Raechel A. Damarell

Dr. Raechel A. Damarell

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
31 May 2018 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JMJacqueline Miller
Jacqueline Miller
ETEmma Tonkin
Emma Tonkin
RDRaechel A. Damarell
Raechel A. Damarell
AMAndrew McPhee
Andrew McPhee
MSMachiko Suganuma
Machiko Suganuma
CCCarmel T Collins
Carmel T Collins
This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesised the post-1990 literature examining the effect of human milk on morbidity, specifically necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), late onset sepsis (LOS), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and neurodevelopment in infants born ≤28 weeks’ gestation and/or publications with reported infant mean birth weight of ≤1500 g. Online databases including Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and comparisons were grouped as follows: exclusive human milk (EHM) versus exclusive preterm formula (EPTF), any human milk (HM) versus EPTF, higher versus lower dose HM, and unpasteurised versus pasteurised HM. Experimental and observational studies were pooled separately in meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed for each individual study and the GRADE system used to judge the certainty of the findings. Forty-nine studies (with 56 reports) were included, of which 44 could be included in meta-analyses. HM provided a clear protective effect against NEC, with an approximate 4% reduction in incidence. HM also provided a possible reduction in LOS, severe ROP and severe NEC. Particularly for NEC, any volume of HM is better than EPTF, and the higher the dose the greater the protection. Evidence regarding pasteurisation is inconclusive, but it appears to have no effect on some outcomes. Improving the intake of mother’s own milk (MOM) and/or donor HM results in small improvements in morbidity in this population.

18 July 2018 in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TWTom P. Walsh
Tom P. Walsh
JAJohn Arnold
John Arnold
Angela M F Evans AMAngela M F Evans AM
Angela M F Evans AM
AYAlison Yaxley
Alison Yaxley
RDRaechel A. Damarell
Raechel A. Damarell
ESE. Michael Shanahan
E. Michael Shanahan
Obesity and musculoskeletal pain are strongly related, but there is emerging evidence that body fat, not body weight, may be a better indicator of risk. There is, therefore, a need to determine if body fat is associated with musculoskeletal pain as it may improve management strategies. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between body fat and musculoskeletal pain. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to 8th January 2018. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies investigating the association between measures of body fat and musculoskeletal pain were included. All included articles were assessed for methodological rigour using the Epidemiology Appraisal Instrument. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and effect estimates were pooled for meta-analysis. A total of 10,221 citations were identified through the database searching, which after abstract and full-text review, yielded 28 unique articles. Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analyses, which found significant cross-sectional associations between total body fat mass and widespread pain (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.37–0.61, p < 0.001). Individuals with low-back pain and knee pain had a higher body fat percentage than asymptomatic controls (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.17–0.52, p < 0.001 and SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05–0.32, p = 0.009, respectively). Fat mass index was significantly, albeit weakly, associated with foot pain (SMD 0.05, 95% CI 0.03–0.06, p < 0.001). Longitudinal studies (n = 8) were unsuitable for meta-analysis, but were largely indicative of elevated body fat increasing the risk of incident and worsening joint pain. There was conflicting evidence for an association between body fat percentage and incident low-back pain (3 studies, follow-up 4–20 years). Increasing knee pain (1 study) and incident foot pain (2 studies) were positively associated with body fat percentage and fat mass index. The percentage of items in the EAI graded as ‘yes’ for each study ranged from 23 to 85%, indicating variable methodological quality of the included studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified positive cross-sectional associations between increased body fat and widespread and single-site joint pain in the low-back, knee and foot. Longitudinal studies suggest elevated body fat may infer increased risk of incident and worsening joint pain, although further high-quality studies are required.

9 July 2015 in JMIR Human Factors
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SOSimone Kate Orlowski
Simone Kate Orlowski
SLSharon Lawn
Sharon Lawn
AVAnthony Venning
Anthony Venning
MWMegan Winsall
Megan Winsall
GJGabrielle M Jones
Gabrielle M Jones
NBNiranjan Bidargaddi
Niranjan Bidargaddi
JMIR Human Factors - a leading peer-reviewed ehealth journal

1 July 2020 in BMC Family Practice
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RDRaechel A. Damarell
Raechel A. Damarell
DMDeidre Morgan
Deidre Morgan
JTJennifer J. Tieman
Jennifer J. Tieman
Background: General practitioners (GPs) increasingly manage patients with multimorbidity but report challenges in doing so. Patients describe poor experiences with health care systems that treat each of their health conditions separately, resulting in fragmented, uncoordinated care. For GPs to provide the patient-centred, coordinated care patients need and want, research agendas and health system structures and policies will need to adapt to address this epidemiologic transition. This systematic review seeks to understand if and how multimorbidity impacts on the work of GPs, the strategies they employ to manage challenges, and what they believe still needs addressing to ensure quality patient care.Methods: Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies reporting GP experiences of managing patients with multimorbidity. The search included nine major databases, grey literature sources, Google and Google Scholar, a hand search ofJournal of Comorbidity, and the reference lists of included studies.Results: Thirty-three studies from fourteen countries were included. Three major challenges were identified: practising without supportive evidence; working within a fragmented health care system whose policies and structures remain organised around single condition care and specialisation; and the clinical uncertainty associated with multimorbidity complexity and general practitioner perceptions of decisional risk. GPs revealed three approaches to mitigating these challenges: prioritising patient-centredness and relational continuity; relying on knowledge of patient preferences and unique circumstances to individualise care; and structuring the consultation to create a sense of time and minimise patient risk.Conclusions: GPs described an ongoing tension between applying single condition guidelines to patients with multimorbidity as security against uncertainty or penalty, and potentially causing patients harm. Above all, they chose to prioritise their long-term relationships for the numerous gains this brought such as mutual trust, deeper insight into a patient’s unique circumstances, and useable knowledge of each individual’s capacity for the work of illness and goals for life. GPs described a need for better multimorbidity management guidance. Perhaps more than this, they require policies and models of practice that provide remunerated time and space for nurturing trustful therapeutic partnerships.


25 June 2019 in Medical Education
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NCNarelle Campbell
Narelle Campbell
HWHelen Wozniak
Helen Wozniak
RPRobyn L Philip
Robyn L Philip
RDRaechel A. Damarell
Raechel A. Damarell
Context: The use of peer support as a faculty development technique to improve clinical teaching is uncommon in medical education, despite the benefits of situating learning in the workplace. The authors therefore conducted a broad search seeking theoretical and empirical literature describing peer support strategies for clinical teachers in health care workplaces. This included descriptive and non‐experimental studies that are often excluded from reviews. The review aimed to identify and assess existing initiatives and to synthesise key challenges and benefits. Methods: An integrative literature review was undertaken (2004–2017), based on searches of eight international electronic databases and targeted manual searches. Key concepts, elements and models were mapped using an iterative, constant comparative method. An evaluative framework, drawing on previous research, informed conclusions regarding the quality of evidence. Results: From a pool of 5735 papers, 34 met the inclusion criteria. The majority referred to studies conducted in the USA (59%) and in the medical profession (71%). Analysis revealed a trend towards using a collaborative model (56%), voluntary participation (59%), and direct workplace observation by a peer clinician (68%). Design features of the peer support strategy were commonly reported (65%), with half providing outcome measures (56%). Few papers reported on process evaluation (15%) or evidence of programme sustainability (15%). Despite logistical and time‐associated challenges, benefits accrued to individuals and the workplace, and included improved teaching practices. Embedding the peer support strategy into routine organisational practice proved effective. Conclusions: The results indicated that a workplace‐based peer support model is an acceptable and effective faculty development strategy for health care clinical teachers. Conceptualising workplace‐based peer support via a sociocultural model that acknowledges the significance of educational design, peers as collaborators and the importance of workplace context and culture is emphasised. Future research should focus on clarification studies informed by contemporary models of faculty development, in which factors impacting the health care workplace are considered.