Studies seeking to identify factors predictive of asthma mortality have relied on information obtained from relatives, other close acquaintances, and doctors who cared for the deceased. We wanted to determine whether asthmatics who have suffered a near-fatal asthma attack (NFA) are similar to asthmatics who have died of asthma with respect to important features, because studies of NFA asthmatics may provide a better insight into causes of asthma death. Such studies would avoid the difficulties associated with seeking information secondhand from proxy informants. Two groups were studied: asthmatics who had suffered a near-fatal asthma attack resulting in a visit to the accident and emergency departments of teaching hospitals (n = 154), and asthmatics certified as dying of asthma who, following panel review, were confirmed to have died from this disease (n = 80). For each case in the two groups, an interview questionnaire was administered to a close acquaintance (household or family member) and to the general practitioner. Both groups shared many important characteristics. Similarities related to: frequency of symptoms; frequency of hospital and intensive care unit admissions for asthma; use of asthma crisis plans; compliance with prescribed medications; quality of personal asthma management; and asthma severity. The two groups also showed similar psychiatric profiles, and similar use of asthma medications on a regular basis and with increased symptoms. However, NFA cases tended to be younger, were more likely to be male, and less likely to have concurrent medical conditions.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Objective To determine the place of death of South Australians who die of cancer. Design A population‐based, cross‐sectional study of data from the South Australian Cancer Registry. Participants 29 230 patients with cancer dying in 1990–1999. Main outcome measures Place of death; patient demography; year of death; survival from diagnosis; and type of cancer. Results 25.0% of patients died in a metropolitan public hospital, 19.9% in a hospice, 16.9% in a country hospital, 15.8% at a private residence, 12.7% in a metropolitan private hospital, and 9.7% in a nursing home. Although the change in place of death was not marked, multivariate logistic regression showed a secular trend away from metropolitan public hospitals towards metropolitan private hospitals and, in 1998–1999, towards nursing homes. Patients dying of cancer in a metropolitan public hospital were more likely to be younger, males, born outside Australia, and residents of lower socioeconomic areas of Adelaide. They were also more likely to have died within three months of diagnosis, and to have a haematological malignancy or a cancer of the upper digestive tract, lung or female breast. In contrast, patients dying at a private residence tended to be under 70 years and comprise longer‐term survivors. Country residents were less likely than Adelaide residents to die in a hospice. Conclusion The proportion of patients dying in different settings have health service implications. The relatively low use of hospice facilities by country patients may reflect differences in access to hospice facilities.
BackgroundBreast cancer risk assessment including genetic testing can be used to classify people into different risk groups with screening and preventive interventions tailored to the needs of each group, yet the implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer prevention in primary care settings is complex.ObjectiveTo address barriers to breast cancer risk assessment, risk communication, and prevention strategies in primary care settings, we developed a Web-based decision aid, RealRisks, that aims to improve preference-based decision-making for breast cancer prevention, particularly in low-numerate women.MethodsRealRisks incorporates experience-based dynamic interfaces to communicate risk aimed at reducing inaccurate risk perceptions, with modules on breast cancer risk, genetic testing, and chemoprevention that are tailored. To begin, participants learn about risk by interacting with two games of experience-based risk interfaces, demonstrating average 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk. We conducted four focus groups in English-speaking women (age ≥18 years), a questionnaire completed before and after interacting with the decision aid, and a semistructured group discussion. We employed a mixed-methods approach to assess accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk and acceptability of RealRisks. The qualitative analysis of the semistructured discussions assessed understanding of risk, risk models, and risk appropriate prevention strategies.ResultsAmong 34 participants, mean age was 53.4 years, 62% (21/34) were Hispanic, and 41% (14/34) demonstrated low numeracy. According to the Gail breast cancer risk assessment tool (BCRAT), the mean 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk were 1.11% (SD 0.77) and 7.46% (SD 2.87), respectively. After interacting with RealRisks, the difference in perceived and estimated breast cancer risk according to BCRAT improved for 5-year risk (P=.008). In the qualitative analysis, we identified potential barriers to adopting risk-appropriate breast cancer prevention strategies, including uncertainty about breast cancer risk and risk models, distrust toward the health care system, and perception that risk assessment to pre-screen women for eligibility for genetic testing may be viewed as rationing access to care.ConclusionsIn a multi-ethnic population, we demonstrated a significant improvement in accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk after exposure to RealRisks. However, we identified potential barriers that suggest that accurate risk perceptions will not suffice as the sole basis to support informed decision making and the acceptance of risk-appropriate prevention strategies. Findings will inform the iterative design of the RealRisks decision aid.
Results show a decrease in risk of death of patients attending South Australian major trauma services, from injuries of equivalent severity, during the first 4 years of operation of the State Trauma System.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.