Process evaluation of a primary healthcare validation study of a culturally adapted depression screening tool for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: study protocol

Process evaluations are conducted alongside research projects to identify the context, impact and consequences of research, determine whether it was conducted per protocol and to understand how, why and for whom an intervention is effective. We present a process evaluation protocol for the Getting it Right research project, which aims to determine validity of a culturally adapted depression screening tool for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In this process evaluation, we aim to: (1) explore the context, impact and consequences of conducting Getting It Right, (2) explore primary healthcare staff and community representatives' experiences with the research project, (3) determine if it was conducted per protocol and (4) explore experiences with the depression screening tool, including perceptions about how it could be implemented into practice (if found to be valid). We also describe the partnerships established to conduct this process evaluation and how the national Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research is met. Realist and grounded theory approaches are used. Qualitative data include semistructured interviews with primary healthcare staff and community representatives involved with Getting it Right. Iterative data collection and analysis will inform a coding framework. Interviews will continue until saturation of themes is reached, or all participants are considered. Data will be triangulated against administrative data and patient feedback. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group guides this research. Researchers will be blinded from validation data outcomes for as long as is feasible. The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee, Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales and six state ethics committees have approved this research. Findings will be submitted to academic journals and presented at conferences. ACTRN12614000705684. [Abstract copyright: © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

'We're here to listen and help them as well': a qualitative study of staff and Indigenous patient perceptions about participating in social and emotional wellbeing research at primary healthcare services

Research can inform culturally-appropriate care to strengthen social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter, the term 'Indigenous Peoples' is respectfully used and refers to all Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Peoples of Australia). We acknowledge the cultural diversity of Australia's Indigenous First Peoples and they do not represent a homogenous group.) (hereafter Indigenous) Peoples. We explore the perspectives of primary healthcare staff and Indigenous patients about their willingness to and experiences participating in SEWB research. Process evaluation using grounded theory approaches of Getting it Right: The validation study, a national validation designed Indigenous SEWB research project (N = 500). Primary healthcare staff (n = 36) and community members (n = 4) from nine of ten primary healthcare services involved with the research project completed qualitative semi-structured interviews. Interview data were triangulated with participant feedback (responses to structured questions and free-text feedback collected during Getting it Right), study administrative data (participant screening logs, communication logs, study protocol, deviation logs and ethics correspondence) and interviewer field notes. Three themes about staff, patient and community perspectives concerning research participation developed: (1) considering the needs, risk, preferences and impact of participation in research for staff, patients and community; (2) building staff confidence speaking to patients about research and SEWB problems and (3) patients speaking openly about their SEWB. Some staff described pressure to ensure patients had a positive experience with the research, to respond appropriately if patients became upset or SEWB problems were identified during interviews, or due to their dual role as community member and researcher. Patients and staff reported that patients were more likely to participate if they knew the staff outside of the service, especially staff with a shared cultural background, and they perceived SEWB as a community priority. Staff reported their skills speaking to patients about the research and SEWB improved during the research, which built their confidence. Contrary to staff preconceptions, staff and patients reported that many patients appreciated the opportunity to speak about their SEWB and contributing to research that may eventually enhance SEWB in their community. Our research project was considered acceptable by most staff and patients. The positive outcomes reported by staff and feedback from patients highlights the importance of providing opportunities for people to speak about their SEWB and for research-informed SEWB PHC care. Getting it Right is registered on ANZCTR12614000705684

G-CSFR Ubiquitination Critically Regulates Myeloid Cell Survival and Proliferation

The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor receptor (G-CSFR) is a critical regulator of granulopoiesis. Mutations in the G-CSFR in patients with severe congenital neutropenia (SCN) transforming to acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) have been shown to induce hypersensitivity and enhanced growth responses to G-CSF. Recent studies have demonstrated the importance of the ubiquitin/proteasome system in the initiation of negative signaling by the G-CSFR. To further investigate the role of ubiquitination in regulating G-CSFR signaling, we generated a mutant form of the G-CSFR (K762R/G-CSFR) which abrogates the attachment of ubiquitin to the lysine residue at position 762 of the G-CSFR that is deleted in the Δ716 G-CSFR form isolated from patients with SCN/AML. In response to G-CSF, mono-/polyubiquitination of the G-CSFR was impaired in cells expressing the mutant K762R/G-CSFR compared to cells transfected with the WT G-CSFR. Cells stably transfected with the K762R/G-CSFR displayed a higher proliferation rate, increased sensitivity to G-CSF, and enhanced survival following cytokine depletion, similar to previously published data with the Δ716 G-CSFR mutant. Activation of the signaling molecules Stat5 and Akt were also increased in K762R/G-CSFR transfected cells in response to G-CSF, and their activation remained prolonged after G-CSF withdrawal. These results indicate that ubiquitination is required for regulation of G-CSFR-mediated proliferation and cell survival. Mutations that disrupt G-CSFR ubiquitination at lysine 762 induce aberrant receptor signaling and hyperproliferative responses to G-CSF, which may contribute to leukemic transformation

Genome-Wide Meta-Analysis of Five Asian Cohorts Identifies PDGFRA as a Susceptibility Locus for Corneal Astigmatism

Corneal astigmatism refers to refractive abnormalities and irregularities in the curvature of the cornea, and this interferes with light being accurately focused at a single point in the eye. This ametropic condition is highly prevalent, influences visual acuity, and is a highly heritable trait. There is currently a paucity of research in the genetic etiology of corneal astigmatism. Here we report the results from five genome-wide association studies of corneal astigmatism across three Asian populations, with an initial discovery set of 4,254 Chinese and Malay individuals consisting of 2,249 cases and 2,005 controls. Replication was obtained from three surveys comprising of 2,139 Indians, an additional 929 Chinese children, and an independent 397 Chinese family trios. Variants in PDGFRA on chromosome 4q12 (lead SNP: rs7677751, allelic odds ratio = 1.26 (95% CI: 1.16–1.36), Pmeta = 7.87×10−9) were identified to be significantly associated with corneal astigmatism, exhibiting consistent effect sizes across all five cohorts. This highlights the potential role of variants in PDGFRA in the genetic etiology of corneal astigmatism across diverse Asian populations

Insights into the Genetic Architecture of Early Stage Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Genome-Wide Association Study Meta-Analysis

10.1371/journal.pone.0053830PLoS ONE81

Process evaluation of the Getting it Right study and acceptability and feasibility of screening for depression with the aPHQ-9

The Getting it Right study determined the validity, sensitivity, specificity and acceptability of the culturally adapted 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (aPHQ-9) as a screening tool for depression in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter referred to as Indigenous) people. In this process evaluation we aimed to explore staff perceptions about whether Getting it Right was conducted per protocol, and if the aPHQ-9 was considered an acceptable and feasible screening tool for depression in primary healthcare. This process evaluation will provide information for clinicians and policy makers about the experiences of staff and patients with Getting it Right and what they thought about using the aPHQ-9. Process evaluation using grounded theory approaches. Semi-structured interviews with primary healthcare staff from services participating in Getting it Right were triangulated with feedback (free-text and elicited) from participants collected during the validation study and field notes. Data were thematically analysed according to the Getting it Right study protocol to identify the acceptability and feasibility of the aPHQ-9. Primary healthcare staff (n = 36) and community members (n = 4) from nine of the ten participating Getting it Right services and Indigenous participants (n = 500) from the ten services that took part. Most staff reported that the research was conducted according to the study protocol. Staff from two services reported sometimes recruiting opportunistically (rather than recruiting consecutive patients attending the service as outlined in the main study protocol), when they spoke to patients who they knew from previous interactions, because they perceived their previous relationship may increase the likelihood of patients participating. All Getting it Right participants responded to at least six of the seven feedback questions and 20% provided free-text feedback. Most staff said they would use the aPHQ-9 and most participants said that the questions were easy to understand (87%), the response categories made sense (89%) and that they felt comfortable answering the questions (91%). Getting it Right was predominantly conducted according to the study protocol. The aPHQ-9, the first culturally adapted, nationally validated, freely available depression screening tool for use by Indigenous people, appears to be acceptable and feasible to use. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ANZCTR12614000705684 , 03/07/2014

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570