Epidemiology and burden of dengue fever in the United States: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dengue is currently a global concern. The range of dengue vectors is expanding with climate change, yet United States of America (USA) studies on dengue epidemiology and burden are limited. This systematic review sought to characterize the epidemiology and disease burden of dengue within the USA. METHODS: Studies evaluating travel-related and endemic dengue in US states and territories were identified and qualitatively summarized. Commentaries and studies on ex-US cases were excluded. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Latin American and Caribbean Center of Health Sciences Information, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched through January 2022. RESULTS: 116 studies were included. In US states, dengue incidence was generally low, with spikes occurring in recent years in 2013-16 (0.17-0.31 cases/100,000) and peaking in 2019 (0.35 cases/100,000). Most cases (94%, n = 7895, 2010-21) were travel related. Dengue was more common in Puerto Rico (cumulative average: 200 cases/100,000, 1980-2015); in 2010-21, 99.9% of cases were locally acquired. There were <50 severe cases in US states (2010-17); fatal cases were even rarer. Severe cases in Puerto Rico peaked in 1998 (n = 173) and 2021 (n = 76). Besides lower income, risk factors in US states included having birds in residence, suggesting unspecified environmental characteristics favourable to dengue vectors. Commonly reported symptoms included fever, headache and rash; median disease duration was 3.5-11 days. Hospitalization rates increased following 2009 World Health Organization disease classification changes (pre-2009: 0-54%; post-2009: 14-75%); median length of stay was 2.7-8 days (Puerto Rico) and 2-3 days (US states). Hospitalization costs/case (2010 USD) were$14 350 (US states),$1764-$5497 (Puerto Rico) and$4207 (US Virgin Islands). In Puerto Rico, average days missed were 0.2-5.3 (work) and 2.5 (school). CONCLUSIONS: Though dengue risk is ongoing, treatments are limited, and dengue's economic burden is high. There is an urgent need for additional preventive and therapeutic interventions.

"All boats will rise": Physicians' perspectives on multidisciplinary lung cancer care in a community-based hospital setting.

PURPOSE: We explored the perceived strengths, barriers to implementation, and suggestions for sustainable implementation of a multidisciplinary model within a community-based hospital system from the physicians' perspectives. METHODS: We conducted 9 focus groups with 37 physicians involved in the care of lung cancer patients. Grounded theory methodology guided the identification of recurrent themes that emerged from the qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: The majority of study participants agreed that the multidisciplinary model could benefit patients by promoting high quality, efficient, and well-coordinated care. Co-location, financial disincentives, and time constraints were identified as major deterrents to full participation in a multidisciplinary clinic. Other perceived challenges were the integration of a multidisciplinary care model into the existing healthcare system, maintenance of referral streams, and designation of the physician primarily responsible for a patient's care. Educating physicians about the availability of a multidisciplinary clinic, establishing efficient processes for initial consultations, implementing technology for virtual participation, and using a nurse navigator with reliable closed-loop communication were suggested to improve the implementation of the multidisciplinary model. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians generally agreed that the multidisciplinary model could improve lung cancer care, but they perceived significant personal, institutional, and system-level barriers that need to be addressed for its successful implementation in a community healthcare setting.

Psychosocial interventions for informal caregivers of lung cancer patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Caregivers of patients with lung cancer often face physical, emotional, and financial distress, which not only negatively affects the caregivers' mental health and quality of life but may also impact patients' well-being. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the content, delivery, and efficacy of psychosocial interventions targeting caregivers of lung cancer patients. METHODS: Studies included in this systematic review assessed psychosocial interventions for caregivers of lung cancer patients that were published in English between January 2009 and December 2017. These interventions focused on burden, mental health, quality of life, self-efficacy, and/or coping as outcome measures. CINAHL, PubMed, PsycInfo, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases were searched using the terms (lung cancer OR lung neoplasms OR thoracic cancer) AND (caregiver OR caregiving) AND (intervention OR program) to systematically review the relevant literature on this topic. RESULTS: From the 22 studies included in this systematic review, interventions were classified into four categories: communication-based interventions, coping skills training interventions, multicomponent interventions, and stress reduction interventions. The majority of the interventions (especially communication-based and multicomponent) led to improvement, albeit not always statistically significant, in one or more outcomes; however, the most frequently reported improvements included, burden, distress, anxiety, depression, overall quality of life, self-efficacy, and coping abilities. CONCLUSIONS: The unmet needs of informal caregivers of lung cancer patients have a significant impact on their mental health and quality of life, but this burden can be alleviated by psychosocial interventions that offer appropriate support, education, and resources.

"Gave me a line of ice and I got hooked": Exploring narratives of initiating methamphetamine use.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores factors associated with methamphetamine initiation based on the narratives from an online support group for methamphetamine users. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of 202 first-person narratives submitted to an anonymous, online support group for methamphetamine users. The narratives were analyzed in the Dedoose qualitative software using Charmaz's adaptations to Glaserian grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Ten factors for initiating methamphetamine use emerged from our analysis and corresponded to three constructs from the Theory of Planned Behavior: attitude (needing energy to work, wishing to escape pain, wanting to have fun, and desiring a thinner body), subjective norms (ubiquity of methamphetamine use, yearning for closer relationships, and wanting to fit in), and perceived behavioral control (believing addiction is inevitable, feeling forced to fit in, and having no real control). Many participants described initiating methamphetamine use because they believed it would help them meet personal goals or needs. Other participants began using it out of curiosity, to develop relationships, and/or because of the drug's ubiquity in their social environments. Some users described how their perceived lack of control left them with limited ability to resist trying the drug. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study may aid public health researchers and interventionists seeking theoretically informed methamphetamine prevention programs.

Pragmatic trial of a multidisciplinary lung cancer care model in a community healthcare setting: study design, implementation evaluation, and baseline clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Responsible for 25% of all US cancer deaths, lung cancer presents complex care-delivery challenges. Adoption of the highly recommended multidisciplinary care model suffers from a dearth of good quality evidence. Leading up to a prospective comparative-effectiveness study of multidisciplinary vs. serial care, we studied the implementation of a rigorously benchmarked multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach to conduct a patient-centered, combined implementation and effectiveness study of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care. We established a co-located multidisciplinary clinic to study the implementation of this care-delivery model. We identified and engaged key stakeholders from the onset, used their input to develop the program structure, processes, performance benchmarks, and study endpoints (outcome-related process measures, patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes, survival). In this report, we describe the study design, process of implementation, comparative populations, and how they contrast with patients within the local and regional healthcare system. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02123797. RESULTS: Implementation: the multidisciplinary clinic obtained an overall treatment concordance rate of 90% (target >85%). Satisfaction scores were high, with >95% of patients and caregivers rating themselves as being "very satisfied" with all aspects of care from the multidisciplinary team (patient/caregiver response rate >90%). The Reach of the multidisciplinary clinic included a higher proportion of minority patients, more women, and younger patients than the regional population. Comparative effectiveness: The comparative effectiveness trial conducted in the last phase of the study met the planned enrollment per statistical design, with 178 patients in the multidisciplinary arm and 348 in the serial care arm. The multidisciplinary cohort had older age and a higher percentage of racial minorities, with a higher proportion of stage IV patients in the serial care arm. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a comprehensive implementation of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care, which will advance the science behind implementing this much-advocated clinical care model.

Unmet Primary Care Needs in Diabetic Patients with Multimorbidity in a Medically Underserved Area.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients with multimorbidity in medically underserved minority communities are less engaged in primary care and experience high emergency department (ED) utilization. This study assesses unmet primary care needs among diabetic patients in a medically underserved area (MUA). COMMUNITY CONTEXT: A suburb of Memphis-Whitehaven, Tennessee (Shelby County, ZIP codes 38109 and 38116)-majority African American (96.6%) with 30.5% below the poverty level. METHODS: Community case study using multiple data sources including diabetes registry, individual interviews, focus groups, and a survey of 30 ED patients with diabetes and multimorbidity. RESULTS: Diabetes registry data indicated that 95.5% of 5723 diabetic patients had multimorbidity. Over 91.5% were uncontrolled at some point in 2014 to 2015. Only 83% of patients with diabetes and multimorbidity reported having a primary care provider (PCP) and those without a PCP were more likely to report delays in needed care. Patients expressed strong interest in health coaching (88%) and receiving text messages from the doctor's office (73%). Individual patient interviews (n = 9) and focus groups (n = 11) revealed common primary care and self-care experiences and needs including diabetes education, improved patient-provider communication, health-care access and coverage, and strengthened primary care and community. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that almost 1 in 5 ED complex diabetic patients in an MUA do not have a PCP, and that difficulty accessing primary care often results in patients forgoing needed care. Qualitative findings support these conclusions. These results suggest that primary care capacity and infrastructure to support diabetes self-care need strengthening in MUAs.

'One-stop shop': lung cancer patients' and caregivers' perceptions of multidisciplinary care in a community healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary care is rarely practiced in community healthcare settings where the majority of patients receive lung cancer care in the US. We sought direct input from patients and their informal caregivers on their experience of lung cancer care delivery. METHODS: We conducted focus groups of patient and caregiver dyads. Patients had received care for lung cancer in or out of a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology clinic coordinated by a nurse navigator. Focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using Creswell's 7-step process. Recurring overlapping themes were developed using constant comparative methods within the Grounded Theory framework. RESULTS: A total of 46 participants were interviewed in focus groups of 5 patient-caregiver dyads. Overlapping themes were a perception that multidisciplinary care improved physician collaboration, patient-physician communication, and patient convenience, while reducing redundancy in testing. Improved coordination decreased confusion, stress, and anxiety. Negative experience of serial care included poor communication among physicians, insensitive communication about illness, delays in diagnosis and treatment, misdiagnosis, and mistreatment. Physician-to-physician communication and patient education were suggested areas for improvement in the multidisciplinary model. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary care was perceived as more patient-centered, effective, safe, and efficient than standard serial care. It was also believed to improve the timeliness of care and equitable access to high quality care. Additional studies to compare these perspectives to those of other key stakeholders, including clinicians, hospital administrators and representatives of third party payers, will facilitate better understanding of the role of multidisciplinary care programs in lung cancer care delivery.