Search

Background: Health care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?Methods: We purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.Results: We identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.Conclusions: Despite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In March 2008, the D:A:D study published results demonstrating an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) for patients on abacavir (ABC). We describe changes to the use of ABC since this date, and investigate changes to the association between ABC and MI with subsequent follow-up.Methods: A total of 49,717 D:A:D participants were followed from study entry until the first of an MI, death, 1 February 2013 or 6 months after last visit. Associations between a person's 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and the likelihood of initiating or discontinuing ABC were assessed using multivariable logistic/Poisson regression. Poisson regression was used to assess the association between current ABC use and MI risk, adjusting for potential confounders, and a test of interaction was performed to assess whether the association had changed in the post-March 2008 period.Results: Use of ABC increased from 10 % of the cohort in 2000 to 20 % in 2008, before stabilising at 18-19 %. Increases in use pre-March 2008, and subsequent decreases, were greatest in those at moderate and high CVD risk. Post-March 2008, those on ABC at moderate/high CVD risk were more likely to discontinue ABC than those at low/unknown CVD risk, regardless of viral load (≤1,000 copies/ml: relative rate 1.49 [95 % confidence interval 1.34-1.65]; >1,000 copies/ml: 1.23 [1.02-1.48]); no such associations were seen pre-March 2008. There was some evidence that antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve persons at moderate/high CVD risk post-March 2008 were less likely to initiate ABC than those at low/unknown CVD risk (odds ratio 0.74 [0.48-1.13]). By 1 February 2013, 941 MI events had occurred in 367,559 person-years. Current ABC use was associated with a 98 % increase in MI rate (RR 1.98 [1.72-2.29]) with no difference in the pre- (1.97 [1.68-2.33]) or post- (1.97 [1.43-2.72]) March 2008 periods (interaction P = 0.74).Conclusions: Despite a reduction in the channelling of ABC for patients at higher CVD risk since 2008, we continue to observe an association between ABC use and MI risk. Whilst confounding cannot be fully ruled out, this further diminishes channelling bias as an explanation for our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is possible that some people who quit smoking experience improved mental health after cessation and therefore remain abstinent, whereas other people who quit may experience worse mental health after cessation and therefore be more likely to relapse to smoking. Thus, in this study we aimed to examine the association between an enduring change in mental health following the cessation period and future risk of relapse.Methods: A secondary analysis of prospective data pooled from five placebo-controlled randomised trials for smoking reduction conducted in Europe, USA and Australia. Change in mental health (SF-36, scored 0-100) was measured from baseline to four months for those who were biologically-validated as point-prevalence abstainers at four month follow-up. Thereafter we assessed whether relapse to smoking by 12 months was more likely in those whose mental health had worsened between baseline and four months compared with those who saw no change or an improvement.Results: After adjustment for baseline mental health and other major covariates, there was no greater tendency to relapse at 12 months for those whose mental health worsened after cessation compared with those who had no change or an improvement. The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval was 1.01 (0.97 to 1.05).Conclusions: People whose mental health worsens after smoking cessation are at no greater risk of subsequent relapse to smoking than those whose mental health stays the same or improves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]