Search

Background: Dementia Care Navigators (DCNs) are professionals without clinical training, who provide individualised emotional and practical support to people living with dementia, working alongside clinical services. Navigator services have been implemented but the service offered vary without a consistent overview provided. The aim of this narrative systematic review was to describe and compare existing service formats, and to synthesise evidence regarding their implementation and impacts. Methods: The review was registered on PROSPERO [CRD42021292518]. Three electronic databases were searched and included studies reported on a DCN service, defined as a service in which non‐clinically trained workers provide personalised advice and support to people with dementia and/or carers in the community. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and titles and read through full papers for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Standard Quality Assessment QualSyst. Results: We included 14 papers reporting on six studies. All services were US‐based and only varied by integration and training provided. Studies reported different degrees of impact on service utilisation and on symptoms and mental well‐being of people with dementia and their carers, with too little evidence to draw substantial/meaningful conclusions and studies employing different outcome measures. One study evidenced greater impacts on people with more advanced dementia compared to earlier stages. Conclusions: DCN services have the potential to effectively provide non‐clinical support to people with dementia and carers from the point of diagnosis. Further research from countries other than the USA, focusing on the impact on social care and social support service access and utilisation, and utilising similar established outcome measures are required. Key points: Evidence on the impact of Dementia Care Navigators (DCNs) is limited but shows promising benefits for people living with dementia and their carers.More research needs to be conducted in countries other than the US, where all evidence was reported, and with similar outcome measures to allow comparison.DCNs are a highly useful professional group without medical training, who can navigate people living with dementia and their carers to support and provide support themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is extremely limited population‐based research on social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SCD). Population‐based samples have the potential to better characterize the SCD phenotype by mitigating confounds and biases that are typical of convenience and clinical samples. Aims: The aims of this preliminary epidemiologic study were to advance our understanding of the SCD phenotype relative to developmental language disorder (DLD), obtain an estimate of prevalence, identify risk factors and lay the groundwork for future population level research of SCD. Methods & Procedures: We analysed existing data from the EpiSLI Database to examine social communication skills in 393 8th grade (13–14 years) children with and without a history of DLD. The primary measure used to evaluate SCD was the Children's Communication Checklist (CCC‐2). Two case definitions of SCD reflecting DSM‐5 criteria were examined. Both definitions involved significant pragmatic impairment, employing a commonly adopted clinical cut‐point of 1.5 SD. In one case, pragmatic deficits could occur along with structural language deficits and, in the other case (established using principal component analysis), pragmatic and social skills were disproportionately lower than structural language abilities. Outcomes & Results: When using the first case definition, SCD was much more common in children with a history of DLD than without DLD and history of language disorder at kindergarten was a significant risk factor for SCD in adolescence. However, it is important to note that SCD could be found in children with no prior deficits in other aspects of language. When the second definition was employed, SCD was equally distributed across children with and without a history of DLD. Male sex was a significant risk factor using this case definition of SCD. The estimated prevalence of SCD ranged from 7% (SE = 1.5%) to 11% (SE = 1.7%), acknowledging that prevalence depends on the cut‐point selected to determine communication disorder. Conclusions & Implications: These findings contribute to our understanding of the association between SCD and DLD by recognizing varying profiles of pragmatic and social communication difficulties, which in turn may help refine our diagnostic categories. Preliminary prevalence estimates of SCD can serve as an initial guidepost for identification and planning for intervention services for this condition. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: There is considerable debate about the diagnostic category of SCD and its relation to other neurodevelopmental disorders. What this study adds to existing knowledge: Using data from a US‐based epidemiologic sample of DLD, this study offers new information about the association between SCD and DLD, provides preliminary estimates of SCD prevalence, and identifies risk factors for SCD. Clinical implications of this study: Improved understanding of possible profiles of pragmatic and social communication deficits will help to clarify diagnostic categories and preliminary prevalence estimates may assist with ensuring availability of adequate intervention services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The overall prevalence of U.S. young adult alcohol use has decreased, but little is known about historical change in related behaviors such as simultaneous alcohol and marijuana (SAM) use that may increase alcohol‐related risks and societal costs. The purpose of this paper was to examine historical change in SAM use prevalence among U.S. young adult alcohol users from 1977 to 2016, and consider the extent to which observed historical change in SAM use among alcohol users reflects co‐occurring change in marijuana use during these years. Methods: Data on past 12‐month alcohol, marijuana, and SAM use at up to 6 modal ages (19/20, 21/22, 23/24, 25/26, 27/28, and 29/30) were collected from 11,789 individuals (45.0% men) participating in the Monitoring the Future panel study. Annual prevalence estimates within modal age group were obtained; historical SAM use trends among alcohol and marijuana users were estimated. Results: From 2014 to 2016, SAM use was reported by approximately 30% of alcohol users aged 19/20 and 21/22, and 20 to 25% of alcohol users aged 23/24 through 29/30. Since the mid‐1990s, age‐specific historical trends in SAM use prevalence among alcohol users followed 1 of 4 patterns: significant increase followed by oscillating increases/decreases (at modal age 19/20), consistent and significant increases (at modal ages 21/22, 23/24, and 25/26), stability followed by increase (at modal ages 27/28), or stability (at modal ages 29/30). In contrast, SAM use trends among marijuana users primarily reflected stability, with some evidence of a decrease across time at modal ages 19/20 and 23/24. Historical change in SAM prevalence among alcohol users was strongly and positively correlated with changes in overall marijuana use prevalence. Conclusions: A growing proportion of early and mid‐young adult alcohol users reported SAM use, with the highest risk among those in the early years of young adulthood. Young adult SAM use may continue to increase in proportion to the degree that young adult marijuana use continues to increase. This paper examined historical change in simultaneous alcohol and marijuana (SAM) use prevalence among U.S. young adult alcohol users from 1977‐2016. While the overall prevalence of U.S. young adult alcohol use has decreased, a growing proportion of early and mid‐young adult alcohol users reported SAM use, with the highest risk among those in the early years of young adulthood. Young adult SAM use may continue to increase in proportion to the degree that young adult marijuana use continues to increase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This paper presents updated prevalence estimates of awareness, ever‐use, and current use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) from 14 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) countries that have varying regulations governing NVP sales and marketing. Design, Setting, Participants and Measurements: A cross‐sectional analysis of adult (≥ 18 years) current smokers and ex‐smokers from 14 countries participating in the ITC Project. Data from the most recent survey questionnaire for each country were included, which spanned the period 2013–17. Countries were categorized into four groups based on regulations governing NVP sales and marketing (allowable or not), and level of enforcement (strict or weak where NVPs are not permitted to be sold): (1) most restrictive policies (MRPs), not legal to be sold or marketed with strict enforcement: Australia, Brazil, Uruguay; (2) restrictive policies (RPs), not approved for sale or marketing with weak enforcement: Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand; (3) less restrictive policies (LRPs), legal to be sold and marketed with regulations: England, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United States; and (4) no regulatory policies (NRPs), Bangladesh, China, Zambia. Countries were also grouped by World Bank Income Classifications. Country‐specific weighted logistic regression models estimated adjusted NVP prevalence estimates for: awareness, ever/current use, and frequency of use (daily versus non‐daily). Findings NVP awareness and use were lowest in NRP countries. Generally, ever‐ and current use of NVPs were lower in MRP countries (ever‐use = 7.1–48.9%; current use = 0.3–3.5%) relative to LRP countries (ever‐use = 38.9–66.6%; current use = 5.5–17.2%) and RP countries (ever‐use = 10.0–62.4%; current use = 1.4–15.5%). NVP use was highest among high‐income countries, followed by upper–middle‐income countries, and then by lower–middle‐income countries. Conclusions: With a few exceptions, awareness and use of nicotine vaping products varied by the strength of national regulations governing nicotine vaping product sales/marketing, and by country income. In countries with no regulatory policies, use rates were very low, suggesting that there was little availability, marketing and/or interest in nicotine vaping products in these countries where smoking populations are predominantly poorer. The higher awareness and use of nicotine vaping products in high income countries with moderately (e.g. Canada, New Zealand) and less (e.g. England, United States) restrictive policies, is likely due to the greater availability and affordability of nicotine vaping products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past two decades, research on pediatric bipolar disorder has grown geometrically. The diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder was met with enthusiasm, which in healthy doses catalyzed change, and skepticism, which in good measure pushes for rigor. Skepticism led to productive questions about the phenomenology of pediatric bipolar disorder and how best to diagnose and treat it. With regard to prevalence, key questions included whether it was increasing over time, and whether it was limited to the United States. In 2011, we published a meta‐analysis addressing the prevalence questions; results indicated that bipolar disorder manifested at statistically indistinguishable rates in youth community samples across the world. In their recent paper, Parry et al. examine the studies included in the 2011 meta‐analysis using a qualitative approach. Their opinion piece represents a step backwards; every study has shortcomings, but in focusing on a dozen individual studies, Parry et al. fail to take into account the preponderance of evidence – literally thousands of articles across countries, cohorts and methodologies – that support the existence of bipolar disorder in both prepubescent youth and adolescents. This commentary addresses misperceptions regarding the diagnosis of bipolar disorder in youth, particularly with regard to cross‐informant agreement, to present converging data from international sources regarding the onset of bipolar disorder in childhood, and to correct the false claim that pediatric bipolar disorder is controversial. As clinicians and researchers, we have an obligation to do what we can to improve the lives of youth affected by mental illness. Denying the existence of a serious mood disorder will not serve the best interests of young people and will perpetuate the long delays many experience before getting an accurate diagnosis, appropriate treatment, and a fair chance at a good quality of life. Read the Editors' introduction at: doi: 10.1111/camh.12315 Read the core debate at: doi: 10.1111/camh.12231; doi: 10.1111/camh.12243; doi: 10.1111/camh.12306 Read more perspectives in this debate at: doi: 10.1111/camh.12318 doi: 10.1111/camh.12317; doi: 10.1111/camh.12316; doi: 10.1111/camh.12313; doi: 10.1111/camh.12310; doi: 10.1111/camh.12314 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aims: To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies in order to estimate the effect of US medical marijuana laws (MMLs) on past‐month marijuana use prevalence among adolescents. Methods: A total of 2999 papers from 17 literature sources were screened systematically. Eleven studies, developed from four ongoing large national surveys, were meta‐analyzed. Estimates of MML effects on any past‐month marijuana use prevalence from included studies were obtained from comparisons of pre–post MML changes in MML states to changes in non‐MML states over comparable time‐periods. These estimates were standardized and entered into a meta‐analysis model with fixed‐effects for each study. Heterogeneity among the study estimates by national data survey was tested with an omnibus F‐test. Estimates of effects on additional marijuana outcomes, of MML provisions (e.g. dispensaries) and among demographic subgroups were abstracted and summarized. Key methodological and modeling characteristics were also described. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Results: None of the 11 studies found significant estimates of pre–post MML changes compared with contemporaneous changes in non‐MML states for marijuana use prevalence among adolescents. The meta‐analysis yielded a non‐significant pooled estimate (standardized mean difference) of −0.003 (95% confidence interval = −0.012, +0.007). Four studies compared MML with non‐MML states on pre‐MML differences and all found higher rates of past‐month marijuana use in MML states pre‐MML passage. Additional tests of specific MML provisions, of MML effects on additional marijuana outcomes and among subgroups generally yielded non‐significant results, although limited heterogeneity may warrant further study. Conclusions: Synthesis of the current evidence does not support the hypothesis that US medical marijuana laws (MMLs) until 2014 have led to increases in adolescent marijuana use prevalence. Limited heterogeneity exists among estimates of effects of MMLs on other patterns of marijuana use, of effects within particular population subgroups and of effects of specific MML provisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: This paper examines risk factors of gambling and problem gambling among racial subgroups in the U.S. population, namely Native Americans and blacks, for whom research data are lacking.Methods: Findings are based on a large representative general population survey (n = 3,474) of gambling in the U.S. with an oversample of Native Americans (n = 549). Multiple domains were assessed including sociodemographic factors; ecological factors (census-defined neighborhood disadvantage, geocoded density of casinos within 30 miles of respondents' homes, and perceived gambling convenience); impulsivity; and alcohol abuse.Results: After controlling for all variables in the study, neighborhood disadvantage has a significantly greater effect on overall gambling, frequent gambling, and problem gambling for Native Americans than for the rest of the U.S.Population: In addition, the relationship between frequent gambling and heavier drinking is much stronger for blacks than for the rest of the U.S.Population: Discussion and Conclusions: There is a lack of research on gambling involvement among minority groups in the U.S. Blacks and Native Americans are at a higher risk for problem gambling as compared with the rest of the population. Furthermore, social factors and alcohol abuse may show a stronger co-occurrence with gambling involvement among minority groups than among whites.Scientific Significance: This study is a large representative U.S. sample with sizeable numbers of Native Americans and blacks. Thus, prevalence rates and risk factors can be assessed for these important population subgroups. This will allow for targeted intervention programs for Native Americans and blacks with problem gambling and alcohol abuse. (Am J Addict 2017;26:713-721). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Interest in understanding the effects of multimorbidity on outcomes has increased in recent years. This paper presents the most common obesity‐related groupings of multimorbidity in the United States. Using Cerner HealthFacts data, we applied the frequent pattern growth algorithm to identify prevalent multimorbidity groupings of 3 or more diseases (one being obesity) by race using a dataset of 574 172 patients with obesity from all over the United States. We set the minimum prevalence to 10% and identified groupings of ICD10‐CM diagnoses that occur in our dataset at or above the minimum prevalence level. We provide binomial proportion confidence interval estimates to demonstrate the validity of the proportions. We performed g‐test for independence to validate differences in prevalence by race. We found 18 multimorbidity combinations with prevalence higher than or equal to 10%. Our results indicate that there are multiple common multimorbidities groupings for patients with obesity. Each multimorbidity combination is composed of diseases from the following clinical categories: endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases; diseases of the circulatory system; diseases of the digestive system; diseases of the nervous system; and diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue. For each multimorbidity pattern, the prevalence was found to be significantly different by race according to the g‐test with P‐value < .001. Most frequent patterns include essential hypertension or disorder of lipid metabolism. This study identifies common groupings of multimorbidity. We believe our data can be useful for those developing integrated care plans, particularly for those serving diverse communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]