Search

Occupational therapy practitioners provide sensory-based interventions to support children as they learn academically, develop self-regulation skills, and participate in play and activities of daily living skills alongside their peers. These interventions are used both for children who have a specific sensory-related diagnosis as well as children who do not have a specific diagnosis. This study explored common occupational therapy sensory interventions utilized within the United States school settings along with implementation barriers for sensory intervention services for children ages 3-18 years old. Occupational therapy practitioners completed an electronic survey and a focus group. Results indicated that many occupational therapy practitioners frequently used sensory interventions through indirect services with children in preschool and elementary school. Occupational therapy practitioners must provide interprofessional training for education teams for effective sensory intervention implementation in school-based settings.

Objectives Chart review as the current gold standard for phenotype evaluation cannot support observational research on electronic health records and claims data sources at scale. We aimed to evaluate the ability of structured data to support efficient and interpretable phenotype evaluation as an alternative to chart review. Materials and Methods We developed Knowledge-Enhanced Electronic Profile Review (KEEPER) as a phenotype evaluation tool that extracts patient's structured data elements relevant to a phenotype and presents them in a standardized fashion following clinical reasoning principles. We evaluated its performance (interrater agreement, intermethod agreement, accuracy, and review time) compared to manual chart review for 4 conditions using randomized 2-period, 2-sequence crossover design. Results Case ascertainment with KEEPER was twice as fast compared to manual chart review. 88.1% of the patients were classified concordantly using charts and KEEPER, but agreement varied depending on the condition. Missing data and differences in interpretation accounted for most of the discrepancies. Pairs of clinicians agreed in case ascertainment in 91.2% of the cases when using KEEPER compared to 76.3% when using charts. Patient classification aligned with the gold standard in 88.1% and 86.9% of the cases respectively. Conclusion Structured data can be used for efficient and interpretable phenotype evaluation if they are limited to relevant subset and organized according to the clinical reasoning principles. A system that implements these principles can achieve noninferior performance compared to chart review at a fraction of time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines how ignorance can be produced by regulatory systems. Using the case of contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), we identify patterns of institutionalized ignorance in U.S. chemical regulation. Drawing on in-depth interviews and archival research, we develop a chemical regulatory pathway approach to study knowledge and ignorance production through the regulatory framework, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Investigating TSCA's operation, we consider why PFAS were relatively recently recognized as a significant public health threat, despite evidence of their risks in the 1960s. The historical context of TSCA's enactment, including the mobilization of the chemical industry, contributed to the institutionalization of organizational practices promoting distinct types of ignorance based on stakeholder position: chemical manufacturers who have discretion over knowledge production and dissemination, regulators who operate under selective ignorance, and communities and consumers who experience nescience, or total surprise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, their effectiveness relative to each other and other second-line antihyperglycemic agents is unknown, without any major ongoing head-to-head clinical trials., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the cardiovascular effectiveness of SGLT2is, GLP-1 RAs, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is), and clinical sulfonylureas (SUs) as second-line antihyperglycemic agents in T2DM., Methods: Across the LEGEND-T2DM (Large-Scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation Across a Network of Databases for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) network, 10 federated international data sources were included, spanning 1992 to 2021. In total, 1,492,855 patients with T2DM and cardiovascular disease (CVD) on metformin monotherapy were identified who initiated 1 of 4 second-line agents (SGLT2is, GLP-1 RAs, DPP4is, or SUs). Large-scale propensity score models were used to conduct an active-comparator target trial emulation for pairwise comparisons. After evaluating empirical equipoise and population generalizability, on-treatment Cox proportional hazards models were fit for 3-point MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, and death) and 4-point MACE (3-point MACE plus heart failure hospitalization) risk and HR estimates were combined using random-effects meta-analysis., Results: Over 5.2 million patient-years of follow-up and 489 million patient-days of time at risk, patients experienced 25,982 3-point MACE and 41,447 4-point MACE. SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs were associated with lower 3-point MACE risk than DPP4is (HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.79-1.00] and 0.83 [95% CI: 0.70-0.98]) and SUs (HR: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.65-0.89] and 0.72 [95% CI: 0.58-0.88]). DPP4is were associated with lower 3-point MACE risk than SUs (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79-0.95). The pattern for 3-point MACE was also observed for the 4-point MACE outcome. There were no significant differences between SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs for 3-point or 4-point MACE (HR: 1.06 [95% CI: 0.96-1.17] and 1.05 [95% CI: 0.97-1.13])., Conclusions: In patients with T2DM and CVD, comparable cardiovascular risk reduction was found with SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs, with both agents more effective than DPP4is, which in turn were more effective than SUs. These findings suggest that the use of SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs should be prioritized as second-line agents in those with established CVD., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was partially funded through National Institutes of Health grants R01 HL167858, K23 HL153775, R01 LM006910, R01 HG006139, and R01 HL169954 and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs under the research priority to “Put VA Data to Work for Veterans” (VA ORD 22-D4V). The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the protocol; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Khera is an associate editor at JAMA; and has received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (awards R01 HL167858 and K23 HL153775) and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (award 2022060); has received research support, through Yale University, from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and BridgeBio; is a coinventor of U.S. provisional patent applications WO2023230345A1, US20220336048A1, 63/346,610, 63/428,569, 63/484,426, 63/508,315, 63/580,137, 63/606,203, 63/619,241, and 63/562,335, unrelated to the present work; and is a cofounder of Evidence2Health and Ensight-AI, precision health platforms to improve evidence-based cardiovascular care and cardiovascular diagnostics. Dr DuVall has received grants from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Biodesix, Celgene, Cerner Enviza, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis International, and Parexel International through the University of Utah or the Western Institute for Veteran Research (outside the submitted work). Dr Man has received support from the C.W. Maplethorpe Fellowship, the National Institute of Health Research, European Commission Framework Horizon 2020, the Hong Kong Research Grant Council, and the Innovation and Technology Commission of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region Government outside the submitted work). Dr Morales is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Fellowship (214588/Z/18/Z). In the past 3 years, Dr Krumholz has received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Reality Labs, Tesseract/4Catalyst, F-Prime, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, the Arnold and Porter Law Firm, and the Martin/Baughman Law Firm; is a cofounder of Refactor Health, HugoHealth, and Ensight-AI; and is associated with contracts, through Yale New Haven Hospital, from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and, through Yale University, from Johnson & Johnson. Dr You is chief technology officer of PHI Digital Healthcare. Dr Ross has received research support through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation program (grant U01 FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant R01 HS022882), and from Arnold Ventures; has received research support from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology and from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (grants R01 HS025164 and R01 HL144644); and was an expert witness at the request of the relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled September 2022. Dr Thangaraj is a coinventor on provisional patent 63/606,203, unrelated to the present work, and is funded by grant 5T32 HL155000-03. Ms Blacketer, Dr Ostropolets, and Dr Ryan are employees of Johnson & Johnson. Dr Schuemie is an employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)