Browsing by Author "Fox-Robichaud, Alison"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Public awareness and knowledge of sepsis: a cross-sectional survey of adults in Canada
    (2022-11-03) Parsons Leigh, Jeanna; Brundin-Mather, Rebecca; Moss, Stephana J.; Nickel, Angie; Parolini, Ariana; Walsh, Deirdre; Bigham, Blair L.; Carter, Alix J. E.; Fox-Robichaud, Alison; Fiest, Kirsten M.
    Abstract Background Sepsis is a life-threatening complication of the body’s response to infection. The financial, medical, and psychological costs of sepsis to individuals and to the healthcare system are high. Most sepsis cases originate in the community, making public awareness of sepsis essential to early diagnosis and treatment. There has been no comprehensive examination of adult’s sepsis knowledge in Canada. Methods We administered an online structured survey to English- or French-literate adults in Canada. The questionnaire comprised 28 questions in three domains: awareness, knowledge, and information access. Sampling was stratified by age, sex, and geography and weighted to 2016 census data. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses; demographic differences were tested using the Rao–Scott correction for weighted chi-squared tests and associations using multiple variable regression. Results Sixty-one percent of 3200 adults sampled had heard of sepsis. Awareness differed by respondent’s residential region, sex, education, and ethnic group (p < 0.001, all). The odds of having heard of sepsis were higher for females, older adults, respondents with some or completed college/university education, and respondents who self-identified as Black, White, or of mixed ethnicity (p < 0.01, all). Respondent’s knowledge of sepsis definitions, symptoms, risk factors, and prevention measures was generally low (53.0%, 31.5%, 16.5%, and 36.3%, respectively). Only 25% of respondents recognized vaccination as a preventive strategy. The strongest predictors of sepsis knowledge were previous exposure to sepsis, healthcare employment, female sex, and a college/university education (p < 0.001, all). Respondents most frequently reported hearing about sepsis through television (27.7%) and preferred to learn about sepsis from healthcare providers (53.1%). Conclusions Sepsis can quickly cause life-altering physical and psychological effects and 39% of adults sampled in Canada have not heard of it. Critically, a minority (32%) knew about signs, risk factors, and strategies to lower risk. Education initiatives should focus messaging on infection prevention, employ broad media strategies, and use primary healthcare providers to disseminate evidence-based information. Future work could explore whether efforts to raise public awareness of sepsis might be bolstered or hindered by current discourse around COVID-19, particularly those centered on vaccination.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review
    (2021-09-25) Moss, Stephana J.; Krewulak, Karla D.; Stelfox, Henry T.; Ahmed, Sofia B.; Anglin, Melanie C.; Bagshaw, Sean M.; Burns, Karen E. A.; Cook, Deborah J.; Doig, Christopher J.; Fox-Robichaud, Alison; Fowler, Robert; Hernández, Laura; Kho, Michelle E.; Kredentser, Maia; Makuk, Kira; Murthy, Srinivas; Niven, Daniel J.; Olafson, Kendiss; Parhar, Ken K. S.; Patten, Scott B.; Rewa, Oleksa G.; Rochwerg, Bram; Sept, Bonnie; Soo, Andrea; Spence, Krista; Spence, Sean; Straus, Sharon; West, Andrew; Parsons Leigh, Jeanna; Fiest, Kirsten M.
    Abstract Background Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. Results Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). Conclusions Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Trial registration: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Sex-based analysis of treatment responses in animal models of sepsis: a preclinical systematic review protocol
    (2023-03-21) Zhang, MengQi; Fergusson, Dean A.; Sharma, Rahul; Khoo, Ciel; Mendelson, Asher A.; McDonald, Braedon; Macala, Kimberly F.; Sharma, Neha; Gill, Sean E.; Fiest, Kirsten M.; Lehmann, Christian; Shorr, Risa; Jahandideh, Forough; Bourque, Stephane L.; Liaw, Patricia C.; Fox-Robichaud, Alison; Lalu, Manoj M.
    Abstract Background The importance of investigating sex- and gender-dependent differences has been recently emphasized by major funding agencies. Notably, the influence of biological sex on clinical outcomes in sepsis is unclear, and observational studies suffer from the effect of confounding factors. The controlled experimental environment afforded by preclinical studies allows for clarification and mechanistic evaluation of sex-dependent differences. We propose a systematic review to assess the impact of biological sex on baseline responses to disease induction as well as treatment responses in animal models of sepsis. Given the lack of guidance surrounding sex-based analyses in preclinical systematic reviews, careful consideration of various factors is needed to understand how best to conduct analyses and communicate findings. Methods MEDLINE and Embase will be searched (2011-present) to identify preclinical studies of sepsis in which any intervention was administered and sex-stratified data reported. The primary outcome will be mortality. Secondary outcomes will include organ dysfunction, bacterial load, and IL-6 levels. Study selection will be conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and audited by a second independent reviewer. Data extracted from included studies will be pooled, and meta-analysis will be conducted using random effects modeling. Primary analyses will be stratified by animal age and will assess the impact of sex at the following time points: pre-intervention, in response to treatment, and post-intervention. Risk of bias will be assessed using the SYRCLE’s risk-of-bias tool. Illustrative examples of potential methods to analyze sex-based differences are provided in this protocol. Discussion Our systematic review will summarize the current state of knowledge on sex-dependent differences in sepsis. This will identify current knowledge gaps that future studies can address. Finally, this review will provide a framework for sex-based analysis in future preclinical systematic reviews. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022367726.