Search

BACKGROUND Psychological impacts of hypertension diagnostic testing and new hypertension diagnoses are unclear. METHODS BP-CHECK was a randomized diagnostic study conducted in 2017–2019 in an integrated healthcare system. Participants with no hypertension diagnosis or medications and elevated blood pressure (BP) were randomized to one of three diagnostic regimens: (i) Clinic, (ii) Home, or (iii) Kiosk. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline, after completion of the diagnostic regimens, and at 6 months. Outcomes included changes from baseline in health-related quality of life (HRQOL), BP-related worry, and thoughts about having a stroke or heart attack. RESULTS Participants (n  = 482) were mostly over age 50 (77.0%), and White race (80.3%). HRQOL did not significantly change from baseline to 3 weeks or 6 months. Among all participants, BP-related worry and concerns about having a heart attack or stroke increased significantly from baseline to 3 weeks, with heart attack and stroke concerns significantly higher in the Kiosk compared Clinic and Home groups. At 6 months, thoughts about having a heart attack or stroke returned to baseline overall and in the Kiosk group, however BP-related worry was significantly higher among those with, compared to those without, a new hypertension diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS The hypertension diagnostic process did not lead to short-term or intermediate-term changes in self-reported HRQOL. However, BP-related worry increased short-term and persisted at 6 months among individuals with a new hypertension diagnosis. Results warrant validation in more representative populations and additional exploration of the impacts of this worry on psychological well-being and hypertension control. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03130257. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Studies have shown that self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) is effective when combined with co-interventions, but its efficacy varies in the presence of some co-morbidities. This study examined whether self-monitoring can reduce clinic BP in patients with hypertension-related co-morbidity. METHODS A systematic review was conducted of articles published in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2018. Randomized controlled trials of self-monitoring of BP were selected and individual patient data (IPD) were requested. Contributing studies were prospectively categorized by whether they examined a low/high-intensity co-intervention. Change in BP and likelihood of uncontrolled BP at 12 months were examined according to number and type of hypertension-related co-morbidity in a one-stage IPD meta-analysis. RESULTS A total of 22 trials were eligible, 16 of which were able to provide IPD for the primary outcome, including 6,522 (89%) participants with follow-up data. Self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic BP compared to usual care at 12-month follow-up, regardless of the number of hypertension-related co-morbidities (−3.12 mm Hg, [95% confidence intervals −4.78, −1.46 mm Hg]; P value for interaction with number of morbidities = 0.260). Intense interventions were more effective than low-intensity interventions in patients with obesity (P < 0.001 for all outcomes), and possibly stroke (P < 0.004 for BP control outcome only), but this effect was not observed in patients with coronary heart disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS Self-monitoring lowers BP regardless of the number of hypertension-related co-morbidities, but may only be effective in conditions such obesity or stroke when combined with high-intensity co-interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A total of 138,503 women in the Women's Health Initiative in the United States were followed (for an average of 7.7 years) through 12 September 2005 to examine obesity, especially central obesity in relation to pancreatic cancer (n=251). Women in the highest quintile of waist-to-hip ratio had 70% (95% confidence interval 10-160%) excess risk of pancreatic cancer compared with women in the lowest quintile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Small body size predicts hip fractures in older women.Objective: To test the hypothesis that small body size predicts the risk for other clinical fractures.Design: Prospective cohort study.Setting: Population-based listings in four areas of the United States.Patients: 8059 ambulatory nonblack women 65 years of age or older.Measurements: Weight, weight change since 25 years of age, body mass index, lean body mass and percent body fat, and nonspine fractures during 6.4 years of follow-up.Results: Compared with women in the highest quartile of weight, women in the lowest quartile had relative risks of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.5 to 2.8) for hip fractures, 2.3 (CI, 1.1 to 4.7) for pelvis fractures, and 2.4 (CI, 1.5 to 3.9) for rib fractures. Adjustment for total-hip bone mineral density eliminated the elevated risk. Results were similar for other body size measures. Smaller body size was not a risk factor for humerus, elbow, wrist ankle, or foot fractures.Conclusions: Total body weight is useful in the prediction of hip, pelvis, and rib fractures when bone mineral density has not been measured. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine if women would have higher breast and cervical cancer screening rates if lay health advisers recommended screening and offered a convenient screening opportunity.Design: Controlled trial.Setting: Urban county teaching hospital.Participants: Women aged 40 years and over attending appointments in several non-primary-care outpatient clinics.Interventions: Lay health advisers assessed the participants' breast and cervical cancer screening status and offered women in the intervention group who were due for screening an appointment with a female nurse practitioner.Measurements and Main Results: Screening rates at baseline and at follow-up 1 year after the intervention were determined. At follow-up, the mammography rate was 69% in the intervention group versus 63% in the usual care group (p = .009), and the Pap smear rate was 70% in the intervention group versus 63% in the usual care group (p = .02). In women who were due for screening at baseline, the mammography rate was 60% in the intervention group versus 50% in the usual care group (p = .006), and the Pap smear rate was 63% in the intervention group versus 50% in the usual care group (p = .002). The intervention was effective across age and insurance payer strata, and was particularly effective in Native American women.Conclusions: Breast and cervical cancer screening rates were improved in women attending non-primary-care outpatient clinics by using lay health advisers and a nurse practitioner to perform screening. The effect was strongest in women in greatest need of screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Women are more likely to receive breast and cervical cancer screening if they see female physicians. We studied whether this is due to differences between male and female physicians, or to differences in their patients.Setting: Large midwestern, independent practice association style of health plan.Design: We surveyed male and female primary care physicians matched for age and specialty and a stratified random sample of three of each physician's women patients. Physicians reported on their practice setting, their attitudes and practices regarding prevention, and their comfort and skill with various examinations. Patients reported on their sociodemographic characteristics, their attitudes and practices regarding prevention, and their preferences for physician gender. Claims data were used to calculate mammography and Pap smear screening rates for the physicians.Participants: We studied 154 female and 190 male internists and family physicians and 794 of their patients.Measurements and Main Results: We compared the responses of male and female physicians and their patients and used multivariable analysis to identify the patient and physician factors that accounted for the differences in screening rates between male and female physicians. Female physicians were more likely to ask new patients about components of prevention, to believe in the effectiveness of mammography, to feel more personal responsibility for ensuring that their patients received screening, and to report more comfort in performing Pap smears and breast examinations. Patients of female physicians were more educated and less likely to be married, but did not differ in other sociodemographic characteristics. They had similar attitudes and practices regarding prevention, except that patients of male physicians were more likely to smoke. Significantly more patients of female physicians preferred a female for some component of care. In multivariable analyses, practice organization, patient preference for a female physician, and prevention orientation of female physicians accounted for up to 40% of screening rate differences between female and male physicians for Pap smears, and 33% for mammography.Conclusions: Differences in beliefs of male and female physicians and patient preference for a female provider contribute independently to the higher rate of breast and cervical cancer screening by female physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify patient, institutional, and physician characteristics that predict failure to attend scheduled mammography appointments.Design: Retrospective chart review.Setting: Medicine clinic at an urban public teaching hospital.Patients: All 907 women aged 40 years and more scheduled for mammography from March 1990 to June 1991.Measurements and Main Results: The main outcome measure was whether a woman kept her scheduled mammography appointment. Potential predictor variables included patient age, race, marital status, and insurance status; waiting interval to obtain a mammography appointment; and physician gender, level of training, country of training, and native language. The rate of failed mammography appointments was 23%. Univariate analysis showed that appointment failure was associated with age (p = 0.03), with the lowest failure rates (19%) among women aged 60 years and more. Appointment keeping varied significantly by race (p = 0.01), largely because of the higher failure rate among Native American women (36%). Insured women had a failure rate of 22% vs 33% for uninsured women (p = 0.01). The rate of failed appointments varied significantly by waiting interval (p = 0.05), with a peak failure rate of 27% for appointments scheduled 14-27 days in advance. None of the physician variables was associated with appointment failure. Multivariate analysis confirmed these results.Conclusions: Interventions to improve completion of breast cancer screening should include additional efforts targeted at groups with high rates of appointment failure, such as women under the age of 60, the uninsured, and Native Americans. Long waiting intervals to obtain mammography appointments may decrease compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate a short educational intervention instructing primary care physicians in the recognition of glaucomatous changes of the optic disc.Design: Comparison of performances on a pretest and a posttest consisting of fundus slides in color.Setting: Educational conferences at two university-affiliated teaching hospitals and one staff-model health maintenance organization.Subjects: Thirty-six internal medicine residents and ten practicing internists.Intervention: A 20-minute slide/narration educational program, which covered diagnostic criteria for open-angle glaucoma, normal and abnormal optic disc anatomy, and funduscopic signs of open-angle glaucoma.Measurements and Main Results: Following the intervention, residents showed improved sensitivity (0.76 to 0.88, p = 0.007), specificity (0.65 to 0.88, p less than 0.001), and accuracy (0.71 to 0.88, p less than 0.001). Internists showed similar increments in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy: 0.67 to 0.86 (p = 0.01), 0.59 to 0.84 (p = 0.01), and 0.63 to 0.85 (p = 0.002), respectively.Conclusion: A brief educational intervention can result in meaningful improvement in physician diagnostic accuracy in recognizing ophthalmoscopic signs of open-angle glaucoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to determine what types of specialists women prefer for medical care, we examined responses from a cross-sectional survey of adult female patients in a health plan of the independent practice association model in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area (n = 1,204). The response rate for the survey was 90%. The women expressing a preference (60% of responders) overwhelmingly preferred to see obstetrician-gynecologists for their breast examinations and Pap smears and strongly preferred family physicians or internists for the remainder of their cancer screening and general medical care. Thus, the majority of women expressed preferences for physicians of different specialties to provide their medical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Failure to attend scheduled appointments for mammography results in missed opportunities for breast cancer screening. We tested interventions to decrease mammography appointment failure among women attending the medicine clinic at a public teaching hospital. Consecutive women with mammography orders from October 1992 to November 1993 (970 women undergoing 1,072 mammograms) were assigned to one of three comparison groups: usual care, mailed reminder, and mailed reminder plus nurse counseling. The appointment failure rates were 25.5% in the usual care group, 20.3% in the mailed reminder group, and 19.7% in the special intervention group (p = .13). We conclude that mailed reminders modestly improve mammography appointment keeping by about 5%, and that nurse counseling has little additional effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the primary analysis of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, now published in the Journal, we report that the daily use of aspirin did not provide a benefit with regard to the primary end point of disability-free survival among older adults. A numerically higher rate of the secondary end point of death from any cause was observed with aspirin than with placebo.Methods: From 2010 through 2014, we enrolled community-dwelling persons in Australia and the United States who were 70 years of age or older (or ≥65 years of age among blacks and Hispanics in the United States) and did not have cardiovascular disease, dementia, or disability. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Deaths were classified according to the underlying cause by adjudicators who were unaware of trial-group assignments. Hazard ratios were calculated to compare mortality between the aspirin group and the placebo group, and post hoc exploratory analyses of specific causes of death were performed.Results: Of the 19,114 persons who were enrolled, 9525 were assigned to receive aspirin and 9589 to receive placebo. A total of 1052 deaths occurred during a median of 4.7 years of follow-up. The risk of death from any cause was 12.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.1 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.29). Cancer was the major contributor to the higher mortality in the aspirin group, accounting for 1.6 excess deaths per 1000 person-years. Cancer-related death occurred in 3.1% of the participants in the aspirin group and in 2.3% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.56).Conclusions: Higher all-cause mortality was observed among apparently healthy older adults who received daily aspirin than among those who received placebo and was attributed primarily to cancer-related death. In the context of previous studies, this result was unexpected and should be interpreted with caution. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; ASPREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038583 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Aspirin is a well-established therapy for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. However, its role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is unclear, especially in older persons, who have an increased risk. METHODS From 2010 through 2014, we enrolled community-dwelling men and women in Australia and the United States who were 70 years of age or older (or >65 years of age among blacks and Hispanics in the United States) and did not have cardiovascular disease, dementia, or disability. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability; results for this end point are reported in another article in the Journal Secondary end points included major hemorrhage and cardiovascular disease (defined as fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure). RESULTS Of the 19,114 persons who were enrolled in the trial, 9525 were assigned to receive aspirin and 9589 to receive placebo. After a median of 4.7 years of follow-up, the rate of cardiovascular disease was 10.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.3 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [Cl], 0.83 to 1.08). The rate of major hemorrhage was 8.6 events per 1000 person-years and 6.2 events per 1000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% Cl, 1.18 to 1.62; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The use of low-dose aspirin as a primary prevention strategy in older adults resulted in a significantly higher risk of major hemorrhage and did not result in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; ASPREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038583. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Information on the use of aspirin to increase healthy independent life span in older persons is limited. Whether 5 years of daily low-dose aspirin therapy would extend disability-free life in healthy seniors is unclear.Methods: From 2010 through 2014, we enrolled community-dwelling persons in Australia and the United States who were 70 years of age or older (or ≥65 years of age among blacks and Hispanics in the United States) and did not have cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg per day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo orally. The primary end point was a composite of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability. Secondary end points reported in this article included the individual components of the primary end point and major hemorrhage.Results: A total of 19,114 persons with a median age of 74 years were enrolled, of whom 9525 were randomly assigned to receive aspirin and 9589 to receive placebo. A total of 56.4% of the participants were women, 8.7% were nonwhite, and 11.0% reported previous regular aspirin use. The trial was terminated at a median of 4.7 years of follow-up after a determination was made that there would be no benefit with continued aspirin use with regard to the primary end point. The rate of the composite of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability was 21.5 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 21.2 per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11; P=0.79). The rate of adherence to the assigned intervention was 62.1% in the aspirin group and 64.1% in the placebo group in the final year of trial participation. Differences between the aspirin group and the placebo group were not substantial with regard to the secondary individual end points of death from any cause (12.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.1 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group), dementia, or persistent physical disability. The rate of major hemorrhage was higher in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (3.8% vs. 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.62; P<0.001).Conclusions: Aspirin use in healthy elderly persons did not prolong disability-free survival over a period of 5 years but led to a higher rate of major hemorrhage than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; ASPREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038583 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the impact of a community-based intervention on mammography use among low-income women living in public housing., Methods: All 41 public housing high-rise buildings were randomized to treatment and delayed treatment (control) conditions. After a cross-sectional baseline survey, an intervention called Friend to Friend was conducted in the treatment buildings by American Cancer Society and building resident volunteers. The intervention consisted of a health professional talk, small group discussions, and an opportunity to request assistance in obtaining a mammogram or mammogram reminder. A second cross-sectional survey was conducted to measure differences in screening rates between the study groups., Results: Participation in the intervention averaged 27%. The study groups were equivalent at baseline. At follow-up, the proportion of women age 50-79 years who reported mammography screening in the previous 15 months was significantly higher in the treatment group (64%) than in the control group (52%). Breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs did not differ between groups., Conclusions: These findings suggest that a multidimensional intervention which reaches women within their social environment and uses community volunteers can increase mammography utilization among women in public housing.

In order to determine what types of specialists women prefer for medical care, we examined responses from a cross-sectional survey of adult female patients in a health plan of the independent practice association model in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area (n = 1,204). The response rate for the survey was 90%. The women expressing a preference (60% of responders) overwhelmingly preferred to see obstetrician-gynecologists for their breast examinations and Pap smears and strongly preferred family physicians or internists for the remainder of their cancer screening and general medical care. Thus, the majority of women expressed preferences for physicians of different specialties to provide their medical care.

Objective: To determine if women would have higher breast and cervical cancer screening rates if lay health advisers recommended screening and offered a convenient screening opportunity., Design: Controlled trial., Setting: Urban county teaching hospital., Participants: Women aged 40 years and over attending appointments in several non-primary-care outpatient clinics., Interventions: Lay health advisers assessed the participants' breast and cervical cancer screening status and offered women in the intervention group who were due for screening an appointment with a female nurse practitioner., Measurements and Main Results: Screening rates at baseline and at follow-up 1 year after the intervention were determined. At follow-up, the mammography rate was 69% in the intervention group versus 63% in the usual care group (p = .009), and the Pap smear rate was 70% in the intervention group versus 63% in the usual care group (p = .02). In women who were due for screening at baseline, the mammography rate was 60% in the intervention group versus 50% in the usual care group (p = .006), and the Pap smear rate was 63% in the intervention group versus 50% in the usual care group (p = .002). The intervention was effective across age and insurance payer strata, and was particularly effective in Native American women., Conclusions: Breast and cervical cancer screening rates were improved in women attending non-primary-care outpatient clinics by using lay health advisers and a nurse practitioner to perform screening. The effect was strongest in women in greatest need of screening.

Background: Cancer screening history can often be obtained only by self-report, particularly for disadvantaged populations. We examined the accuracy of self-report of mammography and Pap smear for an urban, low-income population., Methods: Women attending non-primary care clinics (mostly surgery and orthopedics) at a large public teaching hospital in Minneapolis between July 1992 and May 1993 were queried about their screening history (n = 477). The women were interviewed by a trained peer-recruiter and asked whether they had ever heard of a Pap smear or mammogram, whether they had ever had one, where it was done, and when the last one was. We verified self-report by checking medical records where the test was performed., Results: The positive and negative predictive value of recall of mammography in the previous year was 72.4% and 90.6%, respectively. The figures for Pap smear recall were somewhat lower, 65.5% and 85.9%, respectively. We found a record of a mammogram in 88% of women able to recall the year. Of these, slightly over two-thirds recalled their mammogram in the same year as their record indicated. Inaccurate recalls were more commonly of the "telescoping" type, i.e., tests were recalled as having occurred more recently than was the case. Recall was substantially better for recent tests. Results for Pap smear recalls were broadly similar., Conclusions: The accuracy of self-report of mammography and Pap smear is relatively poor for medical practice but is acceptable in population surveys with appropriate correction for overreporting.

Objective: Women are more likely to receive breast and cervical cancer screening if they see female physicians. We studied whether this is due to differences between male and female physicians, or to differences in their patients., Setting: Large midwestern, independent practice association style of health plan., Design: We surveyed male and female primary care physicians matched for age and specialty and a stratified random sample of three of each physician's women patients. Physicians reported on their practice setting, their attitudes and practices regarding prevention, and their comfort and skill with various examinations. Patients reported on their sociodemographic characteristics, their attitudes and practices regarding prevention, and their preferences for physician gender. Claims data were used to calculate mammography and Pap smear screening rates for the physicians., Participants: We studied 154 female and 190 male internists and family physicians and 794 of their patients., Measurements and Main Results: We compared the responses of male and female physicians and their patients and used multivariable analysis to identify the patient and physician factors that accounted for the differences in screening rates between male and female physicians. Female physicians were more likely to ask new patients about components of prevention, to believe in the effectiveness of mammography, to feel more personal responsibility for ensuring that their patients received screening, and to report more comfort in performing Pap smears and breast examinations. Patients of female physicians were more educated and less likely to be married, but did not differ in other sociodemographic characteristics. They had similar attitudes and practices regarding prevention, except that patients of male physicians were more likely to smoke. Significantly more patients of female physicians preferred a female for some component of care. In multivariable analyses, practice organization, patient preference for a female physician, and prevention orientation of female physicians accounted for up to 40% of screening rate differences between female and male physicians for Pap smears, and 33% for mammography., Conclusions: Differences in beliefs of male and female physicians and patient preference for a female provider contribute independently to the higher rate of breast and cervical cancer screening by female physicians.

Failure to attend scheduled appointments for mammography results in missed opportunities for breast cancer screening. We tested interventions to decrease mammography appointment failure among women attending the medicine clinic at a public teaching hospital. Consecutive women with mammography orders from October 1992 to November 1993 (970 women undergoing 1,072 mammograms) were assigned to one of three comparison groups: usual care, mailed reminder, and mailed reminder plus nurse counseling. The appointment failure rates were 25.5% in the usual care group, 20.3% in the mailed reminder group, and 19.7% in the special intervention group (p = .13). We conclude that mailed reminders modestly improve mammography appointment keeping by about 5%, and that nurse counseling has little additional effect.

Background: Concern about side effects is a barrier to influenza vaccination. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed side effects following vaccination among healthy working adults., Methods: Healthy working adults were recruited during October and November 1994 and were randomized to receive influenza vaccine or placebo injections. Local and systemic symptoms during the week following the injection were evaluated through structured telephone interviews., Results: Of 849 subjects enrolled in the study, 425 received a placebo and 424 received influenza vaccine. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, and 99% of subjects completed interviews to assess side effects after the study injection. No differences were seen between the 2 groups for the systemic symptoms of fever, myalgias, fatigue, malaise, or headaches. Overall, 35.2% of placebo and 34.1% of vaccine recipients reported at least 1 of these systemic symptoms (P = .78, chi 2). Vaccine recipients reported a higher rate of arm soreness at the injection site than did placebo recipients (63.8% vs 24.1%, P < .001). Local reactions were mild in both groups and infrequently resulted in decreased use of the arm. After logistic regression, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.5;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.1), age younger than 40 years (OR, 1.6;95% CI, 1.2-2.2), and coincidental upper respiratory tract illness (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 3.2-6.6) were independently associated with higher rates of systemic symptoms. In the multivariate model, vaccine again was not associated with systemic symptoms (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.2)., Conclusions: Influenza vaccination of healthy working adults is not associated with higher rates of systemic symptoms when compared with placebo injection. These findings should be useful to physicians and other health care providers as they counsel patients to take advantage of an important opportunity for disease prevention and health protection.

Objective: Each year, influenza and its complications account for 10,000-40,000 excess deaths in the United States. Over 80% of these deaths occur among the elderly. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for the US Public Health Service and others recommend that all persons 65 years of age and older as well as other persons with high-risk conditions receive annual influenza vaccination. Despite these recommendations, 40% or more of high-risk persons fail to receive influenza vaccine. Among the barriers to successful immunization efforts are persistent uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing morbidity and mortality associated with influenza. The purpose of this study was to assess influenza vaccine effectiveness in reducing hospitalization rates for a broad range of influenza-associated complications, in reducing deaths from all causes, and in reducing hospitalization costs among all elderly enrollees of a large health maintenance organization., Methods: A serial cohort study with internal controls was designed. All enrollees, 65 years of age and older, were identified for each of three consecutive vaccination and subsequent influenza seasons for 1990-1991 through 1992-1993. Baseline characteristics and outcome data were collected from computerized, linked, administrative data bases. Outcomes were adjusted for the presence of baseline characteristics including age, gender, high-risk diagnoses, medication refills in high-risk therapeutic classes, and previous health care resource utilization., Results: There were more than 25,000 seniors in each of the three study cohorts. Influenza vaccination rates ranged from 45 to 58%, and vaccinated subjects at baseline appeared to be 'sicker' than nonvaccinated subjects. Influenza vaccination was associated with significant reductions in all outcomes evaluated including outpatient visits (17% reduction in pneumonia and influenza visits, 6.4% reduction in all respiratory condition visits), hospitalizations (51.2% reduction in pneumonia and influenza hospitalizations, 32.5% reduction in all respiratory condition hospitalizations, 28.6% reduction in congestive heart failure hospitalizations), hospitalization costs (30.7% reduction in hospitalization costs for all respiratory conditions and congestive heart failure combined), and deaths from all causes (45% reduction in death from all causes)., Conclusions: Influenza vaccination of elderly persons living in the community is associated with reduced hospitalizations from complications from influenza, with fewer deaths during the influenza season, and with direct health care cost savings. Few, if any, other preventive or therapeutic interventions for adults match or exceed these benefits.