Dataset Information

Exploring the nature of perceived treatment burden: a study to compare treatment burden measures in adults with cystic fibrosis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite the importance of reducing treatment burden for people with cystic fibrosis (CF), it has not been fully understood as a concept. This study aims to quantify the treatment burden perceived by CF adults and explore the association between different validated treatment burden measures.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional observational study of CF adults attending a single large UK adult center. Participants completed an online survey that contained three different treatment burden scales; CF Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) subscale, CF Quality of Life (CFQoL) subscale, and the generic multimorbidity treatment burden questionnaire (MTBQ).

Results

Among 101 participants, the median reported treatment burden by the CFQ-R subscale was 55.5 (IQR 33.3 - 66.6), the CFQoL subscale was 66.6 (IQR 46.6 - 86.6), and the MTBQ reversed global score was 84.6 (IQR 73.1 - 92.3). No correlation was found between respondents' demographic or clinical variables and treatment burden measured via any of the three measures. All treatment burden measures showed correlations against each other. More treatments were associated with high treatment burden as measured by the CFQ-R, CFQoL subscales, and the MTBQ. However, longer treatment time and more complex treatment plans were correlated with high treatment burden as measured by the CFQ-R and CFQoL subscales, but not with the MTBQ.

Conclusions

Treatment burden is a substantial issue in CF. Currently, the only available way to evaluate it is with the CF-specific quality of life measure treatment burden subscales (CFQ-R and CFQoL); both indicated that treatment burden increases with more treatments, longer treatment time, and more complex treatments.

SUBMITTER: Altabee R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7614250 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring the nature of perceived treatment burden: a study to compare treatment burden measures in adults with cystic fibrosis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].

Altabee Rana R Carr Siobhan B SB Abbott Janice J Cameron Rory R Office Daniel D Matthews Jessie J Simmonds Nicholas N Cosgriff Rebecca R Turner David D Whitty Jennifer J

NIHR open research 20220501

<h4>Background</h4>Despite the importance of reducing treatment burden for people with cystic fibrosis (CF), it has not been fully understood as a concept. This study aims to quantify the treatment burden perceived by CF adults and explore the association between different validated treatment burden measures.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a cross-sectional observational study of CF adults attending a single large UK adult center. Participants completed an online survey that contained three different tr ...[more]

PMID: 36855412

Similar Datasets

Project description:Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide, innovation systems are increasing unsustainable. Equally, concerns about inequities in the science and innovation process, and in access to its benefits, continue. Against a backdrop of growing health, economic and scientific challenges global stakeholders are urgently seeking to spur innovation and maximize the just distribution of benefits for all. Open Science collaboration (OS) - comprising a variety of approaches to increase open, public, and rapid mobilization of scientific knowledge - is seen to be one of the most promising ways forward. Yet, many decision-makers hesitate to construct policy to support the adoption and implementation of OS without access to substantive, clear and reliable evidence. In October 2017, international thought-leaders gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC offices of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful Open Science looks like. Delegates from developed and developing nations, national governments, science agencies and funding bodies, philanthropy, researchers, patient organizations and the biotechnology, pharma and artificial intelligence (AI) industries discussed the outcomes that would rally them to invest in OS, as well as wider issues of policy and implementation. This first of two reports, summarizes delegates' views on what they believe OS will deliver in terms of research, innovation and social impact in the life sciences. Through open and collaborative process over the next months, we will translate these success outcomes into a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess when, where and how open science collaborations best advance research, innovation and social benefit. Ultimately, this work aims to develop and openly share tools to allow stakeholders to evaluate and re-invent their innovation ecosystems, to maximize value for the global public and patients, and address long-standing questions about the mechanics of innovation.

Project description:Areas of open science (OS) policy and practice are already relatively well-advanced in several countries and sectors through the initiatives of some governments, funders, philanthropy, researchers and the community. Nevertheless, the current research and innovation system, including in the focus of this report, the life sciences, remains weighted against OS. In October 2017, thought-leaders from across the world gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC office of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful OS looks like. We focused on OS partnerships as this is an emerging model that aims to accelerate science and innovation. These outcomes are captured in a first meeting report: Defining Success in Open Science. On several occasions, these conversations turned to the challenges that must be addressed and new policies required to effectively and sustainably advance OS practice. Thereupon, in this report, we describe the concerns raised and what is needed to address them supplemented by our review of the literature, and suggest the stakeholder groups that may be best placed to begin to take action. It emerges that to be successful, OS will require the active engagement of all stakeholders: while the research community must develop research questions, identify partners and networks, policy communities need to create an environment that is supportive of experimentation by removing barriers. This report aims to contribute to ongoing discussions about OS and its implementation. It is also part of a step-wise process to develop and mobilize a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assist global stakeholders in implementing high value OS collaborations. Currently in co-development through an open and international process, this set of measures will allow the generation of needed evidence on the influence of OS partnerships on research, innovation, and critical social and economic goals.

Project description:Background: With the increasing prevalence of myopia there is growing interest in active myopia control. However, the majority of progressive myopes are still prescribed single vision spectacles. This prospective study aims to elucidate the knowledge and attitudes of optometrists toward myopia control, and thereby identify perceived barriers to the implementation of a risk focussed model of myopia management. Methods: A series of four focus group discussions were conducted involving optometrists in different settings and career stages. Results: The key finding to emerge is a disconnect in myopia control knowledge and practices between academic optometrists, final year optometry students and clinicians in practice. Academic faculty believe the optometry curriculum should provide undergraduates with the clinical skills to practise myopia control, however, although students were knowledgeable in relation to myopia associated risk factors, some students had not yet undertaken any practical form of myopia control in their undergraduate degree. Furthermore, students may not receive hands-on myopia control experience during their supervised practice placement, as the majority of clinicians do not offer myopia control treatments, other than to communicate lifestyle advice to modify risk of myopia progression. Clinicians alluded to a lack of availability of myopia control interventions and identified a range of barriers relating to their training, clinical practice and public health challenges, financial, technological and other constraints that affect the implementation of such interventions. Conclusion: ?It appears optometrists have to yet embrace myopia control as a core element of the clinical eye care service they provide. Education, training, finance, and time restrictions, as well as limited availability of myopia control therapies were among the main perceived barriers to myopia control. This study revealed a distinct need for alignment between optometric training and the public health need for effective myopia control.

Dataset Information

Exploring the nature of perceived treatment burden: a study to compare treatment burden measures in adults with cystic fibrosis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Exploring the nature of perceived treatment burden: a study to compare treatment burden measures in adults with cystic fibrosis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets