LIMPRINT in Australia.

Background and Study Objective: Australia was one of nine participating countries in the epidemiology Phase II Lymphoedema Impact and Prevalence - International (LIMPRINT) project to determine the number of people with chronic edema (CO) in local health services. Methods and Results: Data collection occurred through questionnaire-based interviews and clinical assessment with provided LIMPRINT tools. Four different types of services across three states in Australia participated. A total of 222 adults participated with an age range from 22 to 102 years, and 60% were female. Site 1 included three residential care facilities (54% of participants had swelling), site 2 was community-delivered aged care services (24% of participants had swelling), site 3 was a hospital setting (facility-based prevalence study; 28% of participants had swelling), and site 4 was a wound treatment center (specific patient population; 100% of participants had swelling). Of those with CO or secondary lymphedema, 93% were not related to cancer, the lower limbs were affected in 51% of cases, and 18% of participants with swelling reported one or more episodes of cellulitis in the previous year. Wounds were identified in 47% (n = 105) of all participants with more than half of those with wounds coming from the dedicated wound clinic. Leg/foot ulcer was the most common type of wound (65%, n = 68). Conclusions: Distances between services, lack of specialized services, and various state funding models contribute to inequities in CO treatment. Understanding the high number of noncancer-related CO presentations will assist health services to provide timely effective care and improve referral pathways.

Ethical considerations for conducting health disparities research in community health centers: a social-ecological perspective.

Community health centers (CHCs) provide optimal research settings. They serve a high-risk, medically underserved population in the greatest need of intervention. Low socioeconomic status renders this population particularly vulnerable to research misconduct. Traditional principles of research ethics are often applied to participants only. The social-ecological model offers a comprehensive framework for applying these principles across multiple levels (participants, providers, organizations, communities, and policy). Our experience with the Trial Using Motivational Interviewing, Positive Affect and Self-Affirmation in African-Americans with Hypertension, a randomized trial conducted in CHCs, led us to propose a new platform for discussing research ethics; examine the social, community, and political factors surrounding research conducted in CHCs; and recommend how future research should be conducted in such settings.

Ethics in human resource management: potential for burnout among healthcare workers in ART and community care centres.

This paper examines ethical dilemmas in providing care for people with HIV/AIDS. Healthcare providers in this sector are overworked, particularly in the high prevalence states. They are faced with the dual burden of the physical and the emotional risks of providing this care. The emotional risks result from their inability to control their work environment, while having to deal with the social and cultural dimensions of patients' experiences. The physical risk is addressed to some extent by post exposure prophylaxis. But the emotional risk is largely left to the individual and there is little by way of institutional responsibility for minimising this. The guidelines for training workers in care and support programmes do not include any detailed institutional mechanisms for reducing workplace stress. This aspect of the programme needs to be examined for its ethical justification. The omission of institutional mechanisms to reduce the emotional risks experienced by healthcare providers in the HIV/AIDS sector could be a function of lack of coordination across different stakeholders in programme development. This can be addressed in further formulations of the programme. Whatever the reasons may be for overlooking these needs, the ethics of this choice need to be carefully reviewed.