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]

Public health officials promoted COVID-19 vaccines to limit burdens placed on the U.S. healthcare system and end the pandemic. People in some closed religious communities refused to vaccinate and likely acquired temporary immunity through infection. This paper compares the death rates in Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and conservative Mennonite groups to a rate estimated for the U.S. population. Approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population was immunized against COVID-19, while few in the Amish/Mennonite community were. We find divergent patterns. Once vaccines became available, excess deaths declined in the general population and remained elevated among Amish and Mennonites. Vaccination campaigns must consider and value the cultural beliefs of closed religious communities to be effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore (1) differences in validity and feasibility ratings for geriatric surgical standards across a diverse stakeholder group (surgeons vs. nonsurgeons, health care providers vs. nonproviders, including patient-family, advocacy, and regulatory agencies); (2) whether three multidisciplinary discussion subgroups would reach similar conclusions.Data Source/study Setting: Primary data (ratings) were reported from 58 stakeholder organizations.Study Design: An adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology (RAM) process was conducted in May 2016.Data Collection/extraction Methods: Stakeholders self-administered ratings on paper, returned via mail (Round 1) and in-person (Round 2).Principal Findings: In Round 1, surgeons rated standards more critically (91.2 percent valid; 64.9 percent feasible) than nonsurgeons (100 percent valid; 87.0 percent feasible) but increased ratings in Round 2 (98.7 percent valid; 90.6 percent feasible), aligning with nonsurgeons (99.7 percent valid; 96.1 percent feasible). Three parallel subgroups rated validity at 96.8 percent (group 1), 100 percent (group 2), and 97.4 percent (group 3). Feasibility ratings were 76.9 percent (group 1), 96.1 percent (group 2), and 92.2 percent (group 3).Conclusions: There are differences in validity and feasibility ratings by health professions, with surgeons rating standards more critically than nonsurgeons. However, three separate discussion subgroups rated a high proportion (96-100 percent) of standards as valid, indicating the RAM can be successfully applied to a large stakeholder group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The widespread adoption of science-based prevention requires local infrastructures for prevention service delivery. Communities That Care (CTC) is a tested prevention service delivery system that enables a local coalition of community stakeholders to use a science-based approach to prevention and improve the behavioral health of young people. This paper uses data from the Community Youth Development Study (CYDS), a community-randomized trial of CTC, to examine the extent to which better internal team functioning of CTC coalitions increases the community-wide adoption of science-based prevention within 12 communities, relative to 12 matched comparison communities. Specifically, this paper examines the potential of both a direct relationship between coalition functioning and the community-wide adoption of science-based prevention and a direct relationship between functioning and the coalition capacities that ultimately enable the adoption of science-based prevention. Findings indicate no evidence of a direct relationship between four dimensions of coalition functioning and the community-wide adoption of a science-based approach to prevention, but suggest a relationship between coalition functioning and coalition capacities (building new member skills and establishing external linkages with existing community organizations) that enable science-based prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Racial-ethnic minorities receive lower quality and intensity of health care compared with whites across a wide range of preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic services and disease entities. These disparities in health care contribute to continuing racial-ethnic disparities in the burden of illness and death. Several national medical organizations and the Institute of Medicine have issued position papers and recommendations for the elimination of health care disparities. However, physicians in practice are often at a loss for how to translate these principles and recommendations into specific interventions in their own clinical practices. This paper serves as a blueprint for translating principles for the elimination of racial-ethnic disparities in health care into specific actions that are relevant for individual clinical practices. We describe what is known about reducing racial-ethnic disparities in clinical practice and make recommendations for how clinician leaders can apply this evidence to transform their own practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared decision making is a process in which patients are involved as active partners with the clinician in clarifying acceptable medical options and in choosing a preferred course of clinical care. Shared decision making offers a way of individualizing recommendations, according to patients'' special needs and preferences, when some patients may benefit from an intervention but others may not. This paper clarifies how the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) envisions the application of shared decision making in the execution of screening and chemoprevention. Unlike conventional USPSTF reports, this paper is neither a systematic review nor a formal recommendation. Instead, it is a concept paper that includes a commentary on the current thinking and evidence regarding shared decision making.Although the USPSTF does not endorse a specific style of decision making, it does encourage informed and joint decisions. This means that patients should be informed about preventive services before they are performed, and that the patient–clinician partnership is central to decision making. The USPSTF suggests that clinicians inform patients about preventive services for which there is clear evidence of net benefit, and, if time permits, about other services with high visibility or special individual importance. Clinicians should make sure that balanced, evidence-based information about the service (including the potential benefits and harms, alternatives, and uncertainties) is available to the patient if needed. For preventive services for which the balance of potential benefits and harms is a close call, or for which the evidence is insufficient to guide a decision for or against screening, clinicians should additionally assist patients in determining whether individual characteristics and personal preferences favor performing or not performing the preventive service.The USPSTF believes that clinicians generally have no obligation to initiate discussion about services that have either no benefit or net harm. Nonetheless, clinicians should be prepared to explain why these services are discouraged and should consider a proactive discussion for services with high visibility or special individual importance or for services for which new evidence has prompted withdrawal of previous recommendations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The patient-provider relationship is considered a cornerstone to delivering high-value healthcare. However, in Medicaid managed care settings, disruptions to this relationship are disproportionately common. In this paper, I evaluate the impact of a primary provider's exit from a Medicaid managed care plan on adult beneficiary healthcare utilization and outcomes. Using an event study approach, I estimate a 5% decrease in the number of beneficiaries with primary care visits in the year following the exit, with slightly larger effects in terms of percentage points for patients with chronic conditions. Additionally, I observe a nearly 50% increase in the number of beneficiaries with a chronic condition who are hospitalized following a disruption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper introduces a health state modeling approach using clustering and Markov analysis to compare short- and long-term outcomes among health care populations. We provide a comparison to more conventional mixed effects regression methods and show that discrete state modeling offers a richer portrait of patient outcomes than the standard univariate techniques. We demonstrate our approach using primary data from a three year observational study of patients treated for schizophrenia at a VA Medical Center (VA) and in a Community Mental Health Center (CMHC) in the same urban community. Randomly selected samples of outpatients treated for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were interviewed every six months using standardized psychiatric assessments such as the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Items from the PANSS were used to define 7 discrete health states representing different levels of severity and diverse mixtures of psychiatric symptoms. Conventional analysis showed that VA patients exhibited increasingly severe symptoms, while CMHC patients remained more stable over the study period. Health state analysis reinforced these results but also identified which subpopulations of VA patients were deteriorating. In particular they showed that there was little change over time among VA patients in the best and worst health states. Instead the deterioration was caused by VA patients with: a) mild symptoms and hallucinations and b) serious positive and negative symptoms, being more likely to enter a state with severe positive and negative symptoms accompanied by moderate general distress. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: People who inject drugs (PWID) constitute 60% of the approximately 5 million people in the U.S. infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV). Treatment of PWID is complex due to addiction, mental illness, poverty, homelessness, lack of positive social support, poor adherence-related skills, low motivation and knowledge, and poor access to and trust in the health care system. New direct-acting antiviral medications are available for HCV with high cure rates and few side effects. The life expectancy and economic benefits of new HCV treatments will not be realized unless we determine optimal models of care for the majority of HCV-infected patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of directly observed therapy and group treatment compared with self-administered individual treatment in a large, urban opioid agonist therapy clinic setting in the Bronx, New York.Methods/design: In this randomized controlled trial 150 PWID with chronic HCV were recruited from opioid agonist treatment (OAT) clinics and randomized to one of three models of onsite HCV treatment in OAT: 1) modified directly observed therapy; 2) group treatment; or 3) control - self-administered individual treatment. Participants were age 18 or older, HCV genotype 1, English or Spanish speaking, treatment naïve (or treatment experienced after 12/3/14), willing to receive HCV treatment onsite, receiving methadone or buprenorphine at the medication window at least once per week, and able to provide informed consent. Outcomes of interest include adherence (as measured by self-report and electronic blister packs), HCV treatment completion, sustained virologic response, drug resistance, and cost-effectiveness.Discussion: This paper describes the design and rationale of a randomized controlled trial comparing three models of care for HCV therapy delivered in an opioid agonist treatment program. Our trial will be critical to rigorously identify models of care that result in high adherence and cure rates. Use of blister pack technology will help us determine the role of adherence in successful cure of HCV. Moreover, the trial methodology outlined here can serve as a template for the development of future programs and studies among HCV-infected drug users receiving opioid agonist therapy, as well as the cost-effectiveness of such programs.Trial Registration: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01857245 ). Trial registration was obtained prospectively on May 20th, 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]