Peripheral arterial disease, prevalence and cumulative risk factor profile analysis.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of the present study was to determine the cumulative effect of a set of peripheral artery disease (PAD) risk factors among age, gender and race/ethnicity groups in the United States. METHODS: We examined data from a nationally representative sample of the US population (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES], 1999-2004). A total of 7058 subjects 40 years or older that completed the interview, medical examination and had ankle-brachial index (ABI) measurements were included in this study. RESULTS: The age- and sex-standardized prevalence of PAD was 4.6 % (standard error [SE] 0.3%).The highest prevalence of PAD was observed among elderly, non-Hispanic Blacks and women. In a multivariable age-, gender- and race/ethnicity-adjusted model hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and smoking were retained as PAD risk factors (p ≤ 0.05 for each). The odds of PAD increased with each additional risk factor present from a non-significant 1.5-fold increase (O.R 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-2.6) in the presence of one risk factor, to more than ten-fold (OR 10.2, 95% CI 6.4-16.3) in the presence of three or more risk factors. In stratified analysis, non-Hispanic Blacks (OR 14.7, 95% CI 2.1-104.1) and women (OR 18.6, 95% CI 7.1-48.7) were particularly sensitive to this cumulative effect. CONCLUSION: In a large nationally representative sample, an aggregate set of risk factors that included diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, hypertension and smoking significantly increase the likelihood of prevalent PAD. A cumulative risk factor analysis highlights important susceptibility differences among different population groups and provides additional evidence to redefine screening strategies in PAD

Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens' juries

Introduction The optimal approach to engage the public in healthcare decision-making is unclear. Approaches range from deliberative citizens’ juries to large population surveys using discrete choice experiments. This study promotes public engagement and quantifies preferences in two key areas of relevance to the industry partners to identify which approach is most informative for informing healthcare policy. Methods and analysis The key areas identified are optimising appropriate use of emergency care and prioritising patients for bariatric surgery. Three citizens’ juries will be undertaken—two in Queensland to address each key issue and one in Adelaide to repeat the bariatric surgery deliberations with a different sample. Jurors will be given a choice experiment before the jury, immediately following the jury and at approximately 1 month following the jury. Control groups for each jury will be given the choice experiment at the same time points to test for convergence. Samples of healthcare decision-makers will be given the choice experiment as will two large samples of the population. Jury and control group participants will be recruited from the Queensland electoral roll and newspaper advertisements in Adelaide. Population samples will be recruited from a large research panel. Jury processes will be analysed qualitatively and choice experiments will be analysed using multinomial logit models and its more generalised forms. Comparisons between preferences across jurors predeliberation and postdeliberation, control participants, healthcare decision-makers and the general public will be undertaken for each key issue

CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries – Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996–2015

Background: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development is increasing. Community/Citizen’s Juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection, and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs and develop an initial checklist, and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. Design: Using literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy-advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. Results: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38) while least reported was availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38) however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). Conclusions: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy-making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy-advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardised, systematic and transparent reporting