Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add filters

Language
Year range
1.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine ; 205(1), 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1927815

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) comprises a heterogeneous group of diseases affecting the lung interstitium often associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The Australasian Interstitial Lung Disease Registry (AILDR) launched in 2016 with the concurrent aims to: a) provide a valuable resource for high quality ILD research to further understanding of ILD and b) improve care for ILD patients across Australia and NZ. Consisting initially of four pilot sites, over time the registry has expanded to 21 sites across Australasia. Methods: Consecutive ILD patients attending any of the registered ILD centres across Australia and NZ are eligible to enrol in the AILDR following provision of informed consent. Comprehensive data including demographics, ILD diagnosis, objective functional markers (baseline and subsequent tests) and treatment parameters are collected and stored on a secure online platform. We report data from the AILDR since initiation in May 2016 to 30th September 2021 inclusive. Results: In total 2140 participants were enrolled from 16 sites at a mean rate of 43/month (mean age 65.8±13.3years;1185 (55.4%) male;982 (45.9%) ever-smokers;mean BMI 29.4±5.9kg/m2). Baseline functional parameters demonstrated mean FVC 85.6±21.7% predicted, mean DLCO 60.5±19.4%predicted, and mean six-minute walk test (6MWT) distance 434.3±126.5metres. ILD diagnoses included: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) n=545 (30.3%), connective tissue disease associated ILD (CTD-ILD) n=326 (18.1%), chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (CHP) n=155 (8.6%), sarcoidosis n=120 (6.7%) and unclassifiable ILD n=190 (10.6%). Patients with IPF were more likely to be male (n=403, 73.9%, p<0.001) and older (72.6±8.3years, p<0.001) compared to all other ILD subtypes. A female predominance was observed for CHP (n=92, 59%, p=0.001) and CTD-ILD (n=206, 63%, p<0.001). Baseline functional parameters were lowest for those with CHP (FVC 76.8±22.4% predicted, DLCO 54.1±16.9% predicted), significantly lower comparable to the IPF group (FVC 84.8±19.6%predicted, DLCO 58.7±17.8%predicted, p<0.001). The highest baseline functional parameters were observed in those with sarcoidosis. Conclusion: We demonstrate the feasibility of a bi-national ILD registry evidenced by steady recruitment despite the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, lower functional baseline parameters were detected in the CHP group suggesting priority research should be afforded to this group. Through a routine approach across Australasia, the AILDR aims to improve standardisation of diagnosis and management of ILD patients.

2.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine ; 56(SUPP 1):S322-S322, 2022.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1848876
3.
Respirology ; 27:217-217, 2022.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1762752
4.
PubMed; 2021.
Preprint in English | PubMed | ID: ppcovidwho-8057

ABSTRACT

Background Public health emergencies - such as the 2020 COVID19 pandemic -accelerate the need for both evidence generation and rapid dissemination and implementation (D&I) of evidence where it is most needed. In this paper, we reflect on how D&I frameworks and methods can be pragmatic (i.e., relevant to real-world context) tools for rapid and iterative planning, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of evidence to address public health emergencies. The Pragmatic, Rapid, and Iterative D&I (PRIDI) Cycle : The PRIDI Cycle is based on a "double-loop" learning process, reflecting the iterative and adaptive D&I, along with iterative re-consideration of goals and priorities, interventions and corresponding D&I strategies, and needs and capacities of individuals and contexts. Stakeholder engagement is essential- which itself is an evolving activity. The results of iterative evaluations should be communicated with local implementers and stakeholders through customized feedbacks. Conclusion Even when the health system priority is provision of the best care to the individuals in need, and scientists are focused on development of effective diagnostic and therapeutic technologies, planning for D&I is critical. Without a flexible and adapting process of D&I, which is responsive to emerging evidence generation cycles, and is closely connected to stakeholders and target users through engagement and feedback, the interventions to mitigate public health emergencies - such as the COVID19 pandemic - will have limited reach and impact on populations that would most benefit. The PRIDI cycle is intended to provide a pragmatic approach to support planning for D&I throughout the evidence generation process.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL