Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2023
Haemophilia joint health score (HJHS) usage, patterns and outcome data in patients with haemophilia A and haemophilia B in Australia: A descriptive study using the Australian Bleeding Disorders Registry (ABDR).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
George Carly, Parikh Sumit, Carter Tina, Morris Alison, Cramey Cameron, Mcelroy Kymberley, Tran Huyen
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Assessment of joint health is an essential component of haemophilia management. A variety of clinical tools have been developed to standardise this assessment process. One such tool, the Haemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS), is embedded for use within the Australian Bleeding Disorders Registry (ABDR). This provides a unique opportunity to analyse patterns of tool usage as well as associations between scores, demographics and clinical outcome factors.
AIMS: To characterise clinician practices regarding use of HJHS in routine clinical assessment of persons with haemophilia (PWH), to examine relationships between HJHS, and age, inhibitor status and body mass index (BMI), and to identify potential barriers to HJHS tool usage.
METHODS: A national, retrospective study was conducted using data extracted from the ABDR between 2014 and 2020, complemented by a qualitative questionnaire exploring haemophilia treatment centre (HTC) structure, resourcing and clinician perspectives about HJHS.
RESULTS: 28.1% (622/2220) of PWH had at least one HJHS recorded in the ABDR during the defined study period (546 haemophilia A, 76 haemophilia B). HJHS were recorded more in children than adults and performed more in severe than non-severe haemophilia. Multivariate analysis demonstrated significant association of age, severity and inhibitor status with HJHS. No association was identified between BMI and HJHS. Qualitative surveys revealed significant variation in physiotherapy funding, availability and methods of tool use between HTCs.
CONCLUSION: This study provides valuable insights into joint health assessment in Australia. It improved our understanding of factors influencing long-term joint outcomes. Practical limitations of HJHS tool were also discussed.
AIMS: To characterise clinician practices regarding use of HJHS in routine clinical assessment of persons with haemophilia (PWH), to examine relationships between HJHS, and age, inhibitor status and body mass index (BMI), and to identify potential barriers to HJHS tool usage.
METHODS: A national, retrospective study was conducted using data extracted from the ABDR between 2014 and 2020, complemented by a qualitative questionnaire exploring haemophilia treatment centre (HTC) structure, resourcing and clinician perspectives about HJHS.
RESULTS: 28.1% (622/2220) of PWH had at least one HJHS recorded in the ABDR during the defined study period (546 haemophilia A, 76 haemophilia B). HJHS were recorded more in children than adults and performed more in severe than non-severe haemophilia. Multivariate analysis demonstrated significant association of age, severity and inhibitor status with HJHS. No association was identified between BMI and HJHS. Qualitative surveys revealed significant variation in physiotherapy funding, availability and methods of tool use between HTCs.
CONCLUSION: This study provides valuable insights into joint health assessment in Australia. It improved our understanding of factors influencing long-term joint outcomes. Practical limitations of HJHS tool were also discussed.