17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Getting on the Same Page: Consolidating Terminology to Facilitate Cross-Disciplinary Health-Related Blast Research

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The consequences of blast exposure (including both high-level and low-level blast) have been a focal point of military interest and research for years. Recent mandates from Congress (e.g., National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, section 734) have further accelerated these efforts, facilitating collaborations between research teams from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds. Based on findings from a recent scoping review, we argue that the scientific field of blast research is plagued by inconsistencies in both conceptualization of relevant constructs and terminology used to describe them. These issues hamper our ability to interpret study methods and findings, hinder efforts to integrate findings across studies to reach scientific consensus, and increase the likelihood of redundant efforts. We argue that multidisciplinary experts in this field require a universal language and clear, standardized terminology to further advance the important work of examining the effects of blast exposure on human health, performance, and well-being. To this end, we present a summary of descriptive conventions regarding the language scientists currently use when discussing blast-related exposures and outcomes based on findings from a recent scoping review. We then provide prescriptive conventions about how these terms should be used by clearly conceptualizing and explicitly defining relevant constructs. Specifically, we summarize essential concepts relevant to the study of blast, precisely distinguish between high-level blast and low-level blast, and discuss how the terms acute, chronic, exposure, and outcome should be used when referring to the health-related consequences of blast exposure.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Death on the battlefield (2001–2011)

          Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 73, S431-S437
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Use Your Words Carefully: What Is a Chronic Disease?

            Overview One important element of effective communication is having a shared language or at least a shared understanding of the meaning of the central words used in a conversation. One term that is often used in discussions between patients and medical providers, in the academic literature, and in policy discussions, is “chronic disease.” There is not only tremendous variation in the diseases that are included under the umbrella term “chronic disease” but also variation in the time a disease must be present for something to be referred to as chronic. Furthermore, there is a move to include chronic conditions that are not indicators of disease, but long-standing functional disabilities, including developmental disorders and visual impairment (1–4). Within professional communities (i.e., medical, public health, academic, and policy), there is a large degree of variation in the use of the term chronic disease. For example, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) classify the following as chronic diseases: heart disease, stroke, cancer, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and arthritis (5). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have a more extensive list of 19 chronic conditions that includes Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and HIV, to name a few. This difference, within the Department of Health and Human Services alone, although not surprising to those in the field, has the potential to create confusion and misunderstanding when speaking in generalities about the impact of chronic disease, the cost of chronic disease, and overall measures to reduce chronic disease. The academic literature is not immune to the same kind of terminology variation. Differences in how “chronic disease” is used are largely dependent on the data used for the research and the discipline of the lead authors (i.e., public health and sociology). For example, one study, authored by individuals from Harvard Medical School, explored the prevalence of chronic disease using NHANES data (1999–2004). The study classifies the following as chronic diseases: cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, asthma, COPD, and previous cancer (6). Another academic study on chronic disease, authored by a geriatrician, classifies chronic illness as “conditions that last a year or more and require ongoing medical attention and/or limit activities of daily living” (7). The implication of a non-uniform use of the term is that a detailed read of each study is necessary to avoid erroneous conclusions regarding interventions necessary to reduce chronic disease burden for the individual and society. Popular Internet sources used by the general public to gather medical information use the terms “chronic disease” or “chronic condition” to mean slightly different things. For example, MedicineNet describes a chronic disease as, one lasting 3 months or more, by the definition of the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. Chronic diseases generally cannot be prevented by vaccines or cured by medication, nor do they just disappear (8). According to Wikipedia a chronic condition is, a human health condition or disease that is persistent or otherwise long-lasting in its effects or a disease that comes with time. The term chronic is often applied when the course of the disease lasts for more than three months. Common chronic diseases include arthritis, asthma, cancer, COPD, diabetes and viral diseases such as hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS (9). Finally, the World Health Organization states that chronic diseases, are not passed from person to person. They are of long duration and generally slow progression. The four main types … are cardiovascular diseases (like heart attacks and stroke), cancers, chronic respiratory diseases (such as chronic obstructed pulmonary disease and asthma) and diabetes (10). The CDC’s Chronic Disease Overview omits chronic respiratory conditions, such as COPD and asthma, and makes no mention of duration of the disease or symptoms. MedicineNet’s definition does not list specific diseases, but does include the phrase “cannot be cured by medication.” Similar to MedicineNet, Wikipedia uses the 3-month time span as a marker, but does list specific diseases, including HIV. The WHO’s definition would eliminate HIV as a chronic disease as the virus is “passed from person to person.” The variation in meaning is amplified when viewed in an international context. For example, the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare includes the following as common features of chronic disease (11): complex causality, with multiple factors leading to their onset a long development period, for which there may be no symptoms a prolonged course of illness, perhaps leading to other health complications associated functional impairment or disability. Highlighted prominently in the information from the Australian government on chronic disease is the disease burden of mental illness and oral disease. Both of these conditions are often excluded from the chronic disease conversation in the United States (12, 13). Given the worldwide dissemination of medical information, the variation in public information is not only confusing on paper but also has real implications for those managing chronic diseases or conditions. It is possible that recommendations for chronic disease management are missed by individuals who do not know that the information applies to them; conversely, individuals may use the recommendation when it is not advisable to do so. For example, the CDC lists “cancer” as a chronic disease when, in fact, only certain types of cancers (i.e., multiple myeloma) can be viewed in terms of a chronic illness. Other types of cancers have little treatment options and prove fatal in the near term. Diseases Can Transition from Fatal to Chronic To the public health and medical community, transitions in disease states – from terminal diagnosis to chronic disease, or from acute to chronic – are not unexpected. For example, approximately 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV, with 50,000 new cases confirmed each year (14). Today, people with HIV are most often treated with once-a-day, fixed-dose pills, taken for the rest of his or her life. It is a vast improvement from early HIV treatment that involved a highly complex pill regimen, with difficult to manage side effects. The advances in HIV treatment have changed the life trajectory for a newly diagnosed HIV-positive individual. As of 2015, the lifespan of a person living with HIV was about the same as an individual not diagnosed with HIV (15–19). However, a search of news articles from two national news sources (New York Times and Washington Post) from 1/1/2015 to 5/1/2016 generated zero news articles containing the words “HIV, Chronic and Disease/Condition.” If the general public is relying on these types of news sources to understand the changing nature of chronic disease, it is understandable that HIV is not typically thought of in the same category as diabetes or COPD, and the stigma of HIV as a “death sentence” remains. It is reasonable to assume that the general public is unaware that HIV-positive individuals who have a greater life expectancy than someone diagnosed with diabetes. With the advances in HIV treatment, HIV is now a risk factor for other chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. Patients, clinicians, public health professionals, and others interested in reducing the public health and economic burdens of chronic disease may benefit from viewing HIV not as a single chronic disease, but as a precursor to other chronic diseases (20–22). Looking to the Future The National Health Council reports that the United States bears a cumulative annual economic burden of $1.3 trillion from the seven most prevalent chronic conditions – cancer, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, heart disease, pulmonary conditions, and mental illness (23). This number does not include a whole host of other chronic conditions and diseases, such as HIV. If we want to reduce the health effects and fiscal burden of chronic disease, the conversation needs to change. Of course, we need to promote lifestyle changes and medical breakthroughs to reduce chronic disease, but we also need patients, providers, policymakers, and those promoting public discourse, to be precise in the words we use to describe health, disease, and illness. Rather than adhering to a specific list of diseases and a specified time period, we advocate for a simpler approach. According to Merriam Webster, “chronic” is something that is “continuing or occurring again and again for a long time.” Using this simpler view, we would exclude something like a broken leg as a chronic condition, but would include reoccurring lower back pain, or hormone-related migraine headaches, for example. Diseases, conditions, and syndromes that do not make the top seven list, but when taken together affect a large number of individuals who can be quite costly to manage and are justifiably emotionally and physically taxing for patients and their caregivers. By reframing the conversation, we are not advocating for drawing attention away from heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and COPD – the most commonly discussed chronic diseases – but we are in favor of bringing more diseases (and conditions) under the umbrella, with the hope of increasing awareness, sharing knowledge, and creating a larger community of individuals working toward improving the health of those who suffer from chronic health problems. Author Contributions SB: conceptualized paper topic, was the lead author of the manuscript, and finalized information for submission. SH: participated in the writing of the paper, provided a meticulous editing of the paper, and reviewing for overall impact. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Blast injuries.

              Health-care providers are increasingly faced with the possibility of needing to care for people injured in explosions, but can often, however, feel undertrained for the unique aspects of the patient's presentation and management. Although most blast-related injuries (eg, fragmentation injuries from improvised explosive devices and standard military explosives) can be managed in a similar manner to typical penetrating or blunt traumatic injuries, injuries caused by the blast pressure wave itself cannot. The blast pressure wave exerts forces mainly at air-tissue interfaces within the body, and the pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and auditory systems are at greatest risk. Arterial air emboli arising from severe pulmonary injury can cause ischaemic complications-especially in the brain, heart, and intestinal tract. Attributable, in part, to the scene chaos that undoubtedly exists, poor triage and missed diagnosis of blast injuries are substantial concerns because injuries can be subtle or their presentation can be delayed. Management of these injuries can be a challenge, compounded by potentially conflicting treatment goals. This Seminar aims to provide a thorough overview of these unique primary blast injuries and their management.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Neurol
                Front Neurol
                Front. Neurol.
                Frontiers in Neurology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-2295
                24 June 2021
                2021
                : 12
                : 695496
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Leidos , San Diego, CA, United States
                [2] 2Health and Behavioral Sciences Department, Naval Health Research Center , San Diego, CA, United States
                [3] 3Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, University of Maryland , College Park, MD, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Ibolja Cernak, Mercer University School of Medicine, United States

                Reviewed by: Ralph George Depalma, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, United States; Catherine Johnson, Missouri University of Science and Technology, United States; Zezong Gu, University of Missouri, United States

                *Correspondence: Jennifer N. Belding jennifer.n.belding.ctr@ 123456mail.mil

                This article was submitted to Neurotrauma, a section of the journal Frontiers in Neurology

                Article
                10.3389/fneur.2021.695496
                8264539
                34248831
                ee817538-960a-4fea-ba3a-7f40788c539f
                Copyright © 2021 Belding, Egnoto, Englert, Fitzmaurice and Thomsen.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 15 April 2021
                : 25 May 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 5, Equations: 0, References: 36, Pages: 11, Words: 9037
                Funding
                Funded by: Medical Research and Materiel Command 10.13039/100000182
                Categories
                Neurology
                Review

                Neurology
                blast,tbi,low-level blast,explosives,overpressure,injury,military
                Neurology
                blast, tbi, low-level blast, explosives, overpressure, injury, military

                Comments

                Comment on this article