and autonomy

• responding with care and respect

• committing to ongoing improvement.

It provides concrete tools such as scripts for responding to disclosures, checklists for organisational readiness and a clear roadmap outlining what a good response looks like from first disclosure through to follow-up and review.

Kirsty Forsdike receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the IOC Olympic Studies Centre. She is a board member of Sports Focus, a regional sports assembly for the Loddon Campaspe region of Victoria.

Aurélie Pankowiak currently receives funding from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), Early Career Research Fellowship and the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse. Aurélie received funding form the IOC Olympic Studies Centre for this project.

Mary Woessner receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Movember and the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse. While she did not directly receive funding from the IOC Olympic Studies Centre, she was added as an investigator after the project commenced.

Natalie Galea receives funding from the Ithe IOC Olympic Studies Centre. Natalie is an Australian Olympian.

Samantha Marshall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Australian sport still has a gender-based violence problem. Our new guide might help tackle it – https://theconversation.com/australian-sport-still-has-a-gender-based-violence-problem-our-new-guide-might-help-tackle-it-273214

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karinna Saxby, Senior Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne

Transgender and gender-diverse (“trans”) people have worse mental health compared to the general population. As a result, they’re more likely to use mental health services, such as psychologists and counsellors, and treatments such as antidepressants and anxiety medication.

While there are many contributing factors, including stigma, we know gender dysphoria can play a major role. Gender dysphoria refers to the distress or discomfort some trans people feel about their gender, body, or how others perceive their gender.

Gender-affirming medical care – which may involve hormone therapy or surgery – helps align trans people’s bodies with their gender identity. And evidence shows it can drastically improve trans people’s mental health.

But until now, we haven’t had research that tracks whether this means they actually use mental health services and scripts less.

Our two new studies – one on hormone therapy and one on surgeries – looked at what happens before and after people access gender-affirming medical care.

For the first time, we’ve shown that gender-affirming care dramatically reduces how much people access mental health care – saving Medicare millions.

First, what is gender-affirming medical care?

Trans people may seek out different types and degrees of gender-affirming care.

This can include:

• procedures such as a mastectomy or breast surgery, to masculinise or feminise the appearance of the chest (sometimes known as “top surgery”)

• genital reconstructive surgery (sometimes called “bottom surgery”)

• hormonal treatments, including testosterone and estrogen-based medications.

Not every trans person wants gender-affirming care, but most do.
National survey data suggests around 72% want to access it at some point in their lives.

One 2021 study surveyed 928 trans people, including trans men, trans women and non-binary people. It found 89% of those assigned female at birth had or wanted to have chest surgery, and 82% of those assigned male at birth had or wanted to have genital reconfiguration surgery.

Research consistently finds gender-affirming procedures have very low regret rates (less than 1%) compared to other surgeries, such as knee reconstruction (10%) and cancer procedures (24%).

How do people currently pay for it?

Gender-affirming surgeries aren’t consistently subsidised under Medicare, meaning people who pay for this medical care themselves can incur between $20,000 and $100,000 out-of-pocket.

But the government is considering adding these surgeries to Medicare. This would mean a rebate for certain procedures, although the patient would cover the gap, which could still be many thousands of dollars.

Hormone therapy is listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, meaning patients pay a small co-payment to fill their scripts. Costs vary significantly depending on individuals’ dosages and goals, but the government spends between $79–$278 per person each year.

However, some jurisdictions have recently blocked access to this kind of medical care. Last year, the Northern Territory and Queensland banned hormone therapy for trans people aged under 18, including testosterone, estrogen and puberty blockers.

What we looked at

We know gender-affirming care improves trans people’s quality of life and reduces psychological distress, dysphoria and suicidal thoughts.

So we wanted to see if this would translate to a drop in trans people using mental health care.

We used de-identified Medicare records over a decade (2012–2024) to track how using mental health services and scripts changed for:

• 20,358 trans people (15 years and older) who started estrogen-based hormone therapy
• 11,883 trans people (15 years and older) who started testosterone-based hormone therapy
• 2,872 trans adults who had chest surgery
• 826 trans adults who had genital reconfiguration surgery.

We also adjusted the data for “confounding factors” – differences which could distort results – such as age and socioeconomic background.

What we found

Our data showed that before starting hormone therapy or undergoing surgery, trans people used between 1.6 and 3.6 mental health services (such as psychologist visits or GP mental health plans) each year.

In comparison, the average Australian uses one service every two years. So trans people who sought these types of services used them 3.2–7 times more than average.

But five years after starting hormone therapy, trans people in our data used between 0.3 and 2.6 fewer health services.

If we translate this into reduced psychologist visits using the standard $100 rebate, it means each year, the government spent $30–260 less per person after they started hormones.

In our study on surgery, we were able to look at exact Medicare costs for services and scripts.

When someone had chest surgery, we found the government spent $1,769 less on their mental health care (on average) over the following five years.

For genital surgery, the average mental health care saving per person was $3,416 over the following five years.

What this means

If gender-affirming surgeries are added to Medicare, the average proposed rebates would be $1,328 for chest surgery and $1,195 for genital reconfiguration surgery.

Our findings suggest these one-off costs would be be eclipsed by the reduced government spending on mental health care within 4–5 years.

It’s difficult to know how many Australians are actually trans, as we don’t yet have census data on this.

And we don’t know exactly how many people would access surgeries if they were added to Medicare. But the research mentioned above from 2021 suggests between eight and nine in every ten trans people want or have already had top or bottom surgery.

So we applied those rates to estimate demand for surgery in the sample we observed who were currently on hormone therapy, given people usually take hormones before surgery. Still, this is a conservative estimate.

Our calculations show, if the government paid $1,328 each for 89% of 11,883 trans people to receive top surgery, the total cost would be $14 million. Once we subtract the mental health savings over five years for this group ($18.7 million) this means Medicare would spend $4.6 million less over five years.

The cost for 82% of 20,358 trans people to get bottom surgery (with a $1,195 rebate per person) would be $19.9 million. Once we subtract the mental health savings over five years for this group ($57 million) Medicare would save about $37 million over five years.

This would lead to a total of almost $42 million in savings within five years.

However given the significant unmet need for gender-affirming care this number is likely to be much higher.

Hormone therapy is similarly cost effective. In some cases it offsets the money spent in mental health care and in others it leads to savings.

When trans people have access to gender-affirming medical care, it reduces their distress and vastly improves their quality of life. Now, our findings show there are economic benefits too.

Karinna Saxby has previously received funding from the Department of Health and Aged Care and currently receives funding from the University of Melbourne McKenzie Fellowship. Karinna is a co-founder and committee member of LGBTQ Economists and Allies in the Asia Pacific (LEAP).

Brendan Nolan has received research funding from NHMRC, University of Melbourne, Endocrine Society of Australia, Royal Australasian College of Physicians Foundation and Viertel Charitable Foundation. He is currently a member of the Endocrine Society (US), Endocrine Society of Australia, World Professional Association for Transgender Health and Australian Professional Association for Trans Health.

Clue Coman receives Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship funding through the University of New South Wales.

Dennis Petrie receives funding from Australian Research Council (ARC), National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, VicHealth, Medical Research Future Fund and the National Disability Insurance Agency.

– ref. Funding surgery and hormones for trans people can save Medicare millions: new research – https://theconversation.com/funding-surgery-and-hormones-for-trans-people-can-save-medicare-millions-new-research-274125

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Murray, Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Swinburne University of Technology

School is back and, with it, the daily task of packing a lunchbox.

If your child is coming home with uneaten sandwiches, you’re not alone. They’re easy to make and transport, but sometimes the last thing kids (or adults) want to eat.

The food kids eat at school typically provides at least one-third of their daily energy intake. So a nutritious lunchbox is an important way to support their overall health, as well as their focus and performance at school.

While sandwiches may be an obvious lunchbox choice, there are loads of other options.

What can you pack instead?

If you don’t want to stray too far from the sandwich, but want to change things up, try out sandwich sushi, or a sandwich roll. It uses similar ingredients to a sandwich but in the shape of a sushi roll.

To make sandwich sushi, cut the crusts off, flatten the bread using a rolling pin or your hand. Spread the bread with a dip or other ingredient such as avocado or tuna, fill with ingredients such as sliced cucumber or carrot, then roll and cut it like sushi.

You may also be inspired to try making some sushi rolls. These take a little more preparation, including cooking the sushi rice in advance, but are a great sandwich alternative.

If you want to stick with bread, a roll, wrap or pita pocket may be enough change to keep the lunchbox feeling fresh. You could try out recipes like this chicken and avocado wrap or ham and salad pita pocket.

A frittata is another good option for replacing the sandwich as the main lunchbox meal. Frittatas need to be prepared in advance but can be easily adapted based on ingredients you’ve got in the fridge or cupboard such as cherry tomatoes, mushrooms, baby spinach, roasted pumpkin or frozen corn.

Likewise, a savoury muffin (like these cheesy corn muffins) takes a bit or preparation but can be bulk cooked and portioned in advance to make mornings quick and easy. There are lots of different recipes for savoury muffins, so find one that suits your tastes. This recipe uses zucchini, carrot, peas and corn.

Dinner leftovers can also make great lunchbox meals. Stir fry with noodles, or a hearty salad like this Mexican-style one with beans, can be packed into containers to make a nutritious lunch.

Other salad options include pasta salad or this balsamic bean salad.

To make a salad that’s going to be filling for lunch, try to include some wholegrain carbohydrates (such as brown rice, wholemeal pasta, barley, lentils or quionoa) and a source of protein (such as egg, cheese, tofu, kidney beans or chicken).

Having an insulated lunch box or thermos can help to keep foods hot or cold until lunch time.

What else should a lunchbox include?

A lunchbox is more than just the main meal: a balanced lunchbox should include a main meal, a fruit or vegetable snack, another snack and a drink.

Snack options might include plain popcorn, hard boiled eggs, yoghurt, cheese sticks, crackers and fresh fruit and vegetables (which can be cut into pieces for easier munching).

For a balanced lunchbox, try to include at least one item from each of these food groups:

1. fruit (such as banana, grapes, apple, berries, pear, stone fruit, melon)

2. vegetables (carrots, celery, pumpkin, spinach, tomatoes, cucumber)

3. grain and cereal foods (rice, wholegrain crackers, noodles, bread, wraps)

4. meat or meat alternatives (eggs, nuts, chicken, tuna, lentils, tofu)

5. milk, yoghurt or cheese (or non-dairy alternatives like soy milk)

6. water.

Including foods from each of these groups will help to ensure the right balance of carbohydrates, fats, protein, vitamins and minerals.

Using a lunchbox with multiple compartments can help with packing a small portion of each different food. For example, rice crackers in one compartment, cheese cubes in another, and some cherry tomatoes and mini cucumbers in a third.

Offering variety and keeping portions small can also help to manage fussy eating.

Making it easier for parents

Parents juggle food preferences, logistics, societal expectations, time, nutrition and other pressures.

As a society, we need to better support families to create healthy and sustainable lunchboxes. Research suggests suggests this could include:

• giving students a longer time to eat lunch at school
• teaching students about the value of food
• supporting healthy canteen policies
• restricting marketing to children
• improving the clarity of food labelling.

Some experts also argue we should move to a school-provided lunch program.

These changes can’t be implemented by schools or parents alone but require action across multiple industries and government departments.

In the meantime, it’s important to acknowledge the challenges and value the effort associated with putting together the daily lunchbox.

Margaret Murray does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. My kids (and I) hate sandwiches, what can I pack for lunch instead? – https://theconversation.com/my-kids-and-i-hate-sandwiches-what-can-i-pack-for-lunch-instead-275207