Search

BackgroundFamily-Based Treatment (FBT) is considered the first-line intervention for adolescent anorexia nervosa. However, access to this treatment is limited. Treatment programs for other pediatric mental health conditions have successfully overcome barriers to accessing evidence-based intervention by integrating mental health services into primary care. This study evaluated the proof-of-concept of a novel modification of FBT, Family-Based Treatment for Primary Care (FBT-PC) for adolescent restrictive eating disorders designed for delivery by primary care providers in their practices.MethodsThis retrospective clinical cohort study evaluated 15 adolescents with restrictive eating disorders receiving FBT-PC and 15 adolescents receiving standard FBT. We examined improvement in BMI percentile, reduction in weight suppression, and clinical benchmarks of eating disorder recovery including weight restoration to > 95% of expected body weight (EBW) and resolution of DSM-5 criteria for eating disorders.ResultsIn both groups, effect sizes for increased BMI percentile exceeded Cohen's convention for a large effect (FBT-PC: d = .94; standard FBT: d = 1.15) as did effect sizes for reduction in weight suppression (FBT-PC: d = 1.83; standard FBT: d = 1.21). At the end of treatment, 80% of the FBT-PC cohort and 87% in the standard FBT group achieved > 95%EBW and 67% in the FBT-PC group and 60% in the standard FBT group no longer met DSM-5 criteria for an eating disorder. There were no cohort differences in the number of treatment drop-outs or referrals to a more intensive level of eating disorder treatment.ConclusionsFindings suggest that primary care providers have potential to improve weight and clinical status in adolescents with restrictive eating disorders. Based on these results, more rigorous testing of the FBT-PC model is warranted.

Although eating disorders pose a significant threat to the health and well-being of children and adolescents, due to a profound scarcity of specialty providers, only a small percentage of patients receives evidence-based treatment. To improve access to care for restrictive eating disorders, we developed a modified version of Family-Based Treatment to be delivered by primary care providers (PCPs) and conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary outcomes of this intervention. Fifteen adolescents (mean age = 15.5 years) with restrictive eating disorders and their caregiver(s) were enrolled in Family-Based Treatment for Primary Care (FBT-PC), delivered by three trained PCPs. Retention for the intervention was high (n = 13, 86.7%). Over the course of 3 months, participants attended an average of 9.2 (SD = 2.8) sessions and experienced a significant increase in BMI percentile from 39.1 to 54.8 (t (13) = -6.71, p < .001; d = .61). FBT-PC appears to be feasible for implementation in the primary care setting and has the potential to improve access to treatment and yield positive outcomes for young patients with restrictive eating disorders.

Objectives: Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing by clinician-collection is endorsed by U.S. guideline organizations for cervical cancer screening, but uptake remains low and insights into patients' understanding are limited. This study aims to primarily address patient awareness of primary HPV screening by clinician-collection and acceptance of primary HPV screening by clinician- and self-collection, and secondarily assess factors associated with awareness and acceptance. Setting: Primary care practices affiliated with an academic medical center. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study of screening-eligible women aged 30–65 years was conducted to assess awareness and acceptability of primary HPV screening. We analyzed bivariate associations of respondent characteristics with awareness of primary HPV screening by clinician-collection, willingness to have clinician- or self-collected primary HPV testing, and reasons for self-collection preference. Results: Respondents (n = 351; response rate = 23.4%) reported cervical cancer screening adherence of 82.8% but awareness of clinician-collected primary HPV as an option was low (18.9%) and only associated with HPV testing with recent screening (p = 0.003). After reviewing a description of primary HPV screening, willingness for clinician-collected (81.8%) or home self-collected (76.1%) HPV testing was high, if recommended by a provider. Acceptability of clinician-collected HPV testing was associated with higher income (p = 0.009) and for self-collection was associated with higher income (p = 0.002) and higher education (p = 0.02). Higher education was associated with reporting self-collection as easier than clinic-collection (p = 0.02). Women expected self-collection to be more convenient (94%), less embarrassing (85%), easier (85%), and less painful (81%) than clinician-collection. Conclusions: Educational interventions are needed to address low awareness about the current clinician-collected primary HPV screening option and to prepare for anticipated federal licensure of self-collection kits. Informing women about self-collection allows them to recognize benefits which could address screening barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Infectious mononucleosis (IM) or mono is typically caused by primary infection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and may have a months-long, complicated course. We utilized population-based data to add to the limited literature on health care utilization following EBV infection. Methods: The Rochester Epidemiology Project includes medical records for ∼60% of residents living in 27 counties of Minnesota (MN) and Wisconsin (WI). Persons meeting a case definition of recent EBV infection from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2021 were compared to three persons not meeting the definition, matched on case's sex, age, and index date. Emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations in the two groups were compared during 5-years' follow-up divided into three periods (short-term ≤3 months, mid-term >3 months–1 year, long-term >1–5 years). Adjusted hazard ratios (AHR) were estimated to account for the potential influence of confounding variables. Results: In total, 6,423 persons had a recent EBV infection and were matched to 19,269 comparators. The risk of an ED visit was significantly higher among cases in the short-term period (24.3% vs referents: 7.6%, p <.001; AHR = 3.71, 95% CI = 3.41–4.03). Cases also had an increased risk of hospitalization in the short-term (5.2% vs 1.6%: referents, p <.001; AHR = 3.53, 95% CI = 2.94–4.24). For ED visits but not hospitalization, the excess risk persisted into the mid-term follow-up period. Persons without a concurrent clinical diagnosis of IM continued to have an increased risk of hospitalizations up to 1 year after index date (AHR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.09–1.91) and an increased risk of ED visits up to 5 years after the index date (AHR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.14–1.46). Conclusion: There is a substantial short- and mid-term increased risk of serious health care encounters associated with recent EBV infection. Mid- and long-term risks are increased in patients who do not have a concomitant diagnosis of IM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundImmunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care providers, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. One common theme across immunization programs in many nations involves the challenge of implementing a population-based approach and identifying all eligible recipients, for example the children who should receive the measles vaccine. However, this issue is gradually being addressed through the availability of immunization registries and electronic health records. A second common theme is identifying the best strategies to promote high vaccination rates. Three types of strategies have been studied: (1) patient-oriented interventions, such as patient reminder or recall, (2) provider interventions, and (3) system interventions, such as school laws. One of the most prominent intervention strategies, and perhaps best studied, involves patient reminder or recall systems. This is an update of a previously published review.ObjectivesTo evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various types of patient reminder and recall interventions to improve receipt of immunizations.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2017. We also searched grey literature and trial registers to January 2017.Selection criteriaWe included randomized trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating immunization-focused patient reminder or recall interventions in children, adolescents, and adults who receive immunizations in any setting. We included no-intervention control groups, standard practice activities that did not include immunization patient reminder or recall, media-based activities aimed at promoting immunizations, or simple practice-based awareness campaigns. We included receipt of any immunizations as eligible outcome measures, excluding special travel immunizations. We excluded patients who were hospitalized for the duration of the study period.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We present results for individual studies as relative rates using risk ratios, and risk differences for randomized trials, and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before-after studies. We present pooled results for randomized trials using the random-effects model.Main resultsThe 75 included studies involved child, adolescent, and adult participants in outpatient, community-based, primary care, and other settings in 10 countries.Patient reminder or recall interventions, including telephone and autodialer calls, letters, postcards, text messages, combination of mail or telephone, or a combination of patient reminder or recall with outreach, probably improve the proportion of participants who receive immunization (risk ratio (RR) of 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.35; risk difference of 8%) based on moderate certainty evidence from 55 studies with 138,625 participants.Three types of single-method reminders improve receipt of immunizations based on high certainty evidence: the use of postcards (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30; eight studies; 27,734 participants), text messages (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.44; six studies; 7772 participants), and autodialer (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; five studies; 11,947 participants). Two types of single-method reminders probably improve receipt of immunizations based on moderate certainty evidence: the use of telephone calls (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.54; seven studies; 9120 participants) and letters to patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; 27 studies; 81,100 participants).Based on high certainty evidence, reminders improve receipt of immunizations for childhood (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.29; risk difference of 8%; 23 studies; 31,099 participants) and adolescent vaccinations (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.42; risk difference of 7%; 10 studies; 30,868 participants). Reminders probably improve receipt of vaccinations for childhood influenza (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.99; risk difference of 22%; five studies; 9265 participants) and adult influenza (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.43; risk difference of 9%; 15 studies; 59,328 participants) based on moderate certainty evidence. They may improve receipt of vaccinations for adult pneumococcus, tetanus, hepatitis B, and other non-influenza vaccinations based on low certainty evidence although the confidence interval includes no effect of these interventions (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.78; four studies; 8065 participants).Authors' conclusionsPatient reminder and recall systems, in primary care settings, are likely to be effective at improving the proportion of the target population who receive immunizations.

Given the numerous barriers to accessing child and adolescent eating disorder treatment, there is a need for innovation in how this care is delivered. Primary care-based eating disorder treatment has established proof-of-concept, yet it is unclear whether this model can bridge the treatment-access gap. This retrospective chart review study compared demographic and illness characteristics of 106 adolescents (M age = 15.1 years) SD = 1.8 consecutively evaluated in a primary care-based eating disorder clinic with 103 adolescent patients (M age = 15.2 years) SD = 2.2 seen consecutively in a specialty eating disorder clinic at the same medical center. Relative to adolescents in specialty care, those in the primary care group presented at a significantly higher BMI percentile, had less weight suppression, a shorter illness duration, lower rates of amenorrhea and lower scores on the EDE-Q Dietary Restraint subscale. In addition, more patients in the primary care group identified as non-white and had government/public assistance insurance compared to those in the specialty group. The results suggest that, compared to traditional specialty care clinics, embedded eating disorder treatment in primary care may reach a more racially and socioeconomically diverse group of adolescents when they are earlier in the course of their illness. Future research determining the relative effectiveness of this model as compared to interventions delivered in specialty care is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective We aimed to measure provider perspectives on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and community hospitals. Study Design Providers from five academic tertiary NICUs and 27 community hospitals were surveyed using validated implementation measures to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology. For each of the 12 statements, scale values ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater positive perceptions. Survey results were summarized, and differences across respondents assessed using generalized linear models. Results The survey response rate was 56% (203/365). Respondents found teleneonatology to be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. The percent of respondents who agreed with each of the twelve statements ranged from 88.6 to 99.0%, with mean scores of 4.4 to 4.7 and median scores of 4.0 to 5.0. There was no difference in the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology when analyzed by professional role, years of experience in neonatal care, or years of teleneonatology experience. Respondents from Level I well newborn nurseries had greater positive perceptions of teleneonatology than those from Level II special care nurseries. Conclusion Providers in tertiary NICUs and community hospitals perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for their practices. The wide acceptance by providers of all roles and levels of experience likely demonstrates a broad receptiveness to telemedicine as a tool to deliver neonatal care, particularly in rural communities where specialists are unavailable. Key Points Neonatal care providers perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. Perceptions of teleneonatology do not differ based on professional role or years of experience. Perceptions of teleneonatology are especially high in smaller hospitals with well newborn nurseries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]