LIMPRINT in Australia

13Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gordon, S. J., Murray, S. G., Sutton, T., Coulombe, M. M., James, S. J., Van Zanten, M., … Moffatt, C. (2019). LIMPRINT in Australia. Lymphatic Research and Biology, 17(2), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2018.0087

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free