Search

Background The Improving the Wellbeing of people with Opioid Treated CHronic pain (I-WOTCH) randomised controlled trial found that a group-based educational intervention to support people using strong opioids for chronic non-malignant pain helped a significant proportion of people to stop or decrease opioid use with no increase in pain-related disability. We report a linked process evaluation of the group-based intervention evaluated in comparison to a usual-care control group that received a self-help booklet and relaxation CD.Methods We interviewed 18 intervention facilitators, and 20 intervention and 20 control participants who had chronic non-malignant pain and were recruited from general (family) practices in the UK. Quantitative data included change mechanism questions on the trial questionnaires which explored motivation, expectations and self-efficacy. Fidelity was assessed by listening to a sample of audio-recorded group sessions and nurse consultations. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated using ‘follow a thread’ and a mixed-methods matrix.Findings Four overarching themes emerged: (1) the right time to taper, (2) the backdrop of a life with chronic pain, (3) needing support and (4) the benefits of being in a group. Delivery fidelity was good, adherence (83%) and competence (79%) across a range of intervention groups. Staff delivering the intervention found three typical responses to the intervention: resistance, open to trying and feeling it was not the right time. The group experience was important to those in the intervention arm. It provided people with a forum in which to learn about the current thinking about opioid usage and its effects. It also gave them examples of how feasible or personally relevant coming off opioids might be.Conclusion The process evaluation data showed that the I-WOTCH intervention was well delivered, well received and useful for most interviewees. Being ‘the right time’ to taper and having support throughout tapering, emerged as important factors within the context of living with chronic pain.Trial registration number ISRCTN49470934.

Background Headaches are a leading cause of years lived with disability. For some people, headaches become chronic and disabling, with treatment options being primarily pharmaceutical. Non-pharmacological alternative treatment approaches are worthy of exploration. Aim To develop and test an educational and supportive self-management intervention for people with chronic headaches. Objectives To develop and evaluate a brief diagnostic interview to support diagnosis for people with chronic headaches, and then to develop and pilot an education and self-management support intervention for the management of common chronic headache disorders (the CHESS intervention). To select the most appropriate outcome measures for a randomised controlled trial of the CHESS intervention, and then to conduct a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the CHESS intervention with an embedded process evaluation. Design Developmental and feasibility studies followed by a randomised controlled trial. Setting General practice and community settings in the Midlands and London, UK. Participants For our feasibility work, 14 general practices recruited 131 people with chronic headaches (headaches on ≥15 days per month for >3 months). People with chronic headaches and expert clinicians developed a telephone classification interview for chronic headache that we validated with 107 feasibility study participants. We piloted the CHESS intervention with 13 participants and refined the content and structure based on their feedback. People with chronic headaches contributed to the decisions about our primary outcome and a core outcome set for chronic and episodic migraine. For the randomised controlled trial, we recruited adults with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache and episodic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache, from general practices and via self-referral. Our main analyses were on people with migraine. Interventions The CHESS intervention consisted of two 1-day group sessions focused on education and self-management to promote behaviour change and support learning strategies to manage chronic headaches. This was followed by a one-to-one nurse consultation and telephone support. The control intervention consisted of feedback from classification interviews, headache management leaflet and a relaxation compact disc. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was headache-related quality of life measured using the Headache Impact Test-6 at 12 months. The secondary outcomes included the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire; headache days, duration and severity; EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Short Form Questionnaire-12 items; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire scores. We followed up participants at 4, 8 and 12 months. Results Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomised 736 participants from 164 general practices. Nine participants (1%) had chronic tension-type headache only. Our main analyses were on the remaining 727 participants with migraine (376 in the intervention arm and 351 in the usual-care arm). Baseline characteristics were well matched. For the primary outcome we had analysable data from 579 participants (80%) at 12 months. There was no between-group difference in the Headache Impact Test-6 at 12 months, (adjusted mean difference –0.3, 95% confidence interval –1.23 to 0.67; p = 0.56). The limits of the 95% confidence interval effectively exclude the possibility of the intervention having a worthwhile benefit. At 4 months there was a difference favouring the CHESS self-management programme on the Headache Impact Test-6 (adjusted mean difference –1.0, 95% confidence interval –1.91 to –0.006; p = 0.049). However, the self-management group also reported 1.5 (95% confidence interval 0.48 to 2.56) more headache days in the previous 28 days. Apart from improved pain self-efficacy at 4 and 12 months, there were few other statistically significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes. The CHESS intervention generated 0.031 (95% confidence interval –0.005 to 0.063) additional quality-adjusted life-years and increased NHS and Personal Social Services costs by £268 (95% confidence interval £176 to £377), on average, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8617 with an 83% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The CHESS intervention was well received and fidelity was good. No process-related issues were identified that would explain why the intervention was ineffective. Limitations Only 288 out of 376 (77%) of those randomised to the CHESS intervention attended one or more of the intervention sessions. Conclusions This short, non-pharmacological, educational self-management intervention is unlikely to be effective for the treatment of people with chronic headaches and migraine. Future work There is a need to develop and test more sustained non-pharmacological interventions for people with chronic headache disorders. Patient and public involvement Substantial patient and public involvement went into the design, conduct and interpretation of the CHESS programme. This helped direct the research and ensured that the patient voice was embedded in our work. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN79708100. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further information. Plain language summary What did we want to find out? We wanted to find out if an education and self-management support programme for people with frequent headaches made these people feel better. What did we do? We first made sure that we could find people with frequent headaches, from general practice, who would want to take part in our study. We then trained nurses to do telephone interviews to find out what sort of headaches people had. We looked at previous research and then, together with people with frequent headaches, designed a group education and self-management programme. It was run by a nurse and another health professional over 2 days, followed by a one-to-one session and telephone support with a nurse. We worked with people with frequent headaches and health professionals specialising in headaches to agree how best to measure how headaches affect people’s quality of life. We then tested our self-management programme. We recruited 736 people with frequent headaches, of whom 727 had migraine. Using a computer, we allocated them at random either to attend the self-management programme or to receive a relaxation compact disc. Everyone was told their headache type. We asked participants to tell us about their headaches and headache quality of life after 4 months, 8 months and 12 months. What did we find? Our main results are for the 727 people with migraine. Our support programme did not help people in our study with frequent migraines to live better. There were also no important differences in the number of headaches people had each month or the amount of prescribed or over-the-counter medication they took for their headaches. What does this mean? Our short 2-day programme did not appear to improve headache-related quality of life or reduce the number of headache days. Other ways of helping people manage their chronic headaches are needed. Scientific summary Background Headaches are second to low back pain as a global cause of years lived with disability. Headaches are the most common neurological disorder treated in primary care. They account for around 3% of general practitioner consultations. Seventy per cent of people with headaches seen by their general practitioner do not get a formal diagnosis. For some people headaches become a chronic disabling disorder. There is a need for more non-pharmacological treatments to help those living with headache disorders. Our overarching aim was to develop and test a supportive education and self-management group intervention, implementable in primary care, for people with chronic headaches. Objectives The objectives of the programme were to: •develop and test strategies for recruiting people with chronic headaches from primary care [work package (WP) 1] •develop and evaluate a brief classification interview to support diagnosis for people with chronic headaches (WP2) •develop and pilot an education and self-management support intervention for the management of common chronic headache disorders [the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) intervention] (WP3) •select the most appropriate outcome measures for a randomised controlled trial of the CHESS intervention package (WP4) •run a multicentre randomised controlled trial, including an economic evaluation, of the CHESS intervention package (WP5). Methods and results We used an epidemiological definition of chronic headaches: headaches on ≥15 days per month for >3 months. Phase 1 of our work, WPs 1–4, consisted of interlinked systematic reviews and a feasibility study. Feasibility study (work package 1) Fourteen general practices in the West Midlands recruited 131 people with chronic headaches by writing to people with recorded consultations for headaches and prescriptions for migraine-specific drugs (triptans and pizotifen). Eligibility was confirmed by a telephone call by the study team. This group was our sampling frame for WPs 2–4. Classification interview (work package 2) We wanted to identify the population of interest for the main trial but also to feel confident that those who had other headache types not suitable for our trial were appropriately identified and referred for relevant support. We first reviewed the literature on diagnostic tools and found 38 papers validating 30 tools. We did not find any tools that were suitable for our proposed trial. We therefore organised a consensus meeting to inform our thinking on the content of a new classification tool. This was attended by neurologists with a specialist interest in headaches, general neurologists, headache specialist nurses, general practitioners with a specialist interest in headaches and people with chronic headaches. We established what we needed to know from a person to: •exclude secondary headaches •exclude primary headaches other than chronic migraine and tension-type headache •distinguish between chronic tension-type headache and chronic migraine •identify medication overuse headache. We used this information to develop a classification logic model for use in a nurse-delivered classification interview. A research nurse and a doctor, with expertise in headaches, from the National Migraine Centre then independently interviewed 107 participants. We found a high level of agreement between the nurse and specialist. Over 90% of study participants were classified as having chronic migraine. Intervention development (work package 3) Three systematic reviews informed our intervention development. Using a meta-ethnographic approach our systematic review of the lived experience of chronic headaches (n = 4 studies) we found three overarching themes: •headache as a driver of behaviour •the spectre of headache •strained relationships. In our systematic review of prognostic factors in chronic headache (n = 27 studies), we found moderate evidence for depression and anxiety, poor sleep, stress, medication overuse and poor self-efficacy predicting a poor outcome. We found inconclusive evidence for treatment expectations, age and age at onset, body mass index, employment and headache features predicting a poor outcome. In our systematic review of the effectiveness, style and content of self-management interventions for chronic headache (n = 16 studies) we found beneficial effects of the interventions compared with usual care in pain intensity, headache-related disability and quality of life. Interventions including either education or mindfulness components, and delivered in a group format, showed greater reductions in pain intensity than interventions without these features. A greater beneficial effect on mood was observed in interventions that included a cognitive–behavioural approach component than in those without this. We interviewed seven people living with chronic headaches recruited through our charity partners. We found that participants had tried a range of therapies and interventions, some of which were helpful and others less so. Access to education and peer support was deemed positive, as was learning new skills such as relaxation, mindfulness and stress management. We then presented our findings to 18 people from clinical, academic and lay backgrounds at an intervention development day to agree the structure and content of our new intervention. We agreed on a modular group intervention for 8–10 people delivered by a nurse and a layperson with chronic headaches. It should include educational material, self-management material and medication advice, and include a digital versatile disc (DVD) suitable to share with friends and family. We included a single face-to-face session and up to 8 weeks of telephone support with a specially trained nurse. After piloting with 13 participants, we identified that it was difficult for lay facilitators to commit to the sessions because of the unpredictable nature of their headaches. We therefore changed to using allied health professionals as the second facilitator. The final format was two group days followed by a one-to-one session with a nurse to discuss medication, lifestyle factors and goal-setting, followed by up to 8 weeks of telephone support (individually negotiated). Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness measures (work package 4) In our systematic review of patient-reported outcomes (46 studies evaluating 23 patient measures) we found that for a ‘headache’ population only the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) had acceptable evidence for its validity and reliability for use in our trial. The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ v2.1) had relevance to our population. We modified this measure, changing the focus of each item from ‘migraine’ to ‘headache’ to produce the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire (CHQLQ) and did a mixed-methods comparative evaluation of the CHQLQ and HIT-6. Both the CHQLQ and the HIT-6 were well completed, had good psychometric properties and were relevant to the experience of headache. The CHQLQ captured the wide-ranging impact of chronic headache, in particular the emotional impact, to a greater extent than the HIT-6. As this work was not complete before starting the main trial, we set HIT-6 as the primary outcome for the trial and the CHQLQ as a secondary outcome. We developed three questions to capture headache frequency, duration and severity for use in a smartphone application (app) or in a paper diary. Eight feasibility participants tested the app over 11 weeks. Feedback was positive but completion rates varied. We included the app as part of the main trial. From our work on outcome measures we identified the need for a core outcome set for migraine. This work took place after the design of the randomised controlled trial had been finalised. We identified >50 domains from our systematic reviews and our qualitative work. We did a modified, three-round electronic Delphi study with patients and professionals to identify which domains were most important. At a consensus day, when the aim was to ratify the core domains, a two-domain core outcome set was agreed for chronic and episodic migraine: 1.migraine-specific pain – to be assessed with an 11-point numerical pain rating scale, and frequency as the number of headache/migraine days over a specified period 2.migraine-specific quality of life to be assessed with the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire (MFIQ). Professor Underwood, the chief investigator for this study, is a director and shareholder of Clinvivo Ltd, who provided the Delphi platform. He recused himself from any discussions related to the choice of Delphi platform for this study. Phase 2: randomised controlled trial, work package 5 Phase 2 of the programme was a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the CHESS intervention package. We identified people with chronic headaches from general practice records. Self-referral to the trial was also possible. We included adults with migraine or tension-type headache with or without medication overuse headache. People who appeared eligible after an initial telephone call were asked to provide consent and baseline measures. This was followed by a classification interview with a research nurse to confirm eligibility and identify people with suspected non-eligible headaches. After the feasibility study we specified that if at least 85% of our participants had migraine our primary analysis would just be on the population with migraine, with sample size inflated, if necessary, to ensure adequate statistical power for this analysis. The randomisation allocation ratio was 1 : 1.07 in favour of the intervention group to account for clustering in one arm. Randomisation was done using minimisation, stratifying by geographical locality (Midlands and Greater London) and headache type [definite chronic migraine, probable chronic migraine (i.e. episodic migraine plus chronic tension-type headache) and chronic tension-type headache only, with or without medication overuse headache]. Our primary outcome was the HIT-6 score at 1 year. We used the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire as the secondary headache disability outcome. We did follow-ups at 4, 8 and 12 months. The sample size was based on testing the clinical effectiveness in the migraine population excluding participants with just tension-type headache (n = 689 participants: relaxation arm, n = 689; self-management arm, n = 356) provided 90% power to detect a between-group difference of 2 points (standard deviation 6.87 points, from the feasibility study) in HIT-6 score at 12 months for those with migraine using a two-sided test and a 5% significance level with a 20% loss to follow-up. Some over-run on sample size was expected to allow all groups to be adequately populated. We did a within-trial health economic analysis. Between April 2017 and March 2019, staff at 164 general practices in the Midlands and London wrote to 31,026 people and we randomised 736 people, 727 (99%) with migraine: 54% (396/727) had chronic migraine and 56% (407/727) medication overuse headache. Despite reporting chronic headache when eligibility for the study was determined, after receiving informed consent at baseline, 38% (274/727) reported < 15 headache days in the preceding 4 weeks. Unless otherwise stated, analyses were on the 727 participants with migraine. Baseline characteristics were well matched. The first session was attended by 286 out of 376 (76%) intervention participants; 259 (69%) reached the minimum adherence (day 1, and the one-to-one session) and 216 (58%) achieved full adherence to the programme. There was no between-group difference in HIT-6 scores at 12 months [adjusted mean difference –0.3 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.23 to 0.67 points; p = 0.56]. The limits of this 95% CI excluded our target (worthwhile) effect size of 2.0 points and the smaller minimally clinically important difference of 1.5 points suggested by others for studies of episodic migraine. At 4 months there was a difference favouring the CHESS self-management programme (adjusted mean difference –1.0 points; 95% CI –1.91 to –0.006 points; p = 0.049). There were few differences in secondary outcomes. The self-management group had 1.5 (95% CI 0.48 to 2.56; p = 0.004) more headache days over the preceding 28 days at 4 months. They also had improved pain self-efficacy scores at 4 and 12 months. Use of acute drugs, including both prescribed and over-the-counter drugs, and prophylactic drugs was unchanged over time with no between-group differences. Using electronic/paper diary data the difference over 12 months in number of headache days was 0.2 days (95% CI –0.11 to 0.46 days; p = 0.234), difference in duration of each headache was 0.4 hours (95% CI –0.47 to 1.28 hours; p = 0.361) and difference in average headache severity on a 0–10 scale was 0.2 (95% CI –0.08 to 0.46; p = 0.163). We found no subgroup effects. Our complier-average causal effect and sensitivity analyses were not materially different. There were seven adverse events: two in the standard-care arm and five in the self-management arm. The CHESS intervention generated 0.031 (95% CI –0.005 to 0.063) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and increased NHS and Personal Social Services costs by £268 (95% CI £176 to £377), generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8617 with an 83% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY gained. Our process evaluation, including all 736 participants, showed that we recruited a nationally representative population including people from practices based in all 10 deciles of the Index of Multiple Deprivation; 18% of participants were from minority ethnic groups. Intervention fidelity was good, with adherence being slightly better than competence [adherence 83% (interquartile range 67–100%); competence 70% (interquartile range 50–90%)]. We carried out semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of 26 study participants. Most participants described gaining some new knowledge or insight about their headaches from the intervention they received, and a few changed medication. Some felt more confident to manage their headaches, but many did not. CHESS was well received by participants, facilitators and general practitioners. Participants enjoyed interacting with others and valued the opportunity to talk, share and discuss their chronic headache experiences with others in a similar situation in a safe knowledgeable space. Patient and public involvement There has been substantial patient and public involvement in the design, conduct and interpretation of the CHESS programme. Throughout the programme we worked closely with three UK migraine charities and a lay advisory group to help direct the research and ensure that the patient voice was embedded in our work. Conclusions Over the duration of the CHESS programme, we have advanced our understanding of the challenges of living with chronic headaches and made some progress in developing the methodology for running randomised controlled trials of complex interventions for people living with chronic headaches. Our data effectively excluded the possibility that this short intervention is effective for the treatment of chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache and episodic migraine. Although there was no effect on our chosen headache-specific outcomes, we have not excluded the possibility that it produces a worthwhile QALY gain, as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. The health burden of chronic headache disorders, principally chronic migraine, is debilitating. Those living with the condition warrant support to optimise their care planning according to their needs and the latest knowledge about treatment and management. Further advances in this field must be driven by new theoretically and/or biologically informed intervention models. Research recommendations •New work to better understand the health impact of chronic headache disorders and to identify modifiable risk factors for a poor outcome. •Development and testing of new non-pharmacological interventions for a tightly phenotyped group with chronic migraine. •Research is needed to support improved classification of headache disorders in primary care to allow better targeting of the available drug treatments of proven effectiveness, and reduce medication overuse. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN79708100. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the predictive value of social determinants of health (SDoH) variables on 30-day readmission following a sepsis hospitalization as compared with traditional clinical variables. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study using patient-level data, including demographic, clinical, and survey data. SETTINGS: Thirty-five hospitals across the United States from 2017 to 2021. PATIENTS: Two hundred seventy-one thousand four hundred twenty-eight individuals in the AllofUs initiative, of which 8909 had an index sepsis hospitalization. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Unplanned 30-day readmission to the hospital. Multinomial logistic regression models were constructed to account for survival in determination of variables associate with 30-day readmission and are presented as adjusted odds rations (aORs). Of the 8909 sepsis patients in our cohort, 21% had an unplanned hospital readmission within 30 days. Median age (interquartile range) was 54 years (41-65 yr), 4762 (53.4%) were female, and there were self-reported 1612 (18.09%) Black, 2271 (25.49%) Hispanic, and 4642 (52.1%) White individuals. In multinomial logistic regression models accounting for survival, we identified that change to nonphysician provider type due to economic reasons (aOR, 2.55 [2.35-2.74]), delay of receiving medical care due to lack of transportation (aOR, 1.68 [1.62-1.74]), and inability to afford flow-up care (aOR, 1.59 [1.52-1.66]) were strongly and independently associated with a 30-day readmission when adjusting for survival. Patients who lived in a ZIP code with a high percentage of patients in poverty and without health insurance were also more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (aOR, 1.26 [1.22-1.29] and aOR, 1.28 [1.26-1.29], respectively). Finally, we found that having a primary care provider and health insurance were associated with low odds of an unplanned 30-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort, several SDoH variables were strongly associated with unplanned 30-day readmission. Models predicting readmission following sepsis hospitalization may benefit from the addition of SDoH factors to traditional clinical variables.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture and chiropractic care are evidence-based pain management alternatives to opioids. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) provides this care in some VA facilities, but also refers patients to community providers. We aimed to determine if patient-reported outcomes differ for acupuncture and chiropractic care from VA versus community providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational study using survey outcome data and electronic medical record utilization data for acupuncture and chiropractic care provided in 18 VA facilities or in community facilities reimbursed by VA. Study participants were users of VA primary care, mental health, pain clinic, complementary and integrative therapies, coaching or education services in 2018-2019. Patients received 1) 4+ acupuncture visits (N = 201) or 4+ chiropractic care visits (N = 178) from a VA or community provider from 60 days prior to baseline to six-months survey and 2) no acupuncture or chiropractic visits from 1 year to 60 days prior to baseline. Outcomes measured included patient-reported pain (PEG) and physical health (PROMIS) at baseline and six-month surveys. Multivariate analyses examined outcomes at six months, adjusting for baseline outcomes and demographics. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, pain and physical health improved for patients receiving community-based acupuncture, while VA-based acupuncture patients experienced no change. Unadjusted analyses also showed improvements in physical health, but not pain, for patients receiving VA-based chiropractic care, with no changes for community-based chiropractic care patients. Using multivariate models, VA-based acupuncture was no different from community-based acupuncture for pain (-0.258, p = 0.172) or physical health (0.539, p = 0.399). Similarly, there were no differences between VA- and community-based chiropractic care in pain (-0.273, p = 0.154) or physical health (0.793, p = 0.191). CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture and chiropractic care were associated with modest improvements at six months, with no meaningful differences between VA and community providers. The choice to receive care from VA or community providers could be based on factors other than quality, like cost or convenience.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the use and effectiveness of complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies via survey can be complicated given CIH therapies are used in various locations and formats, the dosing required to have an effect is unclear, the potential health and well-being outcomes are many, and describing CIH therapies can be challenging. Few surveys assessing CIH therapy use and effectiveness exist, and none sufficiently reflect these complexities. OBJECTIVE: In a large-scale Veterans Health Administration (VA) quality improvement effort, we developed the Complementary and Integrative Health Therapy Patient Experience Survey, a longitudinal, electronic patient self-administered survey to comprehensively assess CIH therapy use and outcomes. METHODS: We obtained guidance from the literature, subject matter experts, and Veteran patients who used CIH therapies in designing the survey. As a validity check, we completed cognitive testing and interviews with those patients. We conducted the survey (March 2021-April 2023), inviting 15,608 Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain with a recent CIH appointment or referral identified in VA electronic medical records (EMR) to participate. As a second validity check, we compared VA EMR data and patient self-reports of CIH therapy utilization a month after survey initiation and again at survey conclusion. RESULTS: The 64-item, electronic survey assesses CIH dosing (amount and timing), delivery format and location, provider location, and payor. It also assesses 7 patient-reported outcomes (pain, global mental health, global physical health, depression, quality of life, stress, and meaning/purpose in life), and 3 potential mediators (perceived health competency, healthcare engagement, and self-efficacy for managing diseases). The survey took 17 minutes on average to complete and had a baseline response rate of 45.3%. We found high degrees of concordance between self-reported and EMR data for all therapies except meditation. CONCLUSIONS: Validly assessing patient-reported CIH therapy use and outcomes is complex, but possible.

BACKGROUND: Although studies have documented higher rates of chronic pain among women Veterans compared to men Veterans, there remains a lack of comprehensive information about potential contributors to these disparities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study examined gender differences in chronic pain and its contributors among 419 men and 392 women Veterans, enrolled in a mindfulness trial for chronic pain. We conducted descriptive analyses summarizing distributions of baseline measures, obtained by survey and through the electronic health record. Comparisons between genders were conducted using chi-square tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous measures. RESULTS: Compared to men, women Veterans were more likely to have chronic overlapping pain conditions and had higher levels of pain interference and intensity. Women had higher prevalence of psychiatric and sleep disorder diagnoses, greater levels of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, fatigue, sleep disturbance, stress and pain catastrophizing, and lower levels of pain self-efficacy and participation in social roles and activities. However, women were less likely to smoke or have a substance abuse disorder and used more nonpharmacological pain treatment modalities. CONCLUSION: Among Veterans seeking treatment for chronic pain, women differed from men in their type of pain, had greater pain intensity and interference, and had greater prevalence and higher levels of many known biopsychosocial contributors to pain. Results point to the need for pain treatment that addresses the comprehensive needs of women Veterans. UNLABELLED: Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT04526158. Patient enrollment began on December 4, 2020.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted healthcare and clinical research, including a suite of 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), across clinics within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DOD). These PCTs were designed to evaluate an array of nonpharmacological treatments and models of care for treatment of patients with pain and co-occurring conditions. The aims of the study are to (a) describe modifications to PCTs and interventions to address the evolving pandemic and (b) describe the application of implementation science methods for evaluation of those PCT modifications. The project used a two-phase, sequential, mixed-methods design. In Phase I, we captured PCT disruptions and modifications via a Research Electronic Data Capture questionnaire, using Periodic Reflections methods as a guide. In Phase II, we utilized the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) taxonomy to develop a focus group interview guide and checklist that would provide more in-depth data than Phase I. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis. Phase I revealed that all PCTs made between two and six trial modifications. Phase II, FRAME-guided analyses showed that the key goals for modifying interventions were increasing treatment feasibility and decreasing patient exposure to COVID-19, while preserving intervention core elements. Context (format) modifications led eight PCTs to modify parts of the interventions for virtual delivery. Content modifications added elements to enhance patient safety; tailored interventions for virtual delivery (counseling, exercise, mindfulness); and modified interventions involving manual therapies. Implementation science methods identified near-real-time disruptions and modifications to PCTs focused on pain management in veteran and military healthcare settings.

BackgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that men who have sex with men (MSM) get tested annually for urethral and rectal chlamydia (CT) and gonorrhea (NG), and pharyngeal NG. There are no national recommendations to screen women and heterosexual men at extragenital sites. We assessed extragenital CT/NG screening among men and women at Louisiana's Parish Health Units (PHU).MethodsThe Louisiana STD/HIV/Hepatitis Program piloted extragenital screening at 4 PHUs in February 2016 and expanded to 11 PHUs in 2017. Sexual histories were used to identify gender of sex partners and exposed sites. Because of billing restrictions, up to 2 anatomical sites were tested for CT/NG.ResultsFrom February 2016 to June 2019, 70,895 urogenital and extragenital specimens (56,086 urogenital, 13,797 pharyngeal, and 1,012 rectal) were collected from 56,086 patients. Pharyngeal CT positivity was 160 of 7,868 (2.0%) among women, 54 of 4,838 (1.1%) among men who have sex with women (MSW) and 33 of 1,091 (3.0%) among MSM. Rectal CT positivity was 51 of 439 (11.6%) among women and 95 of 573 (16.6%) among MSM. Pharyngeal NG positivity was 299 of 7,868 (3.8%) among women, 222 of 4,838 (4.6%) among MSW, and 97 of 1,091 (8.9%) among MSM. Rectal NG positivity was 20 of 439 (4.6%) among women and 134 of 573 (23.4%) among MSM.Urogenital-only screening would have missed: among women, 173 of 3,923 (4.4%) CT and 227 of 1,480 (15.3%) NG infections; among MSW, 26 of 2,667 (1%) CT and 149 of 1,709 (8.7%) NG infections; and among MSM, 116 of 336 (34.5%) CT and 127 of 413 (42.1%) NG infections.ConclusionsMany CT/NG infections would have been missed with urogenital-only screening. Men who have sex with men had much higher extragenital infection rates than women and MSW.

Nonpharmacological treatments are considered first-line pain management strategies, but they remain clinically underused. For years, pain-focused pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have generated evidence for the enhanced use of nonpharmacological interventions in routine clinical settings to help overcome implementation barriers. The Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) framework describes the degree of pragmatism across 9 key domains. Among these, flexibility in delivery and flexibility in adherence, address a key goal of pragmatic research by tailoring approaches to settings in which people receive routine care. However, to maintain scientific and ethical rigor, PCTs must ensure that flexibility features do not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that the results are ethically and scientifically sound. Key principles of achieving this balance include clear definitions of intervention core components, intervention monitoring and documentation that is sufficient but not overly burdensome, provider training that meets the demands of delivering an intervention in real-world settings, and use of an ethical lens to recognize and avoid potential trial futility when necessary and appropriate. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents nuances to be considered when applying the PRECIS-2 framework to describe pragmatic clinical trials. Trials must ensure that patient-centered treatment flexibility does not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that measurement and analysis of treatment effects is reliable.

BackgroundInterest in complementary and integrative health (CIH) approaches, such as meditation, yoga, and acupuncture, continues to grow. The evidence of effectiveness for some CIH approaches has increased in the last decade, especially for pain, with many being recommended in varying degrees in national guidelines. To offer nonpharmacological health management options and meet patient demand, the nation's largest integrated healthcare system, the Veterans Health Administration (VA), greatly expanded their provision of CIH approaches recently.ObjectiveThis paper addressed the questions of how many VA patients might use CIH approaches and chiropractic care if they were available at modest to no fee, and would patients with some health conditions or characteristics be more likely than others to use these therapies.DesignUsing electronic medical records, we conducted a national, three-year, retrospective analysis of VA patients' use of eleven VA-covered therapies: chiropractic care, acupuncture, Battlefield Acupuncture, biofeedback, clinical hypnosis, guided imagery, massage therapy, meditation, Tai Chi/Qigong, and yoga.ParticipantsWe created a national cohort of veterans using VA healthcare from October 2016-September 2019.Key resultsVeterans' use of these approaches increased 70% in three years. By 2019, use was 5.7% among all VA patients, but highest among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (13.9%), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; 10.6%), depression (10.4%), anxiety (10.2%), or obesity (7.8%). The approach used varied by age and race/ethnicity, with women being uniformly more likely than men to use each approach. Patients having chronic musculoskeletal pain, obesity, anxiety, depression, or PTSD were more likely than others to use each of the approaches.ConclusionsVeterans' use of some approaches rapidly grew recently and was robust, especially among patients most in need. This information might help shape federal/state health policy on the provision of evidence-based CIH approaches and guide other healthcare institutions considering providing them.

BackgroundRecent international health events have led to an increased proliferation of remotely delivered health interventions. Even with the pandemic seemingly coming under control, the experiences of the past year have fueled a growth in ideas and technology for increasing the scope of remote care delivery. Unfortunately, clinicians and health systems will have difficulty with the adoption and implementation of these interventions if ongoing and future clinical trials fail to report necessary details about execution, platforms, and infrastructure related to these interventions. The purpose was to develop guidance for reporting of telehealth interventions.MethodsA working group from the US Pain Management Collaboratory developed guidance for complete reporting of telehealth interventions. The process went through 5-step process from conception to final checklist development with input for many stakeholders, to include all 11 primary investigators with trials in the Collaboratory.ResultsAn extension focused on unique considerations relevant to telehealth interventions was developed for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.ConclusionThe Telehealth Intervention guideline encourages use of the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist as a valuable tool (TIDieR-Telehealth) to improve the quality of research through a reporting guide of relevant interventions that will help maximize reproducibility and implementation.

Neighborhood characteristics are associated with residents healthcare use. However, we understand less about these relationships among formerly homeless persons, who often have complex healthcare needs, including mental health and substance use disorders. Among formerly homeless Veterans, we examined: (a) how neighborhood characteristics are associated with Veteran Health Administration (VHA) healthcare use and, (b) if these relationships varied by Veterans level of healthcare need. We obtained data on our cohort of 711 Veterans housed through VHAs permanent supportive housing program (HUD-VASH) in 2016-2017 from VHAs Homeless Registry, VHAs electronic health records, and the U.S. Census. We studied the relationships between neighborhood characteristics (% Veteran, % in poverty, % unemployed, % using public transportation, and % vacant properties) and VA healthcare use (primary care visits, outpatient mental health visits, and high use of emergency departments [> 4 visits]) using mixed-effects logistic and negative binomial regression models, controlling for patient demographics. We further examined moderation by patient healthcare need (calculated from cost and clinical data). We found that veterans in neighborhoods with higher percentages of residents who (a) were Veterans or (b) used public transportation were more likely to have high emergency department use. Those in neighborhoods with higher public transportation use had more primary care visits while those in neighborhoods with more property vacancies had more outpatient mental health visits. Among those with high healthcare needs, residents of areas with more Veterans had higher emergency department use. Promoting public transportation use and social engagement with other Veterans in residential neighborhoods may influence HUD-VASH Veterans VA healthcare use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Among 865 adults with early syphilis considered for a multicenter treatment trial, 234 (27%) were excluded before enrollment because of bacterial sexually transmitted infection coinfection. Coinfection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae (29%), Chlamydia trachomatis (22%), or both (23%) was common. Study findings highlight the need for comprehensive bacterial sexually transmitted infection screening in patients with syphilis.

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are well-suited to address unmet healthcare needs, such as those arising from the dual public health crises of chronic pain and opioid misuse, recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. These overlapping epidemics have complex, multifactorial etiologies, and PCTs can be used to investigate the effectiveness of integrated therapies that are currently available but underused. Yet individual pragmatic studies can be limited in their reach because of existing structural and cultural barriers to dissemination and implementation. The National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans Affairs formed an interagency research partnership, the Pain Management Collaboratory. The partnership combines pragmatic trial design with collaborative tools and relationship building within a large network to advance the science and impact of nonpharmacological approaches and integrated models of care for the management of pain and common co-occurring conditions. The Pain Management Collaboratory team supports 11 large-scale, multisite PCTs in veteran and military health systems with a focus on team science with the shared aim that the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts." Herein, we describe this integrated approach and lessons learned, including incentivizing all parties; proactively offering frequent opportunities for problem-solving; engaging stakeholders during all stages of research; and navigating competing research priorities. We also articulate several specific strategies and their practical implications for advancing pain management in active clinical, "real-world," settings.

ObjectiveTo describe how a partnered evaluation of the Whole Health (WH) system of care-comprised of the WH pathway, clinical care, and well-being programs-produced patient outcomes findings, which informed Veterans Health Administration (VA) policy and system change.Data sourcesElectronic health records (EHR)-based cohort of 1,368,413 patients and a longitudinal survey of Veterans receiving care at 18 WH pilot medical centers.Study designIn partnership with VA operations, we focused the evaluation on the impact of WH services utilization on Veterans' (1) use of opioids and (2) care experiences, care engagement, and well-being. Outcomes were compared between Veterans who did and did not use WH services identified from the EHR.Data collectionPharmacy records and WH service data were obtained from the VA EHR, including WH coaching, peer-led groups, personal health planning, and complementary, integrative health therapies. We surveyed veterans at baseline and 6 months to measure patient-reported outcomes.Principal findingsOpioid use decreased 23% (31.5-6.5) to 38% (60.3-14.4) among WH users depending on level of WH use compared to a secular 11% (12.0-9.9) decrease among Veterans using Conventional Care. Compared to Conventional Care users, WH users reported greater improvements in perceptions of care (SMD = 0.138), engagement in health care (SMD = 0.118) and self-care (SMD = 0.1), life meaning and purpose (SMD = 0.152), pain (SMD = 0.025), and perceived stress (SMD = 0.191).ConclusionsEvidence developed through this partnership yielded key VA policy changes to increase Veteran access to WH services. Findings formed the foundation of a congressionally mandated report in response to the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, highlighting the value of WH and complementary, integrative health and well-being programs for Veterans with pain. Findings subsequently informed issuance of an Executive Decision Memo mandating the integration of WH into mental health and primary care across VA, now one lane of modernization for VA.

This article describes a National Science Foundation-funded project that engages graduate students in the active development of context-specific codes-of-ethics based guidelines for use in their research group. By actively engaging students in ethics discussions specific to their everyday practice, this approach has the benefit of situating ethics education within the research environment where ethical issues often arise. This approach has the potential to empower participants by helping them become aware of the rules and often unacknowledged norms that exist in research groups. The guideline development process facilitates discussions between Principal Investigators and trainees about these crucial issues. The topics addressed in the guidelines include authorship, lab dynamics, mentoring relationships, peer relationships, and issues of inclusion. The project also highlights significant differences between faculty and graduate students in what ethical issues they consider most important in the research environment. While faculty tended to concentrate on more traditional responsible conduct of research issues such as data management, complying with regulations for animal and human use in research and authorship students focused on the topics of power dynamics, relationships in the labs, and issues faced by international students and other marginalized groups. The guidelines developed offer both a reflection of the current ethical culture within the research environment and give students a voice addressing these perceived issues. The iterative process of revising these guidelines engages stakeholders at the university, including students, faculty, and administrators to participate in ongoing discussion and reflection on issues of research ethics in a way that may facilitate real change from research groups up to the department and college level.

ObjectivesTo evaluate whether a nurse navigator-led, multicomponent Sepsis Transition And Recovery program improves 30-day mortality and readmission outcomes after sepsis hospitalization.Design: Multisite pragmatic randomized clinical trial.SettingThree hospitals in North Carolina from January 2019 to March 2020.PatientsEligible patients hospitalized for suspected sepsis and deemed high-risk for mortality or readmission by validated internal risk models.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive usual care alone (i.e., routine transition support, outpatient care; n = 342) or additional Sepsis Transition And Recovery support (n = 349). The 30-day intervention involved a multicomponent transition service led by a nurse navigator through telephone and electronic health record communication to facilitate best practice postsepsis care strategies during and after hospitalization including: postdischarge medication review, evaluation for new impairments or symptoms, monitoring comorbidities, and palliative care approach when appropriate. Clinical oversight was provided by a Hospital Medicine Transition Services team.Measurements and main resultsThe primary outcome was a composite of mortality or hospital readmission at 30 days. Logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate marginal and conditional odds ratios (adjusted for prognostic covariates: age, comorbidity, and organ dysfunction at enrollment). Among 691 randomized patients (mean age = 63.7 ± 15.1 yr; 52% female), a lower percentage of patients in the Sepsis Transition And Recovery group experienced the primary outcome compared with the usual care group (28.7% vs 33.3%; risk difference, 4.7%; odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.58-1.11; adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98). There were 74 deaths (Sepsis Transition And Recovery: 33 [9.5%] vs usual care: 41 [12.0%]) and 155 rehospitalizations (Sepsis Transition And Recovery: 71 [20.3%] vs usual care: 84 [24.6%]).ConclusionsIn a multisite randomized clinical trial of patients hospitalized with sepsis, patients provided with a 30-day program using a nurse navigator to provide best practices for postsepsis care experienced a lower proportion of either mortality or rehospitalization within 30 days after discharge. Further research is needed to understand the contextual factors associated with successful implementation.

Research using nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) have repeatedly found rectal and oropharyngeal infections with Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae to be common and potentially more difficult to treat than genital infections. Unfortunately, public health and patient care efforts have been hampered by the lack of FDA-cleared NAATs with claims for anorectal or oropharyngeal samples. At the time of the initiation of this study, no commercially available assays had these claims. We formed a novel partnership among academic institutions and diagnostic manufacturers to address this public health need. From May 2018 through August 2019, we recruited 1108 women, 1256 men, and 26 transgender persons each of whom provided 3 anal and 3 oropharyngeal swab specimens. The 3 anal swabs were pooled into a single transport tube as were the 3 oropharyngeal swabs. The performance of each of three study assays was estimated by comparison to the composite result and relative to one another. Percent positivity for chlamydia was 5.9 and 1.2% from anal and oropharyngeal specimens, respectively, compared to 4.2 and 4.1% for gonorrhea. Sensitivity for chlamydia detection ranged from 81.0 to 95.1% and 82.8 to 100% for anal and oropharyngeal specimens, respectively. Gonorrhea sensitivity ranged from 85.9 to 99.0% and 74.0 to 100% for anal and oropharyngeal samples, respectively. Specificity estimates were ≥ 98.9% for all assays, organisms, and sample types. Although there was heterogeneity between sensitivity estimates, these assays offer better ability to detect extragenital infections than culture and potential solutions for providing appropriate sexual health care for populations in which these infections are of concern.

Prospective cohort studies of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are logistically impractical owing to time and expenses. In schools, students are readily available for school-related follow-ups and monitoring. Capitalizing on the logistics that society already commits to ensure regular attendance of adolescents in school, a school-based STI screening in New Orleans made it possible to naturally observe the occurrence of chlamydia and to determine its incidence among 14-19-year-old adolescents. Among participants screened repeatedly, we calculated incidence rates, cumulative incidence, and incidence times. Male (n = 3820) and female (n = 3501) students were observed for 6251 and 5143 person-years, respectively, during which 415 boys and 610 girls acquired chlamydia. Incidence rates per 100 person-years were 6.6 cases for boys and 11.9 cases for girls. In multivariable analysis, the adjusted hazard ratio was 5.34 for boys and 3.68 for girls if the student tested positive for gonorrhea during follow-up, and 2.76 for boys and 1.59 for girls if at first participation the student tested positive for chlamydia, and it increased with age among boys but not among girls. In joinpoint trend analysis, the annual percentage change in the incidence rate was 6.6% for boys (95% CI: -1.2%, 15.1%) and 0.1% for girls (95% CI: -5.3%, 5.7%). Annual cumulative incidence was 5.5% among boys and 8.6% among girls. Median incidence time was 9.7 months for boys and 6.9 months for girls. Our findings can be used to refine assumptions in mathematical modeling and in cost analysis studies of C. trachomatis infection, and provide strong evidence in support of annual chlamydia screening for adolescent boys.

BackgroundThe opioid crisis has necessitated new approaches to managing chronic pain. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Whole Health model of care, with its focus on patient empowerment and emphasis on nonpharmacological approaches to pain management, is a promising strategy for reducing patients' use of opioids. We aim to assess whether the VHA's Whole Health pilot program impacted longitudinal patterns of opioid utilization among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.MethodsA cohort of 4,869 Veterans with chronic pain engaging in Whole Health services was compared with a cohort of 118,888 Veterans receiving conventional care. All patients were continuously enrolled in VHA care from 10/2017 through 3/2019 at the 18 VHA medical centers participating in the pilot program. Inverse probability of treatment weighting and multivariate analyses were used to adjust for observable differences in patient characteristics between exposures and conventional care. Patients exposed to Whole Health services were offered nine complementary and integrative health therapies alone or in combination with novel Whole Health services including goal-setting clinical encounters, Whole Health coaching, and personal health planning.Main measuresThe main measure was change over an 18-month period in prescribed opioid doses starting from the six-month period prior to qualifying exposure.ResultsPrescribed opioid doses decreased by -12.0% in one year among Veterans who began complementary and integrative health therapies compared to similar Veterans who used conventional care; -4.4% among Veterans who used only Whole Health services such as goal setting and coaching compared to conventional care, and -8.5% among Veterans who used both complementary and integrative health therapies combined with Whole Health services compared to conventional care.ConclusionsVHA's Whole Health national pilot program was associated with greater reductions in prescribed opioid doses compared to secular trends associated with conventional care, especially when Veterans were connected with complementary and integrative health therapies.

BackgroundThe Veterans Health Administration (VA) is undergoing a transformation in how healthcare is organized and provided. This transformation to a Whole Health System of Care encompasses the integration of complementary and integrative health services, education, and Whole Health coaching to develop Veterans' self-care skills. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these services were provided via telehealth (tele-WH).ObjectiveWe sought to understand Veteran and provider perspectives on how tele-WH impacts Veteran engagement in Whole Health-aligned services and the impact on their well-being.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 51 providers who delivered tele-WH at 10 VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) and 19 Veterans receiving tele-WH at 6 VAMCs. Participants were asked about their experiences with tele-WH, what they perceived to be the impact of tele-WH on Veterans, and their preferences moving forward. Interviews were transcribed, and a content analysis was performed using a rapid approach.ResultsWe identified 3 major themes that describe the perceived impact of tele-WH on Veterans. These include: (1) increased use of Whole Health-aligned services; (2) deeper engagement with Whole-Health aligned services; and (3) improvements in social, psychological, and physical well-being.ConclusionTele-WH is perceived to be a strong complement to in-person services and is a promising mechanism for improving engagement with Whole Health-aligned services and promoting Veteran well-being. Future research is needed to measure outcomes identified in this study and to support more equitable access to telehealth for all.

BACKGROUND: We investigated differences in gonococcal antimicrobial susceptibility by anatomic site among cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM) using specimens collected through the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions enhanced Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project and Strengthening the US Response to Resistant Gonorrhea. METHODS: During the period January 1, 2018-December 31, 2019, 12 enhanced Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project and 8 Strengthening the US Response to Resistant Gonorrhea sites collected urogenital, pharyngeal, and rectal isolates from cisgender MSM in sexually transmitted disease clinics. Gonococcal isolates were sent to regional laboratories for antimicrobial susceptibility testing by agar dilution. To account for correlated observations, linear mixed-effects models were used to calculate geometric mean minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), and mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to calculate the proportion of isolates with elevated or resistant MICs; comparisons were made across anatomic sites. RESULTS: Participating clinics collected 3974 urethral, 1553 rectal, and 1049 pharyngeal isolates from 5456 unique cisgender MSM. There were no significant differences in the geometric mean MICs for azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, penicillin, and tetracycline by anatomic site. For cefixime and ceftriaxone, geometric mean MICs for pharyngeal isolates were higher compared with anogenital isolates (P < 0.05). The proportion of isolates with elevated ceftriaxone MICs (≥0.125 μg/mL) at the pharynx (0.67%) was higher than at rectal (0.13%) and urethral (0.18%) sites (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on data collected from multijurisdictional sentinel surveillance projects, antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates may differ among MSM at extragenital sites, particularly at the pharynx. Continued investigation into gonococcal susceptibility patterns by anatomic site may be an important strategy to monitor and detect the emergence of antimicrobial resistant gonorrhea over time.

ObjectiveTo compare the performance of vaginitis diagnosis based on clinical assessment to molecular detection of organisms associated with bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and Trichomonas vaginalis using a vaginal panel assay.MethodsThis cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study included 489 enrolled participants from five collection sites where those with vaginitis symptoms had a vaginal assay swab collected during their visit and a clinical diagnosis made. The swab was later sent to a separate testing site to perform the vaginal panel assay. Outcome measures include positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (and accompanying 95% CIs) of clinical assessment with the vaginal panel assay. P

In a recent study, identifying and supporting patients' care goals was named the highest priority in hospital medicine. Although sepsis is one of the leading causes of death and postdischarge morbidity among hospitalized patients, little is known about how frequently care goals are assessed prior to discharge and adhered to in the 90 days after sepsis hospitalization. Evaluating a cohort of 679 high-risk sepsis survivors enrolled in a clinical trial, we found that care goals were documented explicitly in a standardized tool in 130 patients; an additional 139 patients were identified using all available clinical documentation, resulting in only 269 (40%) patients with goals that could be ascertained from the electronic health record (EHR). Among those categorized, goals were classified as prioritizing longevity (35%), function (52%), and comfort (12%). Based on expert review of the care provided during the 90 days subsequent to discharge, goal-concordant care was identified in 184 (68%) cases for which goals were specified. Documentation of goals in a standardized EHR tool was associated with increased likelihood of receiving goal-concordant care (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.5). Hospitalization and peridischarge time points represent important opportunities to address deficits in the documentation of goals and provision of goal-concordant care for sepsis survivors.