Search

This scoping review seeks to identify what community-based support is used by older sexually and gender diverse (SGD) people, that aims to improve mental health/wellbeing. A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. APA PsycInfo, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus were searched. Key information was extracted and entered into a structured coding sheet before being summarized. Seventeen studies were included (41% observational qualitative and 35% observational quantitative). The most commonly used community-based support was lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) social groups. A range of practices were reported in five studies, including in SGD affirming religious congregations and mind-body practices. Two studies reported the use of formal programmes, with one based on a group initiative. Positive outcomes included feeling connected, improved social support and mental health, and coping with illness. Five studies reported null or negative findings, including a lack of acceptance. Most studies used categories for sex and gender inaccurately, and lacked detail when describing community-based support. The use of community-based support by older SGD people is underexplored. More interventions designed for and by this community are needed, along with experimental research to draw conclusions on effectiveness to improve mental health or wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of the COVID‐19 pandemic in 2019 forced an abrupt shift in the modality through which psychotherapy was delivered and online therapy became the only viable option for clients. Research regarding experiences of online therapy during the early stages of the COVID‐19 pandemic is minimal, however, and has largely focussed on therapists' experiences of delivering online treatment, as opposed to clients' experiences of receiving it. A scoping review was undertaken to establish what is known from the existing literature about clients' experiences of online therapy during the initial stages of the COVID‐19 pandemic and identify gaps in the current knowledge. Searches were conducted across four academic databases: Scopus, EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO MEDLINE and OVID PsycInfo; the literature was excluded based on established PICOS criteria. Data were summarised through data charting and synthesised by way of inductive content analysis. A total of five articles were identified. All articles focussed on online therapy using video or audio conferencing, and four of the five studies examined clients with eating disorders. Inductive content analysis identified seven categories, as follows: preference for face‐to‐face therapy; appreciation of accessibility and convenience; online format hindered connection; positive experience of online therapy; individual client differences impacted experience; strong therapeutic alliance indicative of positive experience; and gratitude for continuation of treatment. Future research could explore clients' experiences of online therapy in a "post‐pandemic" world and include a broader range of client populations and online therapy approaches in the COVID‐19 context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Transitions to biosimilars are common to reduce the cost burden of biologics. While brand changes can be daunting for patients, few studies have explored patients' experiences with the transitioning process. This study examined rheumatology patients' experiences with a mandatory nationwide brand change to an adalimumab biosimilar. Methods: People with rheumatic diseases involved in the adalimumab transition in Aotearoa New Zealand completed a nationwide online survey. Participants (n = 117, 48% with rheumatoid arthritis) reported their satisfaction with the biosimilar, logistics and supply, information and communication, and availability of support. They also reported what did and did not go well during the transition and provided recommendations for future transitions. Results: The mean [SD] satisfaction score with the transition was 6.2 [3.2] on a 0‐10 scale, with 10 indicating high satisfaction. Participants were the least satisfied with the support and information from patient support organizations, and training for the device during the transition. Participants were most satisfied with the biosimilar supply, support from pharmacists, and how early they were informed before the transition occurred. After the transition, participants were less satisfied with the device quality, patient support program, biosimilar safety and efficacy, and the provision of alcohol wipes and sharps bins (p < 0.05 for all). Satisfaction with training for the biosimilar device (B =.25, p =.036) predicted overall satisfaction. Participants appreciated less injection pain and the ease of the biosimilar device. The lack of alcohol wipes and loss of the bio‐originator support program were viewed negatively. Conclusion: Future biosimilar transitions should ensure the availability of alcohol wipes, sharps bins, and a comparable patient support program. Patient support organizations could be involved in providing information to patients about the change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective patient-provider communication is crucial to promote shared decision-making. However, it is unclear how to explain treatment changes to ensure patient acceptance, such as when transitioning from a bio-originator to a biosimilar. This review investigates communication strategies used to educate patients on transitioning to biosimilars and explores whether the willingness to transition and treatment persistence differs for the delivery (verbal or written) and the amount of information provided. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and relevant conference databases were systematically searched. Communication strategies from 33 studies (88% observational cohort studies) published from 2012 to 2020 were synthesized and willingness to transition, persistence, and subjective adverse events explored. Patients only received information verbally in 11 studies. The remaining 22 studies also provided written information. Cost-saving was the main reason provided for the transition. Patients were most willing to transition when receiving written and verbal information (χ2 = 5.83, p =.02) or written information that only addressed a few (3–5) concerns (χ2 = 16.08, p <.001). There was no significant difference for persistence or subjective adverse events (p's >.05). Few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. Available data shows more willingness to transition when patients received written and verbal information. Initial documents should contain basic information and consultations or telephone calls used to address concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contact tracing for infectious diseases can be partially automated using mobile applications. However, the success of these tools is dependent on significant uptake and frequent use by the public. This study explored the barriers and facilitators to the New Zealand (NZ) general public's use of the COVID-19 contact NZ COVID Tracer app. Adults (≥18 years, N = 373) in NZ. Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered from a nation-wide online survey. App use and frequency of use were presented as descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. 31% reported using the app frequently, 24% used it sometimes, 21% had installed but not used it, and 24% had not installed it. Barriers to use include technical issues, privacy and security concerns, forgetfulness and a lack of support from businesses. The perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, government recommendations and communications, and the importance of contact tracing facilitated use. Technical, user, business, and government factors influenced the public's use of a COVID-19 contact tracing app. The development of apps requiring minimal user effort and initial user testing may improve uptake. Enabling environments and better risk communication may improve uptake of similar community-driven contact tracing apps during future pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Exacerbated parental stress during a stay in the neonatal intensive care unit can negatively impact the development of the hospitalized infant, strain the dyadic relationship and put parents at risk for poor mental health. It is therefore important to identify risk factors of stress throughout the duration of a hospitalization. This longitudinal study aimed to investigate sources of stress for mothers and fathers who had a baby in the neonatal special care unit. Methods: Parents of 57 singletons and 11 twins (68 infants) admitted to a neonatal special care unit (46% for prematurity) were recruited. Sixty‐four mothers and 20 fathers were assessed at admission, and 60 mothers and 16 fathers at discharge. Participants reported their satisfaction with hospital information and completed the Perceived Stress Scale, the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Results: Parents demonstrated similar stress trajectories, with stress on average declining over time. Higher maternal stress at admission was associated with a belief that the baby's illness would have a longer timeline, lower perceptions of treatment efficacy and lower satisfaction with the information received from medical staff. Younger age and lower levels of education predicted higher maternal stress at discharge. Fathers had higher stress at discharge when they were older, had a baby born at younger gestation and felt they had less control. At admission, information satisfaction was positively associated with parental beliefs about treatment efficacy and understanding the infant's condition. At discharge, information satisfaction was negatively associated with beliefs about illness severity and the likely time frame of the illness. Conclusion: The findings highlight that parents' perceptions of their baby's illness and treatment at admission and discharge have a significant association with stress. Clinical staff can use these factors to identify parents who are at risk of exhibiting a greater level of stress over the hospitalization period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Previous research has identified that gout impacts various domains of daily life. However, there have been no qualitative studies focusing on employment. This study aimed to understand the impact of gout on employment., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted in Spain and Aotearoa/New Zealand, in people with gout (according to the 2015 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria) who had experienced a gout flare during their employment. The interviews were guided by questions exploring the impact on employment, job changes, disclosure and co-workers' reactions. Data were analysed thematically., Results: Eighteen participants were interviewed (89% male, mean age 52.9 years). Six themes were identified. The characteristics of the disease (pain intensity, tophi and joints affected) and the job itself (including physical job requirement and workplace flexibility) determined the experience of working with gout. The experiences were divided into physical (from total incapacity to working despite pain), emotional (feeling responsible, embarrassment, guilt and depression) and social (including disclosure responses and financial impact). Gout management strategies including rapid gout flare management and urate-lowering therapy reduced the number of flares and the intensity of pain, and allowed work attendance and participation., Conclusion: Both gout and work characteristics influence the employment experience for people with gout. Effective management of gout led to improved work experiences in all its domains., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CD-T has received speaker fees from AsacPharma. ND has received consulting fees, speaker fees or grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Horizon, Selecta, Arthrosi, JW Pharmaceutical Corporation, PK Med, LG Chem, JPI, PTC Therapeutics, Protalix, Unlocked Labs, Hikma, Dexcel Pharma outside the submitted work. MAP, AH and CG have nothing to disclosure., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Involving patients in treatment decisions is commonplace in healthcare, and patients are frequently accompanied by a companion (support person). Companions are often actively involved in medical consultations, yet their impact on decisions to change medications is unknown., Purpose: This study examines the influence of companions on a patient's decision to transition from their bio-originator therapy to a biosimilar., Methods: A parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted with 79 patients taking a bio-originator for rheumatic diseases who regularly attend clinic with a companion. Patients were randomized to receive an explanation about a hypothetical transition to a biosimilar alone or with their companion. Patients reported willingness to transition, risk perceptions, difficulty understanding, social support, and completed the Decisional Conflict Scale and Satisfaction with Decision Scale., Results: Companions did not influence decisions to transition to biosimilars or cognitive and affective risk perceptions. Accompanied patients reported more difficulty understanding the explanation (p = .006, Cohen's d = .64) but thought it was more important to receive information with companions (p = .023, Cohen's d = -.52). Companions did not impact decision satisfaction or decisional conflict. Receiving emotional, but not practical support, was associated with less decisional conflict in accompanied patients (p = .038, r2 = 0.20)., Conclusions: The presence of companions does not seem to influence risk perceptions or decisions about transitioning to biosimilars. Companions, however, impact the patient's reporting of their ability to understand treatment explanations. Providers should check understanding in all patients but may need to provide additional time or educational resources to accompanied patients and companions., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12619001435178., (© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)