The epidemiology of invasive fungal disease (IFD) due to filamentous fungi other than Aspergillus may be changing. We analysed clinical, microbiological and outcome data in Australian patients to determine the predisposing factors and identify determinants of mortality. Proven and probable non-Aspergillus mould infections (defined according to modified European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group criteria) from 2004 to 2012 were evaluated in a multicentre study. Variables associated with infection and mortality were determined. Of 162 episodes of non-Aspergillus IFD, 145 (89.5%) were proven infections and 17 (10.5%) were probable infections. The pathogens included 29 fungal species/species complexes; mucormycetes (45.7%) and Scedosporium species (33.3%) were most common. The commonest comorbidities were haematological malignancies (HMs) (46.3%) diabetes mellitus (23.5%), and chronic pulmonary disease (16%); antecedent trauma was present in 21% of cases. Twenty-five (15.4%) patients had no immunocompromised status or comorbidity, and were more likely to have acquired infection following major trauma (p <0.01); 61 (37.7%) of cases affected patients without HMs or transplantation. Antifungal therapy was administered to 93.2% of patients (median 68 days, interquartile range 19-275), and adjunctive surgery was performed in 58.6%. The all-cause 90-day mortality was 44.4%; HMs and intensive-care admission were the strongest predictors of death (both p <0.001). Survival varied by fungal group, with the risk of death being significantly lower in patients with dematiaceous mould infections than in patients with other non-Aspergillus mould infections. Non-Aspergillus IFD affected diverse patient groups, including non-immunocompromised hosts and those outside traditional risk groups; therefore, definitions of IFD in these patients are required. Given the high mortality, increased recognition of infections and accurate identification of the causative agent are required.
Background: The Health Promoting School (HPS) is a WHO sponsored framework, compiled to enable education and health sectors to be more effective in school based initiatives. Aims: This study attempted to test the hypothesis that students from schools that had comprehensively embraced the HPS concept as indicated by the Healthy School Award, were better, in terms of health risk behaviour, self reported health status, and academic results, than students from schools that did not reach the standard of the award.
Methods and Results:The results presented came from nine schools (four primary and five secondary) applying for accreditation of the Healthy Schools Award after adopting the HPS framework for two years. Regular consultancy support and training were available to all schools. Students had completed before and after surveys to assess their health behaviours, self reported health status, and academic standing before the two year intervention, and at its end. Data from the before and after surveys of the students attending schools that reached certain level of HPS standard as indicated by the award, were compared with students whose schools did not receive the award, and the results showed differences. Some differences were found to be more significant among the primary school students than secondary schools students. This illustrated early intervention for lifestyle changes to be more effective. Students' satisfaction with life also improved if their schools adopted the concept of HPS comprehensively.
Conclusions:The results suggest that comprehensive implementation of HPS would contribute to differences in certain behaviours and self reported health and academic status.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.