Search

Objective: This study sought to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a facilitated advance care planning (ACP) intervention implemented in outpatient clinics, as perceived by health‐care professionals (HCPs). Methods: Data from seven focus groups (n = 27) and nine semi‐structured interviews with HCPs recruited as part of a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (RCT) were analysed using qualitative descriptive methodology. Components of the intervention included HCP education and training, tools to assist HCPs with patient selection, hardcopy information, and ACP documentation, and specialised nurse‐facilitators to support HCPs to complete ACP conversations and documentation with patients and caregivers. Results: Health‐care professionals working in tertiary outpatient clinics perceived the facilitated ACP intervention as feasible and acceptable. Health‐care professionals reported a high level of satisfaction with key elements of the intervention, including the specialised education and training, screening and assessment procedures and ongoing support from the nurse‐facilitators. Health‐care professionals reported this training and support increased their confidence and ACP knowledge, leading to more frequent ACP discussions with patients and their families. Health‐care professionals noted their ability to conduct ACP screening and assessment in clinic was impeded by large clinical caseloads and patient‐related factors (e.g., dementia diagnoses, and emotional distress). Additional barriers to ACP implementation identified by HCPs included poor collaboration, constrained time and clinical space, undefined roles and standardised recording procedures for HCPs. Conclusions: Facilitated ACP intervention in outpatient clinics is perceived by HCPs as feasible and acceptable. Addressing barriers and tailoring implementation strategies may improve the delivery of ACP as part of tertiary outpatient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guidelines recommend advance care planning (ACP) for people with advanced illness; however, evidence supporting ACP as a component of outpatient care is lacking. We sought to establish the feasibility and acceptability of a facilitated ACP intervention for people attending tertiary outpatient clinics. Data from 20 semi-structured interviews with patient (M = 79.3 ± 7.7, 60% male) and caregiver (M = 68.1 ± 11.0, 60% female) participants recruited as part of a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial (RCT) were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methodology. Patients were randomized to intervention (e.g., facilitated support) or control (e.g., standard care). Intervention patients expressed high satisfaction, reporting the facilitated ACP session was clear, straightforward, and suited to their needs. Intervention caregivers did not report any significant concerns with the facilitated ACP process. Control participants reported greater difficulty completing ACP compared to intervention participants. Embedding facilitated ACP into tertiary outpatient care appears feasible and acceptable for people with advanced illnesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundPeople with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often experience mental health symptoms that exacerbate illness and increase mortality risk. Access to psychological support is low in people with T2DM. Detection of depression is variable in primary care and can be further hampered by mental health stigma. Electronic mental health (eMH) programs may provide an accessible, private, nonstigmatizing mental health solution for this group. ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the efficacy over 12 months of follow-up of an eMH program (myCompass) for improving social and occupational functioning in a community sample of people with T2DM and self-reported mild-to-moderate depressive symptoms. myCompass is a fully automated and self-guided web-based public health program for people with depression or anxiety. The effects of myCompass on depressive symptoms, diabetes-related distress, anxiety symptoms, and self-care behavior were also examined. MethodsAdults with T2DM and mild-to-moderate depressive symptoms (N=780) were recruited via online advertisements, community organizations, and general practices. Screening, consent, and self-report questionnaires were administered online. Eligible participants were randomized to receive either myCompass (n=391) or an attention control generic health literacy program (Healthy Lifestyles; n=379) for 8 weeks. At baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months postintervention, participants completed the Work and Social Adjustment Scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item, the Diabetes Distress Scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-7 item, and items from the Self-Management Profile for Type 2 Diabetes. Glycosylated hemoglobin measurements were obtained at baseline and 6 and 12 months postintervention. ResultsA total of 38.9% (304/780) of the trial participants completed all postintervention assessments. myCompass users logged in on an average of 6 times and completed an average of 0.29 modules. Healthy Lifestyles users logged in on an average of 4 times and completed an average of 1.37 modules. At baseline, the mean scores on several outcome measures, including the primary outcome of work and social functioning, were close to the normal range, despite a varied and extensive recruitment process. Intention-to-treat analyses revealed slightly greater improvement at 12 months in work and social functioning for the Healthy Lifestyles group relative to the myCompass group. All participants reported equivalent improvements in depression anxiety, diabetes distress, diabetes self-management, and glycemic control across the trial. ConclusionsThe Healthy Lifestyles group reported higher ratings of social and occupational functioning than the myCompass group, but no differences were observed for any secondary outcome. Although these findings should be interpreted in light of the near-floor symptom scores at baseline, the trial yields important insights into how people with T2DM might be engaged in eMH programs and the challenges of focusing specifically on mental health. Several avenues emerge for continued investigation into how best to deal with the growing mental health burden in adults with T2DM. Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number (ACTRN) 12615000931572; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368109&isReview=true

Introduction: Electronic cigarette (e‐cigarette) use in Australia has rapidly increased since the 2017 National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) statement on e‐cigarettes. The type of products available and the demographic characteristics of people using these products have changed. New evidence has been published and there is growing concern among public health professionals about the increased use, particularly among young people who do not currently smoke combustible cigarettes. The combination of these issues led NHMRC to review the current evidence and provide an updated statement on e‐cigarettes. In this article, we describe the comprehensive process used to review the evidence and develop the 2022 NHMRC CEO statement on electronic cigarettes. Main recommendations: E‐cigarettes can be harmful; all e‐cigarette users are exposed to chemicals and toxins that have the potential to cause adverse health effects.There are no health benefits of using e‐cigarettes if you do not currently smoke tobacco cigarettes.Adolescents are more likely to try e‐cigarettes if they are exposed to e‐cigarettes on social media.Short term e‐cigarette use may help some smokers to quit who have been previously unsuccessful with other smoking cessation aids. There are other proven safe and effective options available to help smokers to quit. Changes in management as a result of this statement: The evidence base for the harms of e‐cigarette use has strengthened since the previous NHMRC statement. Significant gaps in the evidence base remain, especially about the longer term health harms of using e‐cigarettes and the toxicity of many chemicals in e‐cigarettes inhaled as an aerosol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is commonly diagnosed and managed in primary care but there is evidence that this has been suboptimal, with low confidence expressed in providing interventions requiring behaviour change. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of a general practitioner (GP)–physiotherapist partnership in the diagnosis and management of COPD in primary care and to explore the experiences of participants during the implementation of the model. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with physiotherapists (n = 3), GPs (n = 2), practice nurses (PNs) (n = 2) and patients (n = 12) who had participated in the InNovaTivE Gp‐physiotheRapist pArTnErship for copD (INTEGRATED) trial. We sought to explore participants' views about their experiences and perceived benefits, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of this model of care. Interviews were transcribed, coded and thematically analysed. Synthesis of the data was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework for clinician interviews and the health belief model for patient interviews. Results: All clinicians felt that this integrated model helped to optimise care for patients with COPD by facilitating evidence‐based practice. GPs and PNs valued the physiotherapist's knowledge and skills relating to diagnosis and management, which was reported to complement their own management and improve patient outcomes. Patients reported a sense of empowerment following their appointments and acknowledged improved self‐management skills. However, physiotherapists reported many patients were already engaging in positive health behaviours. Responses were mixed on the effectiveness of the model in facilitating teamwork between clinicians with different perspectives concerning management, communication pathways and logistical issues, such as time and room availability, being cited as barriers. Conclusions: An experienced cardiorespiratory physiotherapist embedded into a small number of primary care practices to work in partnership with GPs for COPD diagnosis and management was acceptable and viewed as beneficial for patients. Barriers relating to logistics and resources remain, which must be addressed to optimise implementation. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient input was obtained from qualitative feedback from a prior study conducted by two authors and was used to refine the model of care to determine the added value of a physiotherapist integrated into the primary care team. This feedback was also used to refine the interview guides utilised in this study determine the acceptability of this model of care. We had health service involvement from the rehabilitation service of the local health district who were directly involved in determining study aims and establishing the project around the priorities for their chronic disease integration service. For example, this project aimed to engage with a less severe patient population in primary care who would benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation. The findings from this study will be used to further tailor the model of care to the needs of the public and patients. Trial Registration: ACTRN12619001127190 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Vaccine-preventable infections are generally well controlled in Australia. However, gaps in immunity can lead to outbreaks and are important to identify. Young adults are a highly mobile population and a potential source of imported infections. We aimed to evaluate anti- measles, mumps, rubella and varicella (MMR&V) IgG seroprevalence and explore factors relating to antibody seropositivity. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among students from a large Australian university to collect demographic, vaccination, infection and travel characteristics. Blood samples were collected to measure MMR&V seroprevalence. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with seropositivity. Results Among 804 university students, seroprevalence (positive or equivocal) for measles was 82.3% (95% CI 79.6–84.8%), mumps 79.5% (95% CI 76.7–82.3%), rubella 91.5% (95% CI 89.6–93.5%) and varicella 86.2% (95% CI 84.1–88.8%), with 452 (56.2%, 95% CI 52.8–59.6) seropositive to all four viruses. Varicella seropositivity was highest in the older birth cohort (born 1988–1991). Measles seropositivity was higher for international students compared to domestic students. Among international students, mumps seroprevalence was significantly lower than measles and rubella seroprevalence. International travel in the previous 12 months was reported by 63.1% of students, but only 18.2% of travellers reported seeking pre-travel health advice prior to most recent international travel. Conclusions Overall, this study suggests immunity to MMR&V is sub-optimal. We found the university student population to be highly mobile and unlikely to seek pre-travel advice; thus, they are a potential source of infection importation. The implementation of university immunization policies could address the gaps identified and our findings can inform the development of targeted vaccination campaigns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]