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]

This article reported on the reach, effectiveness, and maintenance dimensions of a RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) analysis to evaluate Praxis 2016, a conference aimed to develop solutions to overcome challenges to translating research into practice in the spinal cord injury (SCI) community. Reach indicators were collected from the Praxis 2016 organizing committee. For effectiveness and maintenance, attendees (n = 106) completed a questionnaire pre-, post-, and 9-month post-Praxis 2016 assessing (a) capability (e.g., knowledge), (b) motivation, (c) opportunities, and (d) the groups they currently, need to, and/or plan to work with to develop solutions to overcome the challenges of translating SCI research into practice. They also reported their satisfaction with Praxis 2016. Qualitative interviews with attendees and organizers post-Praxis 2016 were conducted. Praxis 2016 reached 28% of their intended audience. For effectiveness, attendees' knowledge significantly increased (t(59)= 3.83, p <.001), they reported a greater need to work with members within the SCI community from pre- to post-Praxis 2016, and were generally satisfied with Praxis 2016. Regarding maintenance, more attendees reported needing to work with researchers, clinicians and SCI community organizations at 9-month post-Praxis 2016. The interviewees reported increased knowledge and capacity to network with the SCI community, but highlighted concerns for the long-term impact of Praxis 2016. Praxis 2016 was an effective approach to create short-term change in knowledge, and to expand knowledge translation networks. Further efforts could build on Praxis 2016 to foster long-term success in overcoming the challenges in translating SCI research into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]