Silicosis research priorities for health care, research, and health and safety professionals, and for people exposed to silica in Australia: a research priority setting exercise

IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Hayley Barnes, Sharna Mathieu, Deborah C Glass, Malcolm R Sim, Lin Fritschi, Joanne L Dickinson, Daniel C Chambers, Tim R Driscoll, Graeme Edwards, Nikky LaBranche, Catherine Jones, Jane E Bourke, Ryan F Hoy, Christine R Jenkins, Simon Apte, Anne Holland, Gabriella Tikellis
{"title":"Silicosis research priorities for health care, research, and health and safety professionals, and for people exposed to silica in Australia: a research priority setting exercise","authors":"Hayley Barnes,&nbsp;Sharna Mathieu,&nbsp;Deborah C Glass,&nbsp;Malcolm R Sim,&nbsp;Lin Fritschi,&nbsp;Joanne L Dickinson,&nbsp;Daniel C Chambers,&nbsp;Tim R Driscoll,&nbsp;Graeme Edwards,&nbsp;Nikky LaBranche,&nbsp;Catherine Jones,&nbsp;Jane E Bourke,&nbsp;Ryan F Hoy,&nbsp;Christine R Jenkins,&nbsp;Simon Apte,&nbsp;Anne Holland,&nbsp;Gabriella Tikellis","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To identify the silicosis research priorities of people living with silicosis, workers at risk of silicosis, their partners and caregivers, and of health professionals and researchers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Study design</h3>\n \n <p>Research priority setting exercise; modified James Lind Alliance framework for research priority setting partnerships, comprising an online survey followed by two forums in which thematic analysis and nominal group analysis were used to establish a list of research priorities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting, participants</h3>\n \n <p>People with or at risk of silicosis, their partners or caregivers (survey, online forum) and health care professionals, researchers, health and safety professionals (survey, in-person forum), recruited 14 April – 19 December 2023.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\n \n <p>Research priorities in four pre-identified areas: prevention, screening and diagnosis, treatment, and living with and managing the impact of silicosis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 164 survey respondents (105 medical or research professionals, 34 workers currently or formerly at risk of silicosis, eleven people with confirmed silicosis, and fourteen partners or caregivers) identified 47 key research topics. Fifty-three health care professionals and thirteen people with or at risk of silicosis and their caregivers then ranked the research topics and developed research questions at the two forums. The highest ranked research priorities were research into assessment and optimisation of the hierarchy of controls, compliance and regulation, establishing minimum standards and developing innovative screening methods, early diagnosis, development of effective treatments, identification of biomarkers for risk of progression, developing an optimal care model that includes mental health care, and estimating the economic impact of silicosis. Both participant groups agreed that research into workplace controls is important, as is improving education and awareness, compliance with preventive measures, and screening and diagnosis, including nationally consistent screening and diagnosis practices. The professional participants rated research into silicosis pathogenesis and biomarkers and technological considerations higher than workers and their carers, who focused more on the barriers for and attitudes of workers, specific treatments, and managing symptoms.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Research into eliminating exposure to silica, early diagnosis of silicosis, preventing disease progression, and reducing the impact of disease were the top research priorities for people with professional or personal interests in silicosis. Our findings should guide research directions and inform policy development.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 5","pages":"257-264"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70013","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.70013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To identify the silicosis research priorities of people living with silicosis, workers at risk of silicosis, their partners and caregivers, and of health professionals and researchers.

Study design

Research priority setting exercise; modified James Lind Alliance framework for research priority setting partnerships, comprising an online survey followed by two forums in which thematic analysis and nominal group analysis were used to establish a list of research priorities.

Setting, participants

People with or at risk of silicosis, their partners or caregivers (survey, online forum) and health care professionals, researchers, health and safety professionals (survey, in-person forum), recruited 14 April – 19 December 2023.

Main outcome measures

Research priorities in four pre-identified areas: prevention, screening and diagnosis, treatment, and living with and managing the impact of silicosis.

Results

A total of 164 survey respondents (105 medical or research professionals, 34 workers currently or formerly at risk of silicosis, eleven people with confirmed silicosis, and fourteen partners or caregivers) identified 47 key research topics. Fifty-three health care professionals and thirteen people with or at risk of silicosis and their caregivers then ranked the research topics and developed research questions at the two forums. The highest ranked research priorities were research into assessment and optimisation of the hierarchy of controls, compliance and regulation, establishing minimum standards and developing innovative screening methods, early diagnosis, development of effective treatments, identification of biomarkers for risk of progression, developing an optimal care model that includes mental health care, and estimating the economic impact of silicosis. Both participant groups agreed that research into workplace controls is important, as is improving education and awareness, compliance with preventive measures, and screening and diagnosis, including nationally consistent screening and diagnosis practices. The professional participants rated research into silicosis pathogenesis and biomarkers and technological considerations higher than workers and their carers, who focused more on the barriers for and attitudes of workers, specific treatments, and managing symptoms.

Conclusions

Research into eliminating exposure to silica, early diagnosis of silicosis, preventing disease progression, and reducing the impact of disease were the top research priorities for people with professional or personal interests in silicosis. Our findings should guide research directions and inform policy development.

Abstract Image

澳大利亚卫生保健、研究、健康和安全专业人员以及接触二氧化硅的人的矽肺病研究优先事项:一项研究优先事项确定工作。
目的:确定矽肺病患者、有矽肺病风险的工人、他们的伴侣和照顾者以及卫生专业人员和研究人员的矽肺病研究重点。研究设计:研究优先级设定练习;修改了詹姆斯·林德联盟的研究重点确定伙伴关系框架,包括一个在线调查,随后是两个论坛,其中使用主题分析和名义群体分析来确定研究重点清单。环境,参与者:矽肺病患者或有矽肺病风险的人、他们的伴侣或照顾者(调查,在线论坛)以及卫生保健专业人员、研究人员、健康和安全专业人员(调查,面对面论坛),于2023年4月14日至12月19日招募。主要结果测量:研究重点在四个预先确定的领域:预防,筛查和诊断,治疗,生活和管理矽肺的影响。结果:164名调查对象(105名医学或研究专业人员,34名目前或曾经有矽肺病风险的工人,11名确诊矽肺病患者,14名伴侣或照顾者)确定了47个关键研究课题。53名卫生保健专业人员和13名患有或有矽肺病风险的人及其护理人员随后在两个论坛上对研究主题进行了排名并提出了研究问题。排名最高的研究重点是研究控制等级的评估和优化、依从性和监管、建立最低标准和开发创新的筛查方法、早期诊断、开发有效的治疗方法、识别进展风险的生物标志物、开发包括精神卫生保健在内的最佳护理模式,以及估计矽肺的经济影响。两个与会团体一致认为,对工作场所控制的研究很重要,同样重要的还有改进教育和认识、遵守预防措施以及筛查和诊断,包括全国一致的筛查和诊断做法。专业参与者对矽肺发病机制、生物标志物和技术考虑的研究的评价高于工人及其护理人员,后者更关注工人的障碍和态度、具体治疗和症状管理。结论:研究消除二氧化硅暴露、早期诊断矽肺、预防疾病进展和减少疾病影响是对矽肺有专业或个人兴趣的人的首要研究重点。我们的研究结果可以指导研究方向并为政策制定提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Journal of Australia
Medical Journal of Australia 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
410
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) stands as Australia's foremost general medical journal, leading the dissemination of high-quality research and commentary to shape health policy and influence medical practices within the country. Under the leadership of Professor Virginia Barbour, the expert editorial team at MJA is dedicated to providing authors with a constructive and collaborative peer-review and publication process. Established in 1914, the MJA has evolved into a modern journal that upholds its founding values, maintaining a commitment to supporting the medical profession by delivering high-quality and pertinent information essential to medical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信