Search

Background: Community members may provide useful perspectives on manuscripts submitted to medical journals., Objective: To determine the impact of community members reviewing medical journal manuscripts., Design: Randomized controlled trial involving 578 original research manuscripts submitted to two medical journals from June 2018 to November 2021., Participants: Twenty-eight community members who were trained, supervised, and compensated., Interventions: A total of 289 randomly selected control manuscripts were reviewed by scientific reviewers only. And 289 randomly selected intervention manuscripts were reviewed by scientific reviewers and one community member. Journal editorial teams used all reviews to make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts., Main Measures: Usefulness of reviews to editors, content of community reviews, and changes made to published articles in response to community reviewer comments., Key Results: Editor ratings of community and scientific reviews averaged 3.1 and 3.3, respectively (difference 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1 to 0.3), on a 5-point scale where a higher score indicates a more useful review. Qualitative analysis of the content of community reviews identified two taxonomies of themes: study attributes and viewpoints. Study attributes are the sections, topics, and components of manuscripts commented on by reviewers. Viewpoints are reviewer perceptions and perspectives on the research described in manuscripts and consisted of four major themes: (1) diversity of study participants, (2) relevance to patients and communities, (3) cultural considerations and social context, and (4) implementation of research by patients and communities. A total of 186 community reviewer comments were integrated into 64 published intervention group articles. Viewpoint themes were present more often in 66 published intervention articles compared to 54 published control articles (2.8 vs. 1.7 themes/article, difference 1.1, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.8)., Conclusions: With training, supervision, and compensation, community members are able to review manuscripts submitted to medical journals. Their comments are useful to editors, address topics relevant to patients and communities, and are reflected in published articles., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03432143., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Living in a low-income neighborhood with low access to healthy food retailers is associated with increased risk for chronic disease. The U.S. Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) provides resources to support the development of infrastructure to improve neighborhood food environments. This natural experiment examined a HFFI funded food hub that was designed to be implemented by a community development corporation in an urban neighborhood in Cleveland, Ohio. It was intended to increase access to affordable, local, and healthy foods; establish programs to increase social connections and support for healthy eating; and create job opportunities for residents. We used a quasi-experimental, longitudinal design to externally evaluate food hub implementation and its impact on changes to the built and social environment and dietary patterns among residents living in the intervention neighborhood (n = 179) versus those in a comparison (n = 150) neighborhood. Overall, many of the food hub components were not implemented fully, and dose and reach of the executed food hub components was low. There were statistically significant improvements in observed availability of healthy foods in the intervention neighborhood versus the comparison neighborhood. There were no changes over time in diet quality scores, total caloric intake, or fruit and vegetable intake in the intervention neighborhood. In conclusion, low dose implementation of a food hub led to small improvements in availability of healthy foods but not in dietary patterns. Findings highlight challenges to implementing a food hub in neighborhoods with low access to healthy food retailers.

Background: Low organ donation rates remain a major barrier to organ transplantation., Objective: We aimed to determine the effect of a video and patient cueing on organ donation consent among patients meeting with their primary care provider., Design: This was a randomized controlled trial between February 2013 and May 2014., Setting: The waiting rooms of 18 primary care clinics of a medical system in Cuyahoga County, Ohio., Patients: The study included 915 patients over 15.5 years of age who had not previously consented to organ donation., Interventions: Just prior to their clinical encounter, intervention patients (n = 456) watched a 5-minute organ donation video on iPads and then choose a question regarding organ donation to ask their provider. Control patients (n = 459) visited their provider per usual routine., Main Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who consented for organ donation. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who discussed organ donation with their provider and the proportion who were satisfied with the time spent with their provider during the clinical encounter., Key Results: Intervention patients were more likely than control patients to consent to donate organs (22 % vs. 15 %, OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.10-2.13). Intervention patients were also more likely to have donation discussions with their provider (77 % vs. 18 %, OR 15.1, 95%CI 11.1-20.6). Intervention and control patients were similarly satisfied with the time they spent with their provider (83 % vs. 86 %, OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.61-1.25)., Limitation: How the observed increases in organ donation consent might translate into a greater organ supply is unclear., Conclusion: Watching a brief video regarding organ donation and being cued to ask a primary care provider a question about donation resulted in more organ donation discussions and an increase in organ donation consent. Satisfaction with the time spent during the clinical encounter was not affected., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01697137.

Background: This study aimed to determine the incidence and risk factors for emergency department (ED) visits and unplanned hospitalization after thyroid and parathyroid surgery., Methods: A retrospective study of all patients who underwent thyroidectomy or parathyroidectomy from 2007 to 2014 was conducted to assess for ED visits or unplanned hospitalization within 30 days after surgery. Uni- and multivariate analyses were used to identify risk factors for ED visits and hospitalization., Results: Of 864 patients who underwent thyroidectomy (n = 673) or parathyroidectomy (n = 191), 96 (11.1 %) had an ED visit and 41 (4.7 %) were hospitalized within 30 days after surgery. Univariate analysis showed hypocalcemia (p = 0.001), younger age (p = 0.02), total thyroidectomy (p = 0.01), and lack of private health insurance (p = 0.005) to be predictive of an ED visit and hypocalcemia (p = 0.0001), Hashimoto's thyroiditis (p = 0.049), total thyroidectomy (p = 0.005), and African American race (p = 0.03) were predictive of hospitalization after thyroidectomy. Multivariate analysis showed younger age (odds ratio [OR] 1.5 per 10-year decrease in age; p = 0.002; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.8) and Medicare insurance (OR 2.7; p = 0.01; 95 % CI 1.3-5.7) to be independently associated with an ED visit, and hypocalcemia (OR 4.7; p < 0.001; 95 % CI 2.2-11.0) was the only independent factor associated with hospitalization after thyroidectomy. Univariate analysis showed hypocalcemia, renal hyperparathyroidism, and multiglandular disease to be predictive of an ED visit and hospitalization after parathyroidectomy. The sample size for parathyroidectomy was too small for multivariate analysis., Conclusions: Targeted strategies for transitions of care for patients with postoperative hypocalcemia may help to reduce ED visits and hospitalization after thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy.

Background: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a common complication in patients with cirrhosis or fulminant liver failure. We systematically reviewed the benefits and harms of using terlipressin, a novel vasoconstricting agent in patients with HRS., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and conference proceedings for relevant trials of terlipressin. Results were summarized using the random-effects model., Results: Eight trials (320 participants) were included. When compared with placebo, terlipressin-treated patients had higher HRS reversal (odds ratio [OR] 7.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.17-17.59), mean arterial pressure (weighted mean difference [WMD] 11.26 mmHg, 95% CI 1.52-21), and urine output. There was a significant increase in ischemic adverse events with terlipressin when compared to placebo. There was mild-to-moderate heterogeneity in these analyses. There was no significant difference between terlipressin and noradrenaline in HRS reversal (OR 1.23, 95% CI, 0.43-3.54), mean arterial pressure, and urine output. Side-effect profile did not differ between terlipressin and noradrenaline., Conclusion: Terlipressin improves HRS reversal and other surrogate outcome measures compared with placebo, but no significant differences for these outcomes were noted when comparing terlipressin and noradrenaline. Terlipressin is a potential therapeutic option for HRS, but larger trials comparing terlipressin to other widely used vasoconstrictors are warranted.