Scoping review of exposure questionnaires and surveys in interstitial lung disease.


Journal

BMJ open respiratory research
ISSN: 2052-4439
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open Respir Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101638061

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 May 2024
Historique:
received: 26 10 2023
accepted: 26 04 2024
medline: 17 5 2024
pubmed: 17 5 2024
entrez: 16 5 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Many interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) have clear causal relationships with environmental and occupational exposures. Exposure identification can assist with diagnosis, understanding disease pathogenesis, prognostication and prevention of disease progression and occurrence in others at risk. Despite the importance of exposure identification in ILD, there is no standardised assessment approach. Many questionnaires are in clinical and research use, yet their utility, applicability, relevance and performance characteristics are unknown. This scoping review aimed to summarise the available evidence relating to ILD exposure assessment questionnaires, identify research gaps and inform the content for a future single evidence-based ILD questionnaire. A scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework was conducted. Any questionnaire that elicited exposures specific to ILD was included. A modified COSMIN Risk of Bias Framework was used to assess quality. Relevant articles were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 23 July 2023. 22 exposure questionnaires were identified, including 15 generally pertaining to ILD, along with several disease-specific questionnaires for hypersensitivity pneumonitis (n=4), chronic beryllium disease, sarcoidosis and silicosis (1 questionnaire each). For most questionnaires, quality was low, whereby the methods used to determine exposure inclusion and questionnaire validation were not reported or not performed. Collectively the questionnaires covered 158 unique exposures and at-risk occupations, most commonly birds, mould/water damage, wood dust, asbestos, farming, automotive mechanic and miners. Only five questionnaires also provided free-text fields, and 13 queried qualifiers such as temporality or respiratory protection. Designing a robust ILD-specific questionnaire should include an evidence-based and relevance-based approach to exposure derivation, with clinicians and patients involved in its development and tested to ensure relevance and feasibility.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Many interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) have clear causal relationships with environmental and occupational exposures. Exposure identification can assist with diagnosis, understanding disease pathogenesis, prognostication and prevention of disease progression and occurrence in others at risk. Despite the importance of exposure identification in ILD, there is no standardised assessment approach. Many questionnaires are in clinical and research use, yet their utility, applicability, relevance and performance characteristics are unknown.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aimed to summarise the available evidence relating to ILD exposure assessment questionnaires, identify research gaps and inform the content for a future single evidence-based ILD questionnaire.
METHODS METHODS
A scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework was conducted.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA METHODS
Any questionnaire that elicited exposures specific to ILD was included. A modified COSMIN Risk of Bias Framework was used to assess quality.
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE METHODS
Relevant articles were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 23 July 2023.
RESULTS RESULTS
22 exposure questionnaires were identified, including 15 generally pertaining to ILD, along with several disease-specific questionnaires for hypersensitivity pneumonitis (n=4), chronic beryllium disease, sarcoidosis and silicosis (1 questionnaire each). For most questionnaires, quality was low, whereby the methods used to determine exposure inclusion and questionnaire validation were not reported or not performed. Collectively the questionnaires covered 158 unique exposures and at-risk occupations, most commonly birds, mould/water damage, wood dust, asbestos, farming, automotive mechanic and miners. Only five questionnaires also provided free-text fields, and 13 queried qualifiers such as temporality or respiratory protection.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Designing a robust ILD-specific questionnaire should include an evidence-based and relevance-based approach to exposure derivation, with clinicians and patients involved in its development and tested to ensure relevance and feasibility.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38754906
pii: 11/1/e002155
doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002155
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: HB reports travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim, United Therapeutics, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. CTL reports grant support from the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Scholar Award. CEP reports grant support from CIHR, Worksafe BC and Alberta Health, and consulting fees from Health Canada, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO). MLS reports grant support from NIH, consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Orinove and Roche, and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. KAJ reports grant support from Three Lakes Foundation, consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffman-La Roche, Pliant Therapeutics, Thyron SAB and Brainomix, outside the submitted work.

Auteurs

Hayley Barnes (H)

School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Hayley.Barnes@monash.edu.
Monash Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Seham Elmrayed (S)

Institute of Global Health and Human Ecology, American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt.

Christopher Michael Barber (CM)

Centre for Workplace Health, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.

Johanna Feary (J)

Royal Brompton Hospital, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK.

Cathryn T Lee (CT)

Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Sheiphali Gandhi (S)

Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Cheryl E Peters (CE)

Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Margaret L Salisbury (ML)

Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

Kerri A Johannson (KA)

Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH