Search

Background To obtain information on feasibility and acceptability, as well as preliminary data on efficacy, of an Osteoarthritis Physical activity Care Pathway (OA-PCP). Methods This was a single group pilot study involving 60 participants with symptomatic, physician diagnosed knee or hip OA, recruited from primary care clinics. Participants self-reported completing less than 150 min per week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) at baseline. The 3-month OA-PCP intervention involved 3 physical activity (PA) coaching calls (focused on goal setting), three check-in emails and linkage with community-based or online resources to support PA. Efficacy outcomes were collected at baseline and 4-month follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome was minutes of MVPA, assessed via accelerometer. Secondary outcomes included minutes of light intensity activity, sedentary minutes, step counts, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) pain and function subscales. Participants were also asked to rate the helpfulness of the OA-PCP intervention on a scale of 0–10. Differences in efficacy outcomes between baseline and 4-month follow-up were assessed using paired t-tests. Results Among participants beginning the study, 88% completed follow-up assessments and ≥ 90% completed each of the intervention calls. Average daily minutes of MVPA was 8.0 at baseline (standard deviation (SD) = 9.9) and 8.9 at follow-up (SD = 12.1, p = 0.515). There were no statistically significant changes in light intensity activity, sedentary time or step counts. The mean WOMAC pain score improved from 8.1 (SD = 3.6) at baseline to 6.2 (SD = 3.8) at follow-up (p Conclusions Results supported the feasibility and acceptability of the study, and participants reported clinically relevant improvements in pain and function. PA metrics did not improve substantially. Based on these results and participant feedback, modifications including enhanced self-monitoring are being made to increase the impact of the OA-PCP intervention on PA behavior. Trial registration NCT03780400, December 19, 2018.

Physical activity (PA) is important for managing osteoarthritis (OA), but many patients are inactive. Research is needed on strategies to leverage clinical encounters to engage patients in PA. Guided by the socioecological model of health behavior, this study aimed to engage stakeholders in the process of refining an Osteoarthritis Physical Activity Care Pathway (OA-PCP). Six focus groups and seven individual interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. Focus groups were specific to stakeholder roles and included patients with OA, support partners, and clinic personnel ( n = 6 focus groups). Interview participants were local and national PA program representatives ( n = 7 interviews). Data were analyzed by thematic analysis. Themes identified in the data included ways the OA-PCP can help patients with OA address challenges to PA engagement, strategies for connecting patients with PA resources, methods for implementing OA-PCP into clinical settings and potential use of PA trackers in the OA-PCP program. Stakeholders’ comments were summarized into key recommendations for OA-PCP. Some recommendations reinforced and led to refinements in planned aspects of OA-PCP, including tailoring to individual patients, involvement of a support partner, and addressing pain with PA. Other recommendations resulted in larger changes for OA-PCP, including the addition of three email- or mail-based contacts and not requiring use of a PA tracker. The refined OA-PCP program is being evaluated in an exploratory trial, with the ultimate goal of establishing a PA program for OA that can be successfully implemented in clinical settings.

People undergoing diagnostic genome-scale sequencing are expected to have better psychological outcomes when they can incorporate and act on accurate, relevant knowledge that supports informed decision making. This longitudinal study used data from the North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by NextGen Exome Sequencing Study (NCGENES) of diagnostic exome sequencing to evaluate associations between factual genomic knowledge (measured with the University of North Carolina Genomic Knowledge Scale at three assessments from baseline to after return of results) and sequencing outcomes that reflected participants’ perceived understanding of the study and sequencing, regret for joining the study, and responses to learning sequencing results. It also investigated differences in genomic knowledge associated with subgroups differing in race/ethnicity, income, education, health literacy, English proficiency, and prior genetic testing. Multivariate models revealed higher genomic knowledge at baseline for non-Hispanic Whites and those with higher income, education, and health literacy (p values < 0.001). These subgroup differences persisted across study assessments despite a general increase in knowledge among all groups. Greater baseline genomic knowledge was associated with lower test-related distress (p = 0.047) and greater perceived understanding of diagnostic genomic sequencing (p values 0.04 to

Objective Many people prefer to learn secondary or “additional” findings from genomic sequencing, including findings with limited medical actionability. Research has investigated preferences for and effects of learning such findings, but not psychosocial and behavioral effects of receiving education about them and the option to request them, which could be burdensome or beneficial (e.g., causing choice overload or satisfying strong preferences, respectively). Methods 335 adults with suspected genetic disorders who had diagnostic exome sequencing in a research study and were randomized to receive either diagnostic findings only (DF; n = 171) or diagnostic findings plus education about additional genomic findings and the option to request them (DF + EAF; n = 164). Assessments occurred after enrollment (Time 1), after return of diagnostic results and—for DF + EAF—the education under investigation (Time 2), and three and six months later (Times 3, 4). Results Time 2 test-related distress, test-related uncertainty, and generalized anxiety were lower in the DF + EAF group (ps = 0.025–0.043). There were no other differences. Conclusions Findings show limited benefits and no harms of providing education about and the option to learn additional findings with limited medical actionability. Practice implications Findings can inform recommendations for returning additional findings from genomic sequencing (e.g., to research participants or after commercial testing).

This retrospective, secondary qualitative analysis investigates whether health system factors influence social support among Black and white breast and lung cancer survivors and racial differences in support. These data come from race- and cancer-stratified focus groups (n = 6) and interviews (n = 2) to inform a randomized controlled trial utilizing antiracism and community-based participatory research approaches. Findings indicate social support was helpful for overcoming treatment-related challenges, including symptom management and patient-provider communication; racial differences in support needs and provision were noted. Resources within individual support networks reflect broader sociostructural factors. Reliance on family/friends to fill gaps in cancer care may exacerbate racial disparities.

Partner-based social support can motivate engagement in physical activity (PA); however, couples approach exchanging support in different ways. This study aimed to elucidate the role of relationship dynamics in couple-based support for PA, with the goal of informing intervention strategies that will effectively leverage couple characteristics to increase support for PA. We conducted a qualitative study of couples who completed a longitudinal study of social support for PA. Participants were people with osteoarthritis who were not meeting PA recommendations and their cohabitating partners (n = 19 couples). We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews and analyzed transcripts using narrative analysis. Participants were 76% non-Hispanic White and, on average, 62 years old. Themes in the data included (a) attitudes about working together to be more active (ranging from positive to negative) and (b) couples’ narrative concordance (high to low shared reality). We developed a couple typology with four categories: “Working together works” (positive attitudes/high shared reality; n = 4 couples), “Doing our own thing” (range of attitudes with practical/preferential barriers to working together/high shared reality; n = 5 couples), “Conscious conflict” (discrepant attitudes/high shared reality; n = 5 couples), and “Different realities” (discrepant attitudes/low shared reality; n = 5 couples). We describe examples of each type. In a sample of 19 couples, there were observable differences in participants’ attitudes about working together to be more active and in couples’ shared reality around those attitudes. Future research should investigate implications for the efficacy of interventions and, if warranted, develop methods to identify couple types and offer appropriate intervention strategies.

Background Are the benefits of recording clinical encounters shared across different groups, or do they vary based on social position? Studies show that educated patients record their clinical visits to enhance their experience, but very little is known about recording benefits among “hard-to-reach” populations. Objective To examine the reactions of homeless people to the idea of using a smartphone to record their own clinical encounter, either covertly or with permission from their physician. Method We conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals at a temporary housing shelter in Northern New England. A thematic analysis identified themes that were iteratively refined into representative groups. Results Eighteen (18) interviews were conducted, 12 with women and six with men. Initial reactions to clinical recordings were positive (11 of 18). A majority (17 of 18) were willing to use recordings in future visits. A thematic analysis characterized data in two ways: (i) by providing reliable evidence for review, they functioned as an advocacy measure for patients; (ii) by promoting transparency and levelling social distance, this technology modified clinical relationships. Discussion Recordings permitted the sharing of data with others, providing tangible proof of behaviour and refuting misconceptions. Asking permission to record appeared to modify relationships and level perceived social distance with clinicians. Conclusions We found that while many rural, disadvantaged individuals felt marginalized by the wide social distance between themselves and their clinicians, recording technology may serve as an advocate by holding both patients and doctors accountable and by permitting the burden of clinical proof to be shared.

Today, outpatient psychiatric care is commonly referred to as "medication management" and is often delivered in 15- to 20-minute visits by psychiatric care providers who receive little workflow support from technology or medical assistants. This Open Forum argues that this current state of psychiatric care delivery is a problem, comments on how psychiatry got here, and suggests that, through reframing and redesign, psychiatric professionals can improve care for those delivering and for those receiving this needed service.

Because of changes in health care, there is a greater focus on brief medication management visits as the primary method of providing psychiatric care in community mental health settings. Research on the first-person perspectives of service users and prescribers in these settings is limited. The objective of this study was to describe first-person perspectives on medication management visits and the service user-prescriber relationship.Researchers conducted qualitative interviews as part of a larger comparative effectiveness trial at 15 community mental health centers, researchers interviewed service users (N=44) and prescribers (N=25) about their perspectives on the typical elements of a medication management visit and asked service users about their relationship with their prescriber.Both service users and prescribers described medication management visits as very brief encounters focused on medication and symptoms. Most service users reflected on the service user-prescriber relationship in positive or neutral terms; they did not describe the development of a strong therapeutic relationship or a meaningful clinical encounter with prescribing clinicians.Service users described the service user-prescriber relationship and medication management visit as largely transactional. Despite the transactional nature of these encounters, most service users described relationships with prescribing clinicians in positive or neutral terms. Their satisfaction with the visit did not necessarily mean that they were receiving high-quality care. Satisfaction may instead suggest service users' disengagement from care. They may need more support to fully participate in their own care.