Search

Objective: To examine patterns and predictors of familiarity with transdisciplinary psychosocial (e.g., non-pharmacologic) practices for practitioners treating youths with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in the United States. Method: Practitioners (n = 701) from behavioral, education, medical, and mental health backgrounds who worked with youth (ages 7–22) with ASD completed the Usual Care for Autism Survey, which assessed provider demographics and self-reported familiarity with transdisciplinary treatment practices for the most common referral problems of ASD. We examined relations between provider-, setting-, and client-level characteristics with familiarity of key groups of the treatment practices (practice sets). Practice sets were identified using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and demographic predictors of practice subsets were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). Results: The EFA yielded a three-factor solution: (1) environmental modifications/antecedent strategies; (2) behavior analytic strategies; and (3) cognitive strategies, with overall familiarity ranked in this order. Medical providers indicated the least familiarity across disciplines. More experience with ASD and treating those with intellectual disabilities predicted greater familiarity with only environmental modifications/antecedent strategies and behavior analytic, but not cognitive strategies. Experience treating low SES clients predicted familiarity with environmental modification and behavior analytic strategies while experience treating high SES clients predicted familiarity with behavior analytic and cognitive strategies. Conclusion: This is the first study to identify transdisciplinary, interpretable sets of practices for treating youth with ASD based on community providers’ reported familiarity. Results highlight factors associated with familiarity with practice sets, which is essential for mapping practice availability, and optimizing training and dissemination efforts for youth with ASD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. We sought to examine primary care providers’ gout knowledge and reported treatment patterns in comparison with current treatment recommendations.Methods. We conducted a national survey of a random sample of US primary care physicians to assess their treatment of acute, intercritical and tophaceous gout using published European and American gout treatment recommendations and guidelines as a gold standard.Results. There were 838 respondents (response rate of 41%), most of whom worked in private practice (63%) with >16 years experience (52%). Inappropriate dosing of medications in the setting of renal disease and lack of prophylaxis when initiating urate-lowering therapy (ULT) accounted for much of the lack of compliance with treatment recommendations. Specifically for acute podagra, 53% reported avoidance of anti-inflammatory drugs in the setting of renal insufficiency, use of colchicine at a dose of &leq;2.4 mg/day and no initiation of a ULT during an acute attack. For intercritical gout in the setting of renal disease, 3% would provide care consistent with the recommendations, including initiating a ULT at the appropriate dose with dosing titration to a serum urate level of &leq;6 mg/dl and providing prophylaxis. For tophaceous gout, 17% reported care consistent with the recommendations, including ULT use with dosing titration to a serum urate level of &leq;6 mg/dl and prophylaxis.Conclusion. Only half of primary care providers reported optimal treatment practices for the management of acute gout and <20% for intercritical or tophaceous gout, suggesting that care deficiencies are common. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, state governments legally authorize outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. In some states, programs are certified or accredited (ideal standards). Other states license programs (minimal standards). Additionally, some states authorize programs through "deemed status", which is afforded to programs attaining accreditation from a national accrediting body. Primary legal research and the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services' (N-SSATS) data were used to examine the relationships between state authorization type (certification/accreditation vs licensure with and without deemed status) and outpatient treatment program practices. Programs in certification/accreditation (vs licensure) states had significantly higher odds of offering wrap-around and continuing care/after care services associated with better long-term treatment outcome. Programs in states that allowed for certification/accreditation with deemed status had significantly lower odds of infectious disease testing, but higher odds of providing group and family counseling. Results suggest that state authorization type may impact services offered by outpatient treatment programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since the bundled end-stage renal disease prospective payment system began in 2011 in the United States, some hemodialysis practices have changed substantially, raising the question of whether vascular access practice also has changed. We describe monthly US vascular access use from August 2010 to August 2013 with international comparisons, and other aspects of US vascular access practice., Study Design: Prospective observational cohort study of vascular access., Setting & Participants: Maintenance hemodialysis patients in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) Practice Monitor (DPM) in the United States (N=3,442; US patients) and 19 other nations (N=8,478)., Predictors: Country, patient demographics, time period., Outcomes: Vascular access use, pre-end-stage renal disease access timing of first nephrologist care and arteriovenous access placement, patient self-reported vascular access preferences (United States only), treatment practices as stated by medical directors., Results: In the United States from August 2010 to August 2013, arteriovenous fistula (AVF) use increased from 63% to 68%, while catheter use declined from 19% to 15%. Although AVF use did not differ greatly across age groups, arteriovenous graft use was 2-fold higher among black (26%) versus nonblack US patients (13%) in 2013. Across 20 countries in 2013, AVF use ranged from 49% to 92%, whereas catheter use ranged from 1% to 45%. Patient-reported vascular access preferences differed by sex and race, with 16% to 20% of patients feeling uninformed regarding benefits/risks of different vascular access types. Among new (incident) US hemodialysis patients, AVF use remains low, with ∼70% initiating hemodialysis therapy with a catheter (60% starting with catheter when having ≥4 months of predialysis nephrology care). In the United States, longer typical times to first AVF cannulation were reported., Limitations: Noncompletion of surveys may affect the generalizability of findings to the wider hemodialysis population., Conclusions: AVF use has increased, with catheter use decreasing among prevalent US hemodialysis patients since the introduction of the prospective payment system. However, AVF use at dialysis therapy initiation remains low, suggesting that reforms affecting predialysis care may be necessary to incentivize improvements in fistula rates at dialysis therapy initiation as achieved for prevalent hemodialysis patients., (Copyright © 2015 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To describe factors associated with multidrug-resistant (MDR), including extensively-drug-resistant (XDR), tuberculosis (TB) in the United States, we abstracted inpatient, laboratory, and public health clinic records of a sample of MDR TB patients reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from California, New York City, and Texas during 2005-2007. At initial diagnosis, MDR TB was detected in 94% of 130 MDR TB patients and XDR TB in 80% of 5 XDR TB patients. Mutually exclusive resistance was 4% XDR, 17% pre-XDR, 24% total first-line resistance, 43% isoniazid/rifampin/rifabutin-plus-other resistance, and 13% isoniazid/rifampin/rifabutin-only resistance. Nearly three-quarters of patients were hospitalized, 78% completed treatment, and 9% died during treatment. Direct costs, mostly covered by the public sector, averaged $134,000 per MDR TB and $430,000 per XDR TB patient; in comparison, estimated cost per non-MDR TB patient is $17,000. Drug resistance was extensive, care was complex, treatment completion rates were high, and treatment was expensive.