Search

This study describes the research and healthcare priorities of individuals living with COPD. On an online survey, individuals living with COPD assigned a percentage of funding to 22 research priorities and a percentage of time spent communicating with a healthcare provider to 24 healthcare priorities, indicating which topics were most important. For each research and healthcare priority, we examined the selection frequency of the priority and used chi-square analyses to examine differences in priority selection by quartiles of airflow obstruction (percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1-sec (FEV1%predicted)) and breathlessness burden and exacerbation risk. Based on participants' responses (N = 148, 47% women; Mean ± Standard Deviation age = 68 ± 9 yrs) relief of breathlessness was the most often selected research (76% of respondents) and healthcare priority (61% of respondents). It was selected most often, regardless of disease severity or breathlessness burden and exacerbation risk. We found differences for disease severity and breathlessness burden and exacerbation risk in some research priorities (e.g., to improve the maximal amount of exercise of adults living with COPD in and out of the home (χ2(3) = 9.97, Cramer's V =.28) and healthcare priorities (e.g., increase your ability to exercise (χ2(3) = 9.72, Cramer's V =.27)). This study provides empirical evidence that relief of breathlessness is a top research and healthcare priority for individuals living with COPD. Future healthcare and research activities should align with the priorities of individuals with COPD to improve their care by minimizing disease/symptom burden and optimizing health-related quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study described the participation in daily and social activities and the perceived barriers and facilitators to participation of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Individuals, recruited from outpatient clinics, responded to a survey on their participation in, and barriers and facilitators towards, 26 daily and social activities, divided into 3 categories: (1) physical activity and movement (PAM); (2) self-care; and (3) social engagement. For each activity, chi-square analyses were used to examine participation differences by individuals': quartiles of airflow obstruction [percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%predicted)] and breathlessness burden and exacerbation risk. Of the 200 participants (47% women; mean ± standard deviation age = 68 ± 9 years), most wanted to increase their participation in PAM activities (range 21–75%) and significant differences were found in 5/10 PAM activities for individuals' breathlessness burden and exacerbation risk (e.g., more individuals than expected in group A (modified Medical Research Council breathlessness score <2 and 0–1 exacerbations in past 12 months) participated in regular exercise as much as they wanted (χ(9)2=20.43, Cramer's V=.23)). Regardless of the degree of airflow obstruction or breathlessness burden and exacerbation risk, the most common barrier to participation was breathlessness (p<.001, η2p=.86) and the most common facilitator was engaging as part of their routine (p<.001, η2p=.75). Individuals with COPD want to increase their participation in daily and social activities but are limited by breathlessness. Strategies to alleviate breathlessness should be identified/prioritized and incorporated into individuals' daily routines to meet their self-reported participation objectives in daily and social activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the effects of action planning, risk perception, and message elaboration on the creation and quality of physical activity action plans. Risk perception was hypothesized as a potential moderator and elaboration as a potential mediator of the message framing-action planning relationship.Method: Inactive adults (N = 180; 44% women; Mage = 29.7, SD = 9.92) were randomized to one of two framed action planning messages and responded to an online questionnaire pre- and post-message. Participants were asked about two types of risk perception towards action planning: emotional and plan creation risk perception. Post-message participants were asked about their elaboration regarding the message and presented with the opportunity to create action plans, which were scored for quality. A moderation model and a moderated mediation model were tested.Results: Emotional risk perception moderated the message framing-action plan creation relationship. Individuals with increased emotional risk perception, as opposed to increased plan creation risk perception, were more likely to create an action plan when given a gain-framed message, as opposed to a loss-framed message. The moderated mediation model was not significant, but message elaboration predicted action plan creation. Individuals with greater message elaboration were more likely to create an action plan, regardless of the message frame.Conclusion: Gain-framed messages may be more effective than loss-framed messages at promoting action plan creation in individuals with greater emotional risk perception. One’s elaboration of an action planning message may increase their likelihood of creating a physical activity action plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In April 2016, the Rick Hansen Institute (RHI) hosted an innovative, 2-day conference called Praxis 2016. RHI aimed to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders to develop solutions for overcoming the challenges of translating spinal cord injury (SCI) research into practice. To understand the impact of Praxis, RHI funded an independent team to evaluate Praxis at the individual and setting level using the RE-AIM framework. Individual-level findings are published elsewhere. The aim of this evaluation is to report on the impact of Praxis at the setting level in terms of its adoption, implementation and maintenance.Methods: Data sources included interviews with attendees (n = 13) and organisers (n = 9), a fidelity assessment conducted at the conference, and observation notes provided by the evaluation team.Results: Main findings indicated that the Praxis model was adopted by organisers and attendees, implemented by RHI as intended, and has the potential for long-term maintenance. Lessons learned highlighted the importance of including SCI community members throughout the entire process from development to post-conference activities as well as in the research process, the value of facilitation and fostering interactive problem solving, and the need to identify leadership and funds to foster long-term efforts.Conclusions: Developing and implementing a solutions-focused conference that brings together a diverse group of SCI stakeholders was challenging and rewarding for attendees and organisers. Other domains could learn from, adopt and build on the Praxis 2016 approach to address research-to-practice gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]