Search

Introduction: Homeless individuals lack resources for primary healthcare and as a result use the emergency department (ED) as a social safety net. Our primary objective in this study was to identify the differences between features of visits to United States (US) EDs made by patients without a home and patients who live in a private residence presenting with mental health symptoms or no mental health symptoms at triage. Methods: Data for this study come from the 2009-2017 National Health and Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of ED visits in the US. We examined differences in waiting time, length of visit, and triage score among homeless patients, and privately housed and nursing home residents. We used logistic regression to determine the odds of receiving a mental health diagnosis. Residence, age, gender, race, urgency, and whether the person was seen in the ED in the previous 72 hours were controlled. Results: Homeless individuals made up less than 1% of all ED visits during this period. Of these visits, 47.2% resulted in a mental health diagnosis compared to those who live in a private residence. Adjusting for age, race, gender, triage score, and whether the person had been seen in the prior 72 hours, homeless individuals were still six times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis despite reporting no mental health symptoms compared to individuals who lived in a private residence. Homeless individuals reporting mental health symptoms were two times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis compared to privately housed and nursing home residents. Conclusions: Homeless individuals are more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis in the ED whether or not they present with mental health symptoms at triage. This study suggests that homelessness as a status impacts how these individuals receive care in the ED. Community coordination is needed to expand treatment options for individuals experiencing emergent mental health symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Benefits, risks, and the increasing popularity of yoga use warrant assessing yoga practice prevalence and users' profiles. This study describes trends in yoga practice exclusively among American adults from 2002 to 2017, compares the profile of yoga users, and identifies factors related to yoga use over time. Materials and Methods: This study is a secondary analysis done in 2019 and 2020 using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017 data. Population weights were used to obtain statistically accurate estimates of yoga use prevalence for the U.S. population. Descriptive statistics were used to profile the sociodemographic and health-related characteristics of yoga users. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with yoga use in each cohort defined by the NHIS year. Results: Yoga practice prevalence nearly tripled from 5.1% in 2002 to 13.7% in 2017 (weighted estimate 10,386,456 and 32,761,194 American adults, respectively). Typical yoga users were young non-Hispanic single white female adults with bachelor or higher education and health insurance, and resided in the west region of the United States. Yoga use pattern change over time was significantly related to only younger age (p < 0.001) but not to other sociodemographic or health-related factors. Conclusions: Yoga has gained increasing popularity in the past two decades among American adults, with younger adults being the driving force. Yoga appears to be adopted for general well-being or prevention more than for specific disease treatment. Future research should evaluate how yoga can be effectively and safely integrated into preventive medicine strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Understanding vaccine intentions and attitudes of health professionals is critical as the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna COVID19 vaccines are being administered throughout the United States. This study estimates the level of vaccine hesitancy at a health sciences center in West Texas prior to the distribution of the vaccines. Methods: An analytical cross-sectional study was performed via anonymous Qualtrics survey administered to approximately 4500 faculty, staff, postdoctoral research associates/medical residents, and employees at a multi-campus health sciences university in the United States. Respondents were asked demographic questions and intention to receive the vaccine. Factors associated with the intention to receive a vaccine were determined using logistic regression analysis. Results: A total sample of 2258 subjects were evaluated (50.0% response rate). Among all respondents, 64.6% reported that they would probably or definitely receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Men had higher levels of intention to receive the vaccine (OR = 2.11, 95% CI 1.64-2.71); respondents who indicated yearly influenza vaccines are necessary were also more likely to receive the vaccine (OR = 6.04, 95% CI 4.70-7.75). Eighty-three percent of faculty and 56% of the staff reported intention to receive the vaccine. Respondents who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 reported more interest in receiving the vaccine (58.5% yes vs 41.5% no). Conclusion: In this study, the intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccination at a United States health sciences center falls below the necessary herd immunity estimates. Public health initiatives must be developed to decrease vaccine hesitancy, especially among health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe patterns of conventional health care (CH) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among U.S. adults reporting recent joint symptoms in a nationally representative sample. Design: This study uses the adult alternative medicine supplement from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Location: United States. Subjects: Nationally representative cross-sectional sample of non-institutionalized U.S. residents. Of 34,525 respondents who answered the alternative medicine supplement, approximately 30% (n = 10,964) reported recent pain symptoms (pain, aching, stiffness). Outcome measures: Among adults reporting joint symptoms, we examine reported use of CH, CAM, both CH and CAM, or neither specifically for joint symptoms or joint condition. Results: Among adults reporting joint symptoms in the past 30 days, 64% reported using only CH for their joint pain, whereas ∼10% reported using CAM. Among those using CAM for their joint symptoms, 83% also sought help from a CH practitioner. CAM-only users comprised only 1.6% of the sample of joint pain sufferers. Those who reported using both CH and CAM for joint pain were more likely to report a diagnosis of a joint condition compared with CAM-only users, but also reported higher comorbidities and worse self-reported health. Conclusion: Most U.S. adults reporting recent joint pain seek care only from a CH practitioner, although among the 10% who report CAM use for joint conditions, a strong majority also report seeking care from a CH practitioner. CH and CAM providers should consistently inquire about other forms of treatment their patients are using for specific symptoms to provide effective integrative health care management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Given the safety concerns regarding pharmacological agents, and the considerable impact of headache and migraine on the sufferer's quality of life, many people seek other treatment options beyond conventional medication and care to address their symptoms; this includes complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Some CAM interventions have shown promising results in clinical trials of headache and migraine management. Nonetheless, there has been little research exploring the reasons for using CAM, and the types of CAM used, among this population. Objective The study aimed to answer the following questions: (1) Which CAM modalities are used most frequently among migraine/headache sufferers? and (2) What are the self-reported reasons for CAM use among migraine/headache sufferers? Methods This secondary analysis of data from the 2012 U.S. NHIS (a national cross-sectional survey) examined the use of CAM among migraine/headache sufferers, including the main reasons related to CAM use. Data were weighted and analyzed using STATA 14.0. Results The sample of 34,525 adults included 6558 (18.7%) headache/migraine sufferers. Of the headache/migraine sufferers, a substantial proportion (37.6%, n = 2427) used CAM for various conditions; however, CAM use specifically for headache/migraine was much less prevalent (3.3%, n = 216). Of those who used CAM for headache/migraine, about half used CAM in conjunction with prescription (47.8%, n = 100) or over-the-counter medication (55.1%, n = 113). As severity of headache/migraine increased so did the likelihood of using CAM (severe migraine odds ratio [OR] = 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41, 3.82; both recurring headache/severe migraine OR = 3.36; 95% CI: 2.08, 5.43; when compared to those with recurring headache only). The most frequently used CAM modality among all headache/migraine sufferers (N = 6558) was manipulative therapy (22.0%, n = 1317), herbal supplementation (21.7%, n = 1389) and mind-body therapy (17.9%, n = 1100). The top 3 reasons for using CAM for headache were general wellness (28.7%, n = 60/209), improving overall health (26.8%, n = 56/209), and reducing stress (16.7%, n = 35/209). Conclusions Although CAM is used by many sufferers of headache/migraine, the use of CAM specifically for the treatment of headache/migraine is relatively low in the United States. The study also assesses the key differences of CAM use among headache/migraine sufferers in NHIS 2012 compared with those in NHIS 2007, and identifies shortfalls in the evidence-base of several CAM modalities used by U.S. adults for headache/migraine. This information may assist health providers and consumers in making informed decisions about the safest and most appropriate approach to managing headache/migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]