Bio

Masters Student in Community Health and Prevention Research, admitted Winter 2025

Stefan Thottunkal is an Australian medical student, early career researcher and civil servant. His research interests include chronic disease, Native health, and pharmacogenomics. He is particularly interested in pioneering deployment of innovative technologies in clinical settings, utilizing approaches grounded in implementation science. Stefan received an IIE QUAD Fellowship in 2024 to study a Masters of Community Health and Prevention Research at Stanford.

His current work focuses on precision medicine, advancing implementation of pharmacogenomic testing into clinical practice through leveraging machine learning and large language models to enhance clinical decision-making. He is actively seeking collaboration with students and faculty on this transformative project. Particularly those with a background in knowledge-grounded natural language processing and retrieval augmented generation

Stefan has worked on high impact initiatives conducted in collaboration with the WHO Global Outbreak and Response Network, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organization. He is passionate about bridging the gap between research, policy, and practice to drive meaningful change.

As a Research Officer at The National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Well-being Research, Stefan worked on an evidence mapping review exploring implementation of health checks in the prevention and early detection of chronic diseases among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australian primary health care contexts.

Contact

  • Academic
    stefan01@stanford.edu
    University - Student Department: Medicine - Med/Stanford Prevention Research Center Position: Graduate

Additional Info

All Publications

  • Outbreak response capacity of the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network across WHO's South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions. Western Pacific surveillance and response journal : WPSAR Parry, A. E., Campbell, S., Thottunkal, S., Mandal, P. P., Salmon, S. 2024; 15 (5 Spec edition): 1-7

    Abstract

    The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network's (GOARN) mechanism used to rapidly deploy technical support for international responses and highlighted areas that require strengthened capacity within the Network. GOARN's partners in the World Health Organization's (WHO) South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions were engaged to explore their levels of preparedness, readiness and ability to respond to international public health emergencies.Consultative discussions were held and a survey was conducted with GOARN's partners from the two WHO regions. Discussion topics included partners' capacity to support and participate in a GOARN deployment, training, research and collaboration. Descriptive and content analyses were conducted.Barriers to engaging in GOARN's international outbreak response efforts included limited numbers of personnel trained to respond to outbreaks; institutional, financial and administrative hurdles; and limited collaboration opportunities. Partners identified innovative solutions that could strengthen their engagement with deployment, such as financial subsidies, mentorship for less experienced staff, and the ability to provide remote support.GOARN plays an important role in enabling WHO to fulfil its international alert and response duties during disease outbreaks and humanitarian crises that have the potential to spark disease outbreaks. Yet without systematic improvement to strengthen national outbreak capacity and regional connectedness, support for international outbreak responses may remain limited. Thus, it is necessary to integrate novel approaches to support international deployments, as identified in this study.

    View details for DOI 10.5365/wpsar.2024.15.5.1109

    View details for PubMedID 39171201

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC11335431

  • Prevalence of extra-pulmonary tuberculosis in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH Hailu, S., Hurst, C., Cyphers, G., Thottunkal, S., Harley, D., Viney, K., Irwin, A., Dean, J., Nourse, C. 2024; 29 (4): 257-265

    Abstract

    The burden of extra-pulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) is not well quantified in TB endemic countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa. This study aimed to quantify that burden via a systematic review of the prevalence of EPTB in African countries.Studies were retrieved by searching five databases; 105 studies published between 1990 and 2023 were included. The studies described the prevalence of EPTB among the general population (4 studies), TB patients (68) and patients with other conditions, including HIV (15), meningitis (3), renal failure (3) and other comorbidities, some of which are cancer (12). Due to the low number of studies reporting EPTB in patients with conditions other than TB, the meta-analysis was performed on studies reporting on EPTB among TB patients (68 studies). Meta-analysis was performed on the 68 studies (271,073 participants) using a random-effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence of EPTB. Meta-regression was used to explore possible explanations for heterogeneity according to regions and time periods.The pooled prevalence of EPTB among TB patients was 26% (95% CI 23-29%). There was substantial heterogeneity of prevalence for the five African regions. The Eastern region had the highest prevalence of 32% (95% CI 28-37%) and the lowest in Western Africa, 16% (95% CI 10-24%). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of EPTB between the 3 eleven-year time periods.Our systematic review and meta-analysis give insight into the burden of EPTB in Africa. This review could inform clinical and programmatic practices-a higher suspicion index for clinicians and more effort for better services. This could contribute to efforts aiming to end TB, which have historically been focused on PTB.Coordinated efforts that target both EPTB and PTB are needed.

    View details for DOI 10.1111/tmi.13970

    View details for PubMedID 38263374

  • Pain and its interference with daily living in relation to cancer: a comparative population-based study of 16,053 cancer survivors and 106,345 people without cancer BMC CANCER Joshy, G., Khalatbari-Soltani, S., Soga, K., Butow, P., Laidsaar-Powell, R., Koczwara, B., Rankin, N. M., Brown, S., Weber, M., Mazariego, C., Grogan, P., Stubbs, J., Thottunkal, S., Canfell, K., Blyth, F. M., Banks, E. 2023; 23 (1): 774

    Abstract

    Pain is a common, debilitating, and feared symptom, including among cancer survivors. However, large-scale population-based evidence on pain and its impact in cancer survivors is limited. We quantified the prevalence of pain in community-dwelling people with and without cancer, and its relation to physical functioning, psychological distress, and quality of life (QoL).Questionnaire data from participants in the 45 and Up Study (Wave 2, n = 122,398, 2012-2015, mean age = 60.8 years), an Australian population-based cohort study, were linked to cancer registration data to ascertain prior cancer diagnoses. Modified Poisson regression estimated age- and sex-adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) for bodily pain and pain sufficient to interfere with daily activities (high-impact pain) in people with versus without cancer, for 13 cancer types, overall and according to clinical, personal, and health characteristics. The relation of high-impact pain to physical and mental health outcomes was quantified in people with and without cancer.Overall, 34.9% (5,436/15,570) of cancer survivors and 31.3% (32,471/103,604) of participants without cancer reported bodily pain (PR = 1.07 [95% CI = 1.05-1.10]), and 15.9% (2,468/15,550) versus 13.1% (13,573/103,623), respectively, reported high-impact pain (PR = 1.13 [1.09-1.18]). Pain was greater with more recent cancer diagnosis, more advanced disease, and recent cancer treatment. High-impact pain varied by cancer type; compared to cancer-free participants, PRs were: 2.23 (1.71-2.90) for multiple myeloma; 1.87 (1.53-2.29) for lung cancer; 1.06 (0.98-1.16) for breast cancer; 1.05 (0.94-1.17) for colorectal cancer; 1.04 (0.96-1.13) for prostate cancer; and 1.02 (0.92-1.12) for melanoma. Regardless of cancer diagnosis, high-impact pain was strongly related to impaired physical functioning, psychological distress, and reduced QoL.Pain is common, interfering with daily life in around one-in-eight older community-dwelling participants. Pain was elevated overall in cancer survivors, particularly for certain cancer types, around diagnosis and treatment, and with advanced disease. However, pain was comparable to population levels for many common cancers, including breast, prostate and colorectal cancer, and melanoma.

    View details for DOI 10.1186/s12885-023-11214-5

    View details for Web of Science ID 001064533600001

    View details for PubMedID 37700229

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC10498633

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3277-8610