Search

Background: This study explores ways southeast Minnesota schools currently address asthma problems, identifies areas for improvement, and assesses the potential value of asthma action plans (AAPs) in schools. Methods: Focus groups were used to query stakeholder groups on asthma care in schools. Groups were held separately for elementary school personnel, parents of elementary school children with asthma, and health professionals (N?=?103). Transcripts were analyzed by hand and by using NVivo 9 software. Results: Overall 103 stakeholders participated in focus groups. Major themes were (1) Communication; no uniform way of exchanging information between schools and health professionals. (2) Asthma Control Continuum; students require individualized instructions and information related to their asthma care. (3) Policy/Protocol; school staff roles and rules vary and are unclear. (4) Self-Reliance; older children self-manage their asthma and are unknown until they need emergent support. Solution recommended included AAPs used systematically with a method to communicate back from schools to physicians and parents. Conclusions: The AAP may solve several of the school's concerns regarding their ability to provide asthma support in school. However, the AAP must reach the school, and that is currently not happening. In addition, schools would like tools and systems to assess asthma control and share information back with parents and physicians.

Abstract Background This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at assessing the composition and performance of care management models evaluated in the last decade and their impact on patient important outcomes. Methods A comprehensive literature search of electronic bibliographic databases was performed to identify care management trials in type 2 diabetes. Random effects meta-analysis was used when feasible to pool outcome measures. Results Fifty-two studies were eligible. Most commonly reported were surrogate outcomes (such as HbA1c and LDL), followed by process measures (clinic visit or testing frequency). Less frequently reported were quality of life, patient satisfaction, self-care, and healthcare utilization. Most care management modalities were carved out from primary care. Meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant but trivial reduction of HbA1c (weighted difference in means -0.21%, 95% confidence interval -0.40 to -0.03, p < .03) and LDL-cholesterol (weighted difference in means -3.38 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval -6.27 to -0.49, p < .02). Conclusions Most care management programs for patients with type 2 diabetes are 'carved-out', accomplish limited effects on metabolic outcomes, and have unknown effects on patient important outcomes. Comparative effectiveness research of different models of care management is needed to inform the design of medical homes for patients with chronic conditions.

Increased prenatal diagnoses of sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) amid limited knowledge of their prognoses heighten the need to understand how families contend with the implications of an SCA. To explore the experiences of parents and individuals who received a genetic diagnosis of an SCA (excluding Turner syndrome), we conducted semistructured qualitative telephone interviews with 43 participants affected by these conditions. Parents (n = 35) and individuals (n = 8) expressed almost unanimous interest in more optimistic portrayals of their condition from their providers, even when the prognosis is uncertain. While some participants reported success in receiving accurate information from their provider and identifying supportive resources, numerous families received outdated or misleading information about their condition and lacked direction in accessing follow-up care and support. Parents desire greater coordination of their child's medical care and access to care that approaches an SCA holistically. Opportunities remain to improve the diagnosis and care of individuals with SCAs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Genomic analysis may reveal both primary and secondary findings with direct relevance to the health of probands' biological relatives. Researchers question their obligations to return findings not only to participants but also to family members. Given the social value of privacy protection, should researchers offer a proband's results to family members, including after the proband's death? Methods: Preferences were elicited using interviews and a survey. Respondents included probands from two pancreatic cancer research resources, plus biological and nonbiological family members. Hypothetical scenarios based on actual research findings from the two cancer research resources were presented; participants were asked return of results preferences and justifications. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed; survey data were analyzed descriptively. Results: Fifty-one individuals (17 probands, 21 biological relatives, 13 spouses/partners) were interviewed. Subsequently, a mailed survey was returned by 464 probands, 1,040 biological family members, and 399 spouses/partners. This analysis highlights the interviews, augmented by survey findings. Probands and family members attribute great predictive power and lifesaving potential to genomic information. A majority hold that a proband's genomic results relevant to family members' health ought to be offered. While informants endorse each individual's choice whether to learn results, most express a strong moral responsibility to know and to share, particularly with the younger generation. Most have few concerns about sharing genetic information within the family; rather, their concerns focus on the health consequences of not sharing. Conclusions: Although additional studies in diverse populations are needed, policies governing return of genomic results should consider how families understand genomic data, how they value confidentiality within the family, and whether they endorse an ethics of sharing. A focus on respect for individual privacy—without attention to how the broad social and cultural context shapes preferences within families—cannot be the sole foundation of policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]