Many of us have heard the saying, “it takes a village to raise a child”. The idea that families need communities of support to raise their children has long resonated.

New research explores how this applies to modern Australian families and communities. We looked at the villages helping raise children and young people and importantly, who has one and who doesn’t.

We found while many benefit from these support networks, other families go without, particularly those who could most do with the help.

Our research

The report is a collaboration between Uniting NSW.ACT and the University of New South Wales’ Social Policy Research Centre.

It expands on previous work that showed Australian families are increasingly diverse, including multi-generational, sole-parent, blended families and foster families.

This work goes beyond the household to look at extended family, friends, neighbours and communities who are also involved in raising children.

Our analysis of 2022 and 2023 Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) data and qualitative interviews with 28 families reveals that Australian villages provide wide-ranging support networks. They are highly dependable and care for one another.

Grandparents, extended family and friends are at the heart of modern Australian villages. About 42% of grandparents actively help care for their grandchildren, such as with child-minding and transport.

Friends are relied on too, often for emotional support through the highs and lows of parenting, with close to three quarters of all families (74%) connecting regularly.

Sole-parent families are most likely to make regular time to see friends.

Families told us a good mix of support is most helpful. While practical help and emotional support matter, parents and carers also value having other trusted adults in their children’s lives who provide cultural connections.

Extended family and community groups play a key role here in sharing language, traditions and stories. As one mother said:

my mum is like […] the big tree that we all sit under. She gives us that shade […] so, when I mean shade, is that she gives us the wisdom […] she tells us a lot of stories from her childhood […] the struggles, just everything that she’s been through. So, my kids listen to that as well.

When it comes to advice on raising children, extended family and friends who have relevant experience offer valuable advice, along with trusted professionals, such as early educators.

Importantly, families with more community connection are less likely to report that they find parenting difficult or exhausting. Only 34% of those with weekly contact with family and friends say that taking care of their children is much more work than pleasure, compared to 43% of those with only monthly contact.

Not everyone has a village

Not everyone can easily build strong social connections outside the family unit. Insecure housing, employment status or additional care responsibilities can negatively affect this.

Families who rent often feel less connected to their local community, with almost two in three (64%) reporting low participation in local social and community events.

Only 40% of families living with someone with a limiting health condition see friends or extended family weekly, compared to almost 50% of families without any care responsibilities.

Of families facing financial stress (they cannot pay for food, heating, utilities or the like), 65% say they seldom take part in community activities, compared to 59% of families with little or no stress.

These families also spend less time with relatives and friends.

Whether someone has a job or not can affect how connected they feel to their community. Our analysis shows 66% of families with no employment were less involved in community activities, and many felt less satisfied with their sense of belonging.

There are differences between family types, too, with 44% of couple-parent families maintaining medium to high levels of community connections. This is more than the 38% of foster and other kin families, 37% of families living with multiple generations, 34% of sole parent families and 31% of step-blended families.

These less connected families are also more likely to have care responsibilities and to experience financial stress.

Giving back

Families value giving back just as much as receiving help from others. They describe their village as a reciprocal network: a dynamic, participatory ecosystem of care.

Often this means supporting ageing parents with doctors’ appointments, technology or just company.

They also help friends, taking turns transporting or minding children, and many reach out to help others in the community. Helping others matters, as one mother said:

I’m not the one that’s just a taker. I always give as well […] I find that I like helping more.

Families born overseas, particularly those from non-English speaking backgrounds, are more likely to volunteer or participate in local groups.

These families also have higher levels of community participation, with 44% reporting moderate participation and 37% regularly attending places of worship.

More support for all

Our research has implications for services supporting families that have few people they can rely on. Families using services want to give something back, too.

Services can respond by attending to the contributions people are able to make, as well as addressing their needs.

But to do this, services must be funded and supported to adopt models which build the connections between families.

Then, instead of support services focusing solely on filling a gap for families, they would enable peer relationships to grow, and provide opportunities for families to share their knowledge and expertise, building more villages for everyone.

Megan Blaxland, Senior Research Fellow, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney; Yuchen Xie, Postdoctoral fellow, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, and Yuvisthi Naidoo, Senior Research Fellow, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

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

The Australian government announced last week there’s a new vaccine for pneumococcal disease on the National Immunisation Program for all children.

This vaccine replaces previously listed pneumococcal vaccines, having been updated to offer better protection against the disease.

So what is pneumococcal disease? And what is this new vaccine?

From meningitis to ear infections

Pneumococcal disease encompasses a range of infections caused by the common bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae, also known as pneumococcus.

Anyone can get pneumococcal disease. However, it’s more common in young children, older people, those with weakened immune systems and certain medical conditions.

The most severe forms of pneumococcal disease are meningitis (inflammation around the brain) and bacteraemia (a bloodstream infection). These are often referred to as invasive pneumococcal disease and can be life-threatening.

Pneumococcus is also responsible for most hospitalisations for bacterial pneumonia, a particular problem in young children and older adults. Another common condition pneumococcus causes in children is middle ear infections (otitis media).

There are more than 100 different strains (called serotypes) of pneumococcus. Some strains frequently cause disease in humans, while others rarely do.

In healthy people, particularly preschool children, pneumococcus can be found in the back of the nose. Often it’s just sitting there, without causing illness – this is known as colonisation. Individuals who are colonised with pneumococcus, particularly young children, spread the bacteria, usually through respiratory droplets.

Invasive pneumococcal disease can occur when a person acquires a new strain and the bacteria travels from the nose to a part of the body where it’s not normally found.

In Australia, health professionals and laboratories must notify state health departments when they encounter cases of invasive pneumococcal disease, and strain data is collected. There were about 2,400 cases reported in 2024, with one-fifth in children.

Pneumococcal vaccines

Vaccines are designed to simulate the natural immune response following infection, ensuring the recipient’s immune system can promptly respond when exposed.

The outer coating of the pneumococcus, called its polysaccharide capsule, is key to our body’s immune response to the bacteria. So pneumococcal vaccines induce immunity against the selected strains’ polysaccharide capsules.

Pneumococcal vaccines have been around for more than 100 years, and have changed and advanced many times.

Current pneumococcal vaccines are multivalent, meaning they protect against multiple strains. Those strains with the greatest tendency to cause disease are chosen to be included.

One type of pneumococcal vaccine is a pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, or PPV. A vaccine containing polysaccharide from 23 different strains (23-valent or 23vPPV) has been recommended to certain Australian children at higher risk from pneumococcal until now.

But while this vaccine provides protection against many strains, these PPVs provide only short-term protection.

Newer vaccines

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) were developed more recently to achieve a stronger immune response. In PCVs, the polysaccharide is linked to a carrier protein, which stimulates other components of the immune system, providing better and longer-lasting protection.

The first PCV to be used in childhood vaccination programs across many countries contained seven strains (7vPCV). This vaccine was first given to all Australian children through the National Immunisation Program in 2005.

Over the years new PCVs were developed, incorporating more strains. In 2011, 13vPCV replaced 7vPCV in Australia’s pneumococcal vaccination program.

Real-world data showed these PCVs were around 90% effective at preventing invasive pneumococcal disease from the targeted strains in Australian children.

But like many bacteria and viruses, pneumococcus continues to evolve. Two new PCVs (15vPCV and 20vPCV) were licensed for use in Australia in recent years.

Based on advice from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, the PCV offered to children on the National Immunisation Program was switched on September 1 from 13vPCV to 20vPCV.

Efficacy and safety

In multiple clinical trials, 20vPCV produced comparable immune responses against the 13 strains it has in common with 13vPCV. It also elicited good immune responses against all seven extra strains.

With its additional strains, 20vPCV is expected to prevent 25–30% more cases of invasive pneumococcal disease in children compared to 13vPCV. It will also prevent more cases of less severe pneumococcal infections such as pneumonia and otitis media in children.

The hidden power of PCVs is they prevent disease in the wider population beyond vaccinated children by reducing pneumococcal colonisation and thereby transmission. These indirect benefits should result in fewer cases of pneumococcal disease overall, including in unvaccinated children and adults.

Trials also showed the 20vPCV has a similarly good safety profile to 13vPCV, which has been used for more than 15 years with no serious concerns.

The World Health Organization recommends PCVs should be part of all routine childhood immunisation programs. This is now the case in 160 countries.

When do children get this vaccine?

The dosing schedule for pneumococcal vaccines has been modified over time in Australia to optimise protection.

Most recently, three doses of 13vPCV were recommended for all children at two, four and 12 months old. An extra dose was given at six months to those at increased risk of pneumococcal disease including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in certain states and territories, and children with underlying medical risk factors.

In addition to four doses of 13vPCV, up to two doses of the older 23vPPV vaccine were given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in certain jurisdictions and children with underlying medical risk conditions to extend protection to more strains.

With the transition to 20vPCV, 13vPCV will be replaced and 23vPPV is no longer required in children, as 20vPCV sufficiently covers all strains currently causing disease.

Three 20vPCV doses are recommended for all infants (at two, four and 12 months). An extra dose at six months is recommended for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children nationally (not just those in selected jurisdictions) and children with specified medical risk conditions.

Children who have been partially vaccinated so far (that is, have received one or two doses of 13vPVC) can complete their routine schedule with 20vPCV without extra doses.

These changes broaden the protection offered and simplify pneumococcal vaccine recommendations. While nine in ten children receive three or more doses of pneumococcal vaccine, it’s hoped these changes will lead to even better compliance from both parents and providers, and fewer cases of pneumococcal disease.

Christopher Blyth, Paediatrician, Infectious Diseases Physician and Clinical Microbiologist, The Kids Research Institute Australia, The University of Western Australia and Sanjay Jayasinghe, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance; Conjoint Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney; NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, University of Sydney

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

Australia is now meeting the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines on sugar, which recommend keeping sugar below 10% of daily energy intake.

New data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows there is less sugar in our diet from food and drinks than three decades ago.

In 1995, sugar – either added to foods or drinks by manufacturers, or found naturally in honey and fruit juices – made up about 12.5% of the energy (or kilojoules) we ate each day. This dropped to 10.9% in 2011–12 and then to 8.2% in 2023, even though our energy intake from all food and drink was down by less than 5%.

Importantly, we are now drinking far fewer sugary drinks than we were in the past. This includes drinks sweetened with sugar or artificial sweeteners, or both, such as soft drinks, cordials, fruit juices and energy drinks.

In 2011–12, around 42% of us had at least one of these drinks daily. By 2023, this fell to under 29%.

In 1995, almost three in four children (72%) drank a sugary drink every day. By 2023, this had dropped to just one in four (25%).

So, what’s behind this trend? And will it continue? Let’s take a look at the data.

Why the fuss about sugar?

We have known for a long time that having a lot of sugar is not ideal for our health. Sugary drinks and foods are considered discretionary or “sometimes” foods, because they provide little nutritional benefit while contributing excess energy or “empty calories” to our diet.

Having a lot of sugar in our diet can increase our risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes and tooth decay. Sweetened drinks don’t fill us up like regular meals, making it easy to underestimate the energy being consumed.

Most soft drinks contain about 40 grams (ten teaspoons) of sugar per serve, close to the daily recommended limit. Energy drinks may contain up to double that amount, while sports drinks may contain slightly less.

Three decades of data

The ABS asked whether people had drunk sugary drinks the day before, as well as collecting data about their daily diets. Here are some key takeaways:

• between 1995 and 2023, there was a 65.28% drop in the proportion of children drinking sugary drinks

• the number of adults drinking sugary drinks fell from 40.2% in 2011–12 to 29.9% in 2023

• but adults still consume about 5% more sugary drinks than children

• on average, Australians have less sugar in their diet than they did a decade ago.

This change isn’t just about soft drinks. We’re also reducing the amount of sugar in our tea and coffee, eating fewer lollies and desserts, and reaching for fruit juice a little less often.

Some of the most significant changes have been in Australian children. In the mid-1990s, children were getting almost one-fifth of their daily energy from sugar. Today that figure is closer to only one-eighth, and our overall energy intake is quite similar.

What’s behind the change?

The new data suggests that efforts from individuals, families, communities and some food manufacturers to reduce sugar intake over the past few years may be working.

This drop in sugary drinks may reflect a growing awareness of the negative effects of sugar due to social media campaigns, as well as clearer labelling on food and beverage products, increased public messaging, and industry changes, such as more brands offering lower-sugar alternatives.

But progress is only part of the story

Even though people are consuming less sugar, obesity rates continue to climb in kids and adults.

Researchers suggest this shows sugar is just one part of the story and that overall diet quality and broader eating patterns also play a big role in our health, rather than focusing on sugar alone.

Discretionary foods – including snacks, chips, convenience meals, chocolate and other highly processed foods – still make up around a third (31.3%) of the average Australian diet.

This means many of us are still regularly having sweet drinks and highly processed foods. Overall, these foods chip away at Australia’s recent progress by offering new and different sources of added sugars and excess energy that are still considered empty calories and carry their own health risks with little nutrition.

What should we do next?

The new data shows signs of real improvement in tackling the amount of sugar in our diets. But we aren’t in the clear yet.

To turn these positive trends about sugar into sustained improvements, we need to consider:

• stronger government action to support all communities in tackling broader challenges in the food system, such as food insecurity and limited access to healthy food, often leading to people eating more highly processed foods

• policies such as sugary drink taxes (used abroad with success), restrictions on marketing junk food to kids, and clear front-of-pack labels

• more incentives for industry to reformulate products to lower-sugar options where possible

• education campaigns to help communities and schools where high-sugar habits remain common learn about healthy alternatives without shame and stigma

• further data collection, so we can understand where sugar in diet comes from, beyond sugary drinks.

Although Australia may be losing its historically “sweet tooth”, ensuring a lasting change will take continued effort.

Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland; Emily Burch, Accredited Practising Dietitian and Lecturer, Southern Cross University, and Mackenzie Derry, PhD Candidate in Nutrition, The University of Queensland

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

Even a single night of sleep trouble can feel distressing and lonely. You toss and turn, stare at the ceiling, and wonder how you’ll cope tomorrow. No wonder many people start to worry they’ve developed insomnia.

Insomnia is one of the most talked-about sleep problems, but it’s also one of the most misunderstood.

But just because you can’t sleep, it doesn’t mean you have insomnia. You might have another sleep disorder, or none at all.

What is insomnia?

Let’s clear up some terms, and separate short-term or intermittent sleep problems from what health professionals call “insomnia disorder”.

Sleep problems can involve being awake when you want to be asleep. This could be lying in bed for ages trying to fall asleep, waking in the middle of the night for hours, or waking up too early. Having a sleep problem is a subjective experience – you don’t need to tally up lost hours to prove it’s a problem.

But insomnia disorder is the official term to describe a more problematic and persistent pattern of sleep difficulties. And this long-term or chronic sleep disorder has clear diagnostic criteria. These include at least three nights a week of poor sleep, lasting three months or more. These criteria help researchers and clinicians make sure they’re talking about the same thing, and not confusing it with another sleep problem.

So, what are some reasons why a sleep problem might not be insomnia?

1. It’s short term, or comes and goes

About a third of adults will have a bout of “acute insomnia” in a given year. This short-term problem is typically triggered by stress, illness or big life changes.

The good news is that about 72% of people with acute insomnia return to normal sleep after a few weeks.

Insomnia disorder is a longer-term, persistent problem.

2. It doesn’t affect you the next day

Some people lie awake at night but still function well during the day. More fragmented and less refreshing sleep is also a near-universal part of ageing.

So if your sleep problem doesn’t significantly affect you the next day, it usually isn’t considered to be insomnia.

For people with insomnia, the struggle with sleep spills into the day and affects their mood, energy, concentration and wellbeing. Worry and distress about not sleeping can then make the problem worse, which creates a frustrating cycle of worrying and not sleeping.

3. It’s more about work or caring

If you feel tired during the day, an important question is whether you’re giving yourself enough time to sleep. Sometimes sleep problems reflect a “sleep opportunity” that is too short or too irregular.

Work schedules, child care, or late-night commitments can cut sleep short, and sleep can slip down the priority list. In these cases, the problem is insufficient sleep, not insomnia.

You might have noisy neighbours or an annoying cat. These can also affect your sleep, and reduce your “sleep opportunity”.

The average healthy adult gets around seven hours sleep (though this varies widely). For someone who needs seven, it usually means setting aside about eight to allow for winding down, drifting off, and waking overnight.

4. It’s another sleep disorder

Other sleep disorders can look like insomnia, such as:

• obstructive sleep apnoea (when your breathing stops multiple times during sleep) can cause frequent awakenings through the night and daytime sleepiness

• restless legs syndrome creates an irresistible urge to move your legs in the evening that often interferes with falling asleep. It’s often described as jittery feelings or having “creepy crawlies”, and is often undiagnosed

• circadian rhythm problems, such as being a natural night owl in an early-bird world, can also lead to trouble falling asleep.

5. Medications and substances are interfering

Caffeine, alcohol and nicotine all create insomnia symptoms and worsen the quality of sleep.

Certain medications can also interfere with sleep, such as stimulants (for conditions such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or ADHD) and beta-blockers (for various heart conditions).

These issues need to be considered before labelling the problem as insomnia. However, it’s important to keep taking your medication as prescribed and discuss any concerns with your doctor.

Getting the right help

If your sleep is worrying you, the best first step is to see your GP. They can help rule out other causes, review your medications, or refer you for a sleep study if needed.

However, once insomnia becomes frequent, chronic (long term) and distressing, you can worry too much about your sleep, constantly check or track your sleep, or try too hard to sleep, for instance by spending too much time in bed. These psychological and behavioural mechanisms can backfire, and make good sleep even less likely.

That’s why “cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia” (or CBT-I) is recommended as the first-line treatment.

This is more effective, and longer-lasting than sleeping pills. This therapy is available via specially trained GPs, and sleep psychologists. You can take part in person or online.

In the meantime

If you’re in a rough patch of sleep:

• remind yourself that short runs of poor sleep usually settle on their own

• avoid lying in bed panicking if you wake at 3.30am. Instead, step out of bed or use the time in a way that feels restful

• keep a consistent wake-up time, even after a poor night. Try to get some morning sunlight to reset your body clock

• make sure you’re putting aside the right amount of time for sleep – not too little, not too much.

Amelia Scott, Honorary Affiliate and Clinical Psychologist at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, and Macquarie University Research Fellow, Macquarie University

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

It’s a quiet morning. You lace up your shoes, step outside and begin a brisk morning stroll. But as you take those first few steps, there it is, a faint grinding noise, almost like the crunch of gravel underfoot, except … the sound is coming from your knee!

Thinking back, you recall noticing a similar sound as you were walking up the stairs last week. You pause, do some quick stretches and continue walking. But the grinding sound quickly returns.

A wave of dread follows: Is there something wrong with my knee? Is that bone-on-bone? Am I getting arthritis?

This is a common experience for people of all ages. Before you hit the panic button, let’s unpack what these noisy knees – known in medical terms as “knee crepitus” – might really mean.

What is knee crepitus? How common is it?

Knee crepitus refers to the audible crackling, creaking or grinding sounds that occur when you bend or straighten your knee. You might hear it when climbing stairs, standing up from a chair, or even just as you walk.

Surprisingly, we don’t know what actually causes knee crepitus. Theories suggest these knee joint noises may be attributed to damaged knee cartilage, tendons moving over bones, or the popping of normal gas bubbles in the fluid surrounding the knee.

But current scientific evidence is insufficient to confidently determine the origin of this common symptom.

Our recent review of the 103 studies of knee crepitus (involving 36,439 people) found 41% of people in the general population had noisy knees.

There is a common perception that this crackling, creaking or grinding noise is a sign of a damaged or arthritic knee. However 36% of people who had no pain and had never injured their knee also had knee crepitus.

So, knee crepitus is common across the population, including among people with no knee problems at all.

But I heard it’s an early sign of arthritis…

Having knee crepitus can create worry, and make people fearful of exercising and using their knees. People often ask: Am I causing further damage to my knees? Does this mean I’m going to get arthritis?

Noisy knees are more common among older adults with arthritis: 81% of people with osteoarthritis have knee crepitus.

However, knee crepitus isn’t always a sign of impending knee problems and shouldn’t stop you from exercising and using your knees. In a study of 3,495 older adults (mean age 61 years), two-thirds of people who reported “always” having knee crepitus did not develop symptomatic osteoarthritis over the next four years.

If you’re a younger adult with a previous knee injury, the story is much the same: knee crepitus is still common, particularly after a knee injury, but it’s not always a sign of underlying problems.

Our recent study looked at 112 young adults (with a median age of 28) who had a previous knee injury requiring surgery. We found those with knee crepitus were twice as likely to have cartilage damage (particularly in the kneecap area) in the first year post-surgery. However, having knee crepitus did not mean worse outcomes in the future.

It seems that while those with knee crepitus may experience worse pain and symptoms in the early stages following knee injury, this does not translate to worse recovery or greater rates of osteoarthritis over the long term.

What should I do about my noisy knees?

Given noisy knees are common in those without knee pain, injury or arthritis, you generally shouldn’t be concerned. Yes, your knees might wake your baby as you step away from their cot, and perhaps a quiet yoga studio might draw focus on your knees, but generally speaking, if it’s not painful, it’s nothing to worry about.

Unfortunately, there are no effective treatments for knee crepitus. The best advice is to keep doing the things that help to improve overall knee health: getting regular exercise, both aerobic and resistance-based, and achieving and maintaining a healthy body weight.

Just be cautious about sourcing information online, as more than half of the advice available on the internet about knee clicking isn’t supported by research.

So, when should you be concerned?

Although knee crepitus is often benign, there are circumstances where you could consult your health-care provider. This includes if your noisy knees are:

• accompanied by pain, swelling, instability, or locking

• associated with other signs of arthritis, such as stiffness, redness, or reduced mobility.

In such cases, a health-care provider may recommend a physical assessment to examine structures in and around the knee joint, and evaluate the impact of your symptoms on your quality of life and participation in activities.

The clinician may recommend:

• physiotherapy and exercise to strengthen supporting muscles
• seeing a dietitian for advice about weight management
• anti-inflammatory medication.

Most importantly, creaky knees alone, without other symptoms, are not normally cause for concern. So, lace up those shoes and keep moving.

Jamon Couch, Lecturer, Department of Microbiology, Anatomy, Physiology & Pharmacology, and PhD Candidate, La Trobe University and Adam Culvenor, Senior Research Fellow in Sport and Exercise Medicine, La Trobe University

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

Have you recently cut down on caffeine and feel like you’re having the most vivid dreams of your life?

While there are a number of potential benefits of reducing our caffeine intake – such as whiter teeth and fewer trips to the toilet – we often hear one downside of cutting back on caffeine is the emergence of vivid (and sometimes scary) dreams.

It’s a strange and specific effect that many people say kicks in within days of reducing caffeine intake.

But is there actually any science behind this? Let’s look at what the research can tell us.

How caffeine affects sleep

Caffeine is a stimulant that makes us feel alert and awake. It works by blocking a chemical in our brain called adenosine.

Adenosine usually builds up during the day while we’re awake and active. By the evening, the build-up of adenosine in our brains helps us to feel sleepy. Adenosine gets cleared away while we sleep and we wake ideally feeling refreshed, ready for the adenosine to build up again.

When we have caffeine, it blocks adenosine’s signal. So, while the adenosine is still there, we don’t feel the sleepiness as strongly. When the caffeine wears off, our urge to sleep increases (the caffeine crash).

Caffeine has a half-life of around three to six hours, meaning half the caffeine we consume is still in our body after this time and, importantly, still affecting adenosine. That’s why, for many people, having caffeine in the afternoon or evening can make it harder to fall asleep at night.

By interfering with our adenosine signalling, caffeine can also make our sleep more disrupted and reduce the overall amount of sleep we get. This is especially true for our deep, restorative non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep. Overall, the research clearly shows the later we have caffeine and the more we have, the worse it is for our sleep.

There’s not a lot of direct research on whether cutting down on caffeine makes our dreams more vivid. Most studies focus on how caffeine affects sleep rather than what happens in our dreams.

But that doesn’t mean we’re totally in the dark. We know sleep quality and dreaming are closely linked.

So why might less caffeine = more vivid dreams?

Even though there’s no direct proof, people keep saying the same thing: they cut back on caffeine and within a few nights, their dreams start feeling more vivid, detailed, or just plain weird.

While cutting back on caffeine will not directly cause vivid dreams, there is a plausible link. Since caffeine can reduce total sleep and increase night-time wake-ups, especially when consumed later in the day, cutting back can let our body “rebound”. When we get more sleep, this can increase the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep we get.

REM is a phase of sleep when our body is relaxed but our brain is very active. It’s also the stage of sleep associated with dreams. More REM sleep can mean more opportunity for our brain to produce vivid and elaborate dreams.

REM sleep is also the stage of sleep we are most likely to wake up from during the night, and if we wake up from REM sleep we are likely to remember our dreams, because they are “fresh” in our memory.

So, cutting back on caffeine can mean we get more REM sleep, which means more opportunity to dream and more opportunity to remember our dreams.

Of course, sleep is complex and so are dreams. Not everyone will suddenly have vivid dreams after ditching caffeine, and the effect might only last for a few days or weeks.

The bottom line is there’s not a lot of hard evidence linking cutting back on caffeine to vivid dreams, but there could be an association. Caffeine affects our sleep. Sleep affects our dreaming. And when we take caffeine out of the equation, or reduce it, this might give our brain a chance to spend more time in REM sleep.

It’s all in the timing

When we think of caffeine, we commonly think of coffee and energy drinks. But caffeine can also be found in certain fizzy drinks, chocolate, tea, pre-workout supplements and medications.

Caffeine has a number of benefits, including for cognitive function and mental health. For example, some studies have shown coffee drinkers have a lower risk of depression, while caffeine has been associated with a reduced risk of neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease. Coffee also contains B vitamins and antioxidants which are essential components of a healthy diet.

For shiftworkers, particularly those working at night, caffeine is often a way to manage fatigue. And even those of us who don’t do shift work may not be able to get stuck into the day’s tasks without that first (or second) cup of coffee.

If you’re not keen to cut out caffeine completely, but want to optimise your sleep, it’s all in the timing. Try avoiding caffeine for at least eight hours before bedtime, and steer clear of big doses within 12 hours of bedtime. Your sleep may thank you and your dreams may just surprise you.

Charlotte Gupta, Sleep Researcher, Appleton Institute, HealthWise Research Group, CQUniversity Australia and Carissa Gardiner, Postdoctoral Research Fellow - Sports Performance, Recovery, Injury, and New Technologies, Australian Catholic University

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

Around one in eight (1.3 million) Australian households experienced food insecurity in 2023. This means they didn’t always have enough money to buy the amount or quality of food they needed for an active and healthy life.

The data, released on Friday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), show food insecurity is now a mainstream public health and equity challenge.

When funds are tight, food budgets suffer

The main driver of food insecurity in Australia is financial pressure.

Housing costs and energy bills expenses consume much of household income, leaving food as the most flexible part of the budget.

When money runs short, families cut back on groceries, buy cheaper but less nutritious food, skip meals, or rely on food charities.

These strategies come at the expense of nutrition, health and wellbeing.

Inflation has added further pressure. The cost of food has risen substantially over the past two years, with groceries for a family of four costing around $1,000 per fortnight.

Who is most affected?

Not all households are affected equally. Single parents face the highest rates of food insecurity, with one in three (34%) struggling to afford enough food.

Families with children are more vulnerable (16%) than those without (8%).

Group households, often made up of students or young workers, are also heavily affected at 28%.

Rates are even higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households, where 41% report food insecurity.

Income remains a defining factor. Nearly one in four (23.2% of) households in the lowest income bracket experience food insecurity, compared with just 3.6% in the highest.

These headline numbers are only part of the story. Past research shows higher risks of food insecurity for some other groups:

• rural and remote communities face higher food prices and limited outlets. Some areas are becoming “food deserts” where affordable, nutritious food simply isn’t available

• university students and young adults juggle unstable work and housing costs while studying

• temporary residents are often excluded from available supports

• culturally and linguistically diverse households can struggle to access affordable, culturally appropriate food.

While the ABS survey can not provide local breakdowns, it will also be important to know which states and territories have higher rates of food insecurity, to better inform state-level responses.

What are the impacts?

Food insecurity is both a symptom and a cause of poor health.

It leads to poorer quality diets, as households cut back on fruit, vegetables and protein-rich foods that spoil quickly. Instead, they may rely on processed items that are cheaper, more filling and keep for longer.

The ongoing stress of worrying about not having enough food takes a toll on mental health and increases social isolation.

Together these pressures increase the risk of chronic diseases including diabetes, heart disease and some cancers.

For children, not having enough food affects concentration, learning and long-term development.

Breaking this cycle means recognising that improving health depends on improving food security. Left unaddressed, food insecurity deepens existing inequalities across generations.

What can we do about it?

We already know the solutions to food insecurity and they are evidence-based.

Strengthening income support by increasing the amount of JobSeeker and other government payments is crucial. This would ensure households have enough money to cover food alongside other essentials.

Investment in universal school meals, such as free lunch programs, can guarantee children at least one nutritious meal a day.

Policies that make healthy food more affordable and available in disadvantaged areas are also important, whether through subsidies, price regulation, or support for local retailers.

Community-based approaches, such as food co-operatives where members share bulk-buying power and social supermarkets that sell donated or surplus food at low cost can help people buy cheaper food. However, they cannot be a substitute for systemic reform.

Finally, ongoing monitoring of food insecurity must be embedded in national health and social policy frameworks so we can track progress over time. The last ABS data on food insecurity was collected ten years ago, and we cannot wait another decade to understand how Australians are faring.

The National Food Security Strategy is being developed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with guidance from a new National Food Council. It provides an opportunity to align these actions, set measurable targets and ensure food security is addressed at a national scale.

Food insecurity is widespread and shaped by disadvantage, with serious health consequences. The question is no longer whether food insecurity exists, but whether Australia will act on the solutions.

Katherine Kent, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Wollongong

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

Rupert Murdoch has succeeded in securing his vision for the future of News Corporation, the global media empire he has always thought of as his family business.

To achieve this, he has torn apart his family. He has also ensured his media outlets, especially Fox News, remain committed to his hard right-wing views.

With hindsight, this deal was inevitable. The 94-year-old mogul had just one remaining job to do as chairman emeritus of News Corp: to ensure that when he dies, the company he built and moulded remains in his image.

This announcement says he has found a way, which may give him some comfort but is profoundly disappointing to anyone who cares about public interest journalism.

There’s no longer any prospect of his children from his first and second marriages, Prudence, Elisabeth and James, who are now known as the “departing beneficiaries”, staging a coup after his death to wrest control from Rupert’s chosen successor and elder son Lachlan, who has headed News Corporation and Fox Corporation since Murdoch stepped aside in 2023.

Lachlan has taken a lesson from Rupert’s dealmaking playbook. He has thrown money at the problem by paying his three siblings more than he had previously offered for their respective shares. According to The New York Times, the three siblings will receive US$1.1 billion (A$1.7 billion) each for all their shares in the company.

Their agreement brings an end to the bitter battle the three siblings fought with their father and brother over the latter’s infamous attempt to revoke a seemingly irrevocable trust created at the end of Murdoch’s longest marriage, of 32 years, to Anna Murdoch (now Anna Maria dePeyster).

She had hated how her husband pitted their children against one another in the battle for succession, so she negotiated an agreement that would give each of the four children from the first two marriages a vote in the family trust. It also ensured Rupert retained enough votes in the trust so he could not be outvoted by his four (voting) children.

When Rupert anointed Lachlan his successor, upsetting the others, speculation was aired that when Rupert died, and his votes with him, the three siblings might oust Lachlan as chief executive and take control of the company. Worse, in Rupert’s eyes, they might change the editorial direction of the company, in particular Fox News.

That is what has changed. The family trust has also been re-engineered with an increased lifespan from 2030 to 2050, and folds in Murdoch’s daughters from his third marriage, to Wendi Deng – Grace and Chloe. This shores up the trust so they can’t sell out and dilute Lachlan’s shareholding.

Under the deal, a new company called Holdco, owned by Lachlan, Grace and Chloe, will own all the remaining shares of News Corp and Fox Corporation that previously had been held by the Murdoch family trust. The departing beneficiaries will sell their personal holdings in News Corp and Fox so none of them has any interest in either business. What’s more, they’ve agreed to a standstill clause that prevents them or their affiliates buying back in.

In 2019 alone, the company News Corporation made a reported US$71 billion (A$107 billion) from the sale of its entertainment assets to Disney. After that sale, the children were each given US$2 billion (just over A$3 billion).

Having already been referred to in the litigation as “white, privileged, multi billionaire trust-fund babies”, the three departing siblings have been made even wealthier by this agreement.

It was announced in a company press release on September 8 with an uncharacteristically sedate headline: “News Corp announces resolution of Murdoch family trust matter”.

It appears the decision to settle was in part driven by signals emanating from the probate court in Reno, which last year ruled in favour of Prudence, Elisabeth and James. Recently, however, the presiding appellate judge, Lynne Jones, appeared supportive of Rupert and Lachlan, saying “Who knows better than Rupert Murdoch the strengths and weaknesses of his family and his children?”

This may have weakened the three children’s bargaining power and forced them to accept some sort of buyout.

James may have contributed to this by granting an interview to The Atlantic which was published in February, in which he was highly critical of his father and gave away inside information from the probate hearings. Rupert and Lachlan’s lawyers pushed for James to be punished, a move that appeared to have support from the Reno court.

Clearly it was wishful thinking to believe Prudence, Elisabeth and James would stage a takeover and restore sensible programming to the Murdoch media. But it remains an irony, in a case replete with them, that it was James’ candid comments in an insightful 13,000-word profile casting much-needed light on a notoriously secretive family, which weakened the three siblings’ bargaining position.

Those comments helped ensure Rupert, and ultimately Lachlan, will be able to continue running their media empire as they see fit. Initially, that will mean little change, which is of course the problem. If News mastheads and Fox News continue as they have, we can look forward to more coverage denying the need to urgently act on climate change, more distortion of important issues and more support for assaults on democracy by the Trump administration. This is the kind of content that prompted James, if not all of the departing beneficiaries, to protest in the first place.

At least now we know the answer to this question: What choice would three multi billionaires make if they were offered another billion dollars each or the opportunity to transform a global media business for the better?

Andrew Dodd, Professor of Journalism, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne and Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

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

The Australian government has announced plans to ban “nudify” tools and hold tech platforms accountable for failing to prevent users from accessing them.

This is part of the government’s overall strategy to move towards a “digital duty of care” approach to online safety. This approach places legal responsibility on tech companies to take proactive steps to identify and prevent online harms on their platforms and services.

So how will the nudify ban happen in practice? And will it be effective?

How are nudify tools being used?

Nudify or “undress” tools are available on app stores and websites. They use artificial intelligence (AI) methods to create realistic but fake sexually explicit images of people.

Users can upload a clothed, everyday photo which the tool analyses and then digitally removes the person’s clothing by putting their face onto a nude body (or what the AI “thinks” the person would look like naked).

The problem is that nudify tools are easy to use and access. The images they create can also look highly realistic and can cause significant harms, including bullying, harassment, distress, anxiety, reputational damage and self-harm.

These apps – and other AI tools used to generate image-based abuse material – are an increasing problem.

In June this year, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner revealed that reports of deepfakes and other digitally altered images of people under 18 have more than doubled in the past 18 months.

In the first half of 2024, 16 nudify websites that were named in a lawsuit issued by the San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu were visited more than 200 million times.

In a July 2025 study, 85 nudify websites had a combined average of 18.5 million visitors for the preceding six months. Some 18 of the websites – which rely on tech services such as Google’s sign-on system, or Amazon and Cloudflare’s hosting or content delivery services – made between US$2.6 million and $18.4 million in the past six months.

Aren’t nudify tools already illegal?

For adults, sharing (or threatening to share) non-consensual deepfake sexualised images is a criminal offence under most Australian state, federal and territory laws. But aside from Victoria and New South Wales, it is not currently a criminal offence to create digitally generated intimate images of adults.

For children and adolescents under 18, the situation is slightly different. It’s a criminal offence not only to share child sexual abuse material (including fictional, cartoon or fake images generated using AI), but also to create, access, possess and solicit this material.

Developing, hosting and promoting the use of these tools for creating either adult or child content is not currently illegal in Australia.

Last month, independent federal MP Kate Chaney introduced a bill that would make it a criminal offence to download, access, supply or offer access to nudify apps and other tools of which the dominant or sole purpose is the creation of child sexual abuse material.

The government has not taken on this bill. It instead wants to focus on placing the onus on technology companies.

How will the nudify ban actually work?

Minister for Communications, Anika Wells, said the government will work closely with industry to figure out the best way to proactively restrict access to nudify tools.

At this point, it’s unclear what the time frames are or how the ban will work in practice. It might involve the government “geoblocking” access to nudify sites, or directing the platforms to remove access (including advertising links) to the tools.

It might also involve transparency reporting from platforms on what they’re doing to address the problem, including risk assessments for illegal and harmful activity.

But government bans and industry collaboration won’t completely solve the problem.

Users can get around geographic restrictions with VPNs or proxy servers. The tools can also be used “off the radar” via file-sharing platforms, private forums or messaging apps that already host nudify chatbots.

Open-source AI models can also be fine-tuned to create new nudify tools.

What are tech companies already doing?

Some tech companies have already taken action against nudify tools.

Discord and Apple have removed nudify apps and developer accounts associated with nudify apps and websites.

Meta also bans adult content, including AI-generated nudes. However, Meta came under fire for inadvertently promoting nudify apps through advertisements – even though those ads violate the company’s standards. The company recently filed a lawsuit against Hong Kong nudify company CrushAI, after the company ran more than 87,000 ads across Meta platforms in violation of Meta’s rules on non-consensual intimate imagery.

Tech companies can do much more to mitigate harms from nudify and other deepfake tools. For example, they can ensure guardrails are in place for deepfake generators, remove content more quickly, and ban or suspend user accounts.

They can restrict search results and block keywords such as “undress” or “nudify”, issue “nudges” or warnings to people using related search terms, and use watermarking and provenance indicators to identify the origins of images.

They can also work collaboratively together to share signals of suspicious activity (for example, advertising attempts) and share digital hashes (a unique code like a fingerprint) of known image-based abuse or child sexual abuse content with other platforms to prevent recirculation.

Education is also key

Placing the onus on tech companies and ensuring they are held accountable to reduce the harms from nudify tools is important. But it’s not going to stop the problem.

Education must also be a key focus. Young people need comprehensive education on how to critically examine and discuss digital information and content, including digital data privacy, digital rights and respectful digital relationships.

Digital literacy and respectful relationships education shouldn’t be based on shame and fear-based messaging but rather on affirmative consent. That means giving young people the skills to recognise and negotiate consent to receive, request and share intimate images, including deepfake images.

We need effective bystander interventions. This means teaching bystanders how to effectively and safely challenge harmful behaviours and how to support victim-survivors of deepfake abuse.

We also need well-resourced online and offline support systems so victim-survivors, perpetrators, bystanders and support persons can get the help they need.

If this article has raised issues for you, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit the eSafety Commissioner’s website for helpful online safety resources. You can also contact Lifeline crisis support on 13 11 14 or text 0477 13 11 14, Suicide Call Back Services on 1300 659 467, or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800 (for young people aged 5-25). If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, call the police on 000.

Nicola Henry, Professor, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, & Deputy Director, Social Equity Research Centre, RMIT University

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