Comparison of migraine with left- versus right-sided headache: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to clarify whether clinical differences exist between patients with migraine who experience headache that is typically left-sided ("left-migraine") versus right-sided ("right-migraine") during attacks. BACKGROUND: Migraine has been associated with unilateral headache for millennia and remains a supportive trait for the clinical diagnosis of migraine of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. It is currently unknown why headache in migraine is commonly unilateral, and whether headache-sidedness is associated with other clinical features. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study comparing left- versus right-migraine using all available intake questionnaires of new patients evaluated at an academic tertiary headache center over a 20-year period. Eligibility was based on patient written responses indicating the typical location of headache during attacks. In our analyses, the side of headache (left or right) was the predictor variable. The outcomes included various migraine characteristics and psychiatric comorbidities. RESULTS: We identified 6527 patients with migraine, of which 340 met study eligibility criteria. Of these, 48.8% (166/340) had left migraine, and 51.2% (174/340) had right migraine. When comparing patients with left- versus right-migraine, patients with left migraine experienced 3.6 fewer headache-free days (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-5.9; p = 0.002) and 2.4 more severe headache days (95% CI 0.8-4.1; p = 0.004) in the previous 4 weeks. No significant differences in age, sex, handedness, migraine characteristics, or psychiatric comorbidities were identified between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with migraine with typically left-sided headache during attacks reported a higher burden of headache frequency and severity than those with typically right-sided headache during attacks. These findings may have implications for our understanding of migraine pathophysiology, treatment, and clinical trial design.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of Primary Care Practice Redesign to Integrate Behavioral Health for Those Who Need It Most: Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P ≤ .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients.

Older adults' willingness to take magnesium to treat depression.

Context: Depression affects up to 15% of community-dwelling older adults. Late-life depression is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated. When depression in older adults is identified, up to 80% of treatment occurs in primary care. Currently available treatments have significant limitations (e.g., modest effectiveness, high costs, adverse effects, poor adherence, and social stigma), therefore additional treatment options are essential. Over the counter magnesium chloride is inexpensive, widely available, generally safe, well-absorbed, and was efficacious in prior studies, often within 2 weeks. Objective: To collect background information on magnesium supplement use and acceptability in older adults with a depression. Study Design: Online survey. Dataset: National sample. Population Studied: Adults 65 and older living in the United States currently experiencing symptoms of depression based on Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ- 2) results. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was willingness to take magnesium supplements instead of prescription medication for the treatment of depression. Secondary measures included current supplement use, comfort level with taking magnesium to treat depression, and whether they think magnesium would help improve symptoms of depression. Results: Of 153 respondents, 97 (63%) were female, 143 (93%) identified as white, and 130 (85%) were between the ages 65 and 75 years. 112 (73%) took a supplement daily, including 15 (10%) taking magnesium. 50 (33%) were currently being treated for depression. On a 4-point Likert scale ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree," 83% of respondents "Agreed" or "Strongly Agreed" in terms of their willingness to take magnesium instead of a prescription medication. A majority also "Agreed" or "Strongly Agreed" that they were willing (89%) and comfortable (89%) with taking magnesium to treat depression and also that it would improve symptoms of depression (73%). Women were more likely to agree with these statements (p<0.05), but there were no differences based on age or current treatment for depression. Conclusions: A majority of older community-dwelling adults are willing to take magnesium for the treatment of depression. Many adults are already taking at least 1 over the counter supplement daily. Further research is needed to determine the efficacy of magnesium supplements as an alternative treatment option in this population.

Integrating behavioral health & primary care for multiple chronic diseases: Clinical trial of a practice redesign toolkit.

Context: Most patients in need of behavioral health (BH) care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some practices integrate behavioral health care (IBH), with medical and BH providers at the same location, working as a team. However, it is difficult to achieve high levels of integration. Objective: Test the effectiveness of a practice intervention designed to increase BH integration. Study Design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting: 43 primary care practices with on-site BH services in 13 states. Population: 2,460 adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions. Intervention: 24-month practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were changes in the 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) domain scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication adherence, self-reported healthcare utilization, time lost due to disability, cardiovascular capacity, patient centeredness, provider empathy, and several condition-specific measures. A sample of practice staff completed the Practice Integration Profile at each time point to estimate the degree of BH integration in that site. Practice-level case studies estimated the typical costs of implementing the intervention. Results: The intervention had no significant effect on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no convincing patterns of effect in any populations. COVID-19 was apparently not a moderating influence of the effect of the intervention on outcomes. The intervention had a modest effect on the degree of practice integration, reaching statistical significance in the Workflow domain. The median cost of the intervention was $18,204 per practice. In post-hoc analysis, level of BH integration was associated with improved patient outcomes independent of the intervention, both at baseline and longitudinally. Conclusions: The specific intervention tested in this study was inexpensive, but had only a small impact on the degree of BH integration, and none on patient outcomes. However, practices that had more integration at baseline had better patient outcomes, independent of the intervention. Although this particular intervention was ineffective, IBH remains an attractive strategy for improving patient outcomes.

Development and validation of the patient centeredness index for primary care.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe the development of the Patient Centeredness Index (PCI), evaluate its psychometric characteristics and evaluate the relationships between scores on the PCI and an established measure of empathy. BACKGROUND: Patient centeredness helps patients manage multiple chronic conditions with their providers, nurses and other team members. However, no instrument exists for evaluating patient centeredness within primary care practices treating this population. DESIGN: Multi-site instrument development and validation. STROBE reporting guidelines were followed. METHODS: To identify themes, we consulted literature on patient centeredness and engaged stakeholders who had or were caring for people with multiple chronic conditions (n = 7). We composed and refined items to represent those themes with input from clinicians and researchers. To evaluate reliability and convergent validity, we administered surveys to participants (n = 3622) with chronic conditions recruited from 44 primary care practices for a large-scale cluster randomised clinical trial of the effects of a practice-level intervention on patient and practice-level outcomes. Participants chose to complete the 16-item survey online, on paper or by phone. Surveys assessed demographics, number of chronic conditions and ratings of provider empathy. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to model the interrelationships among items. RESULTS: A single factor explained 93% of total variance. Factor loadings ranged from 0.55-0.85, and item-test correlations were ≥.67. Cronbach's alpha was .93. A moderate, linear correlation with ratings of provider's empathy (r = .65) supports convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The PCI is a new tool for obtaining patient perceptions of the patient centeredness of their primary care practice. The PCI shows acceptable reliability and evidence of convergent validity among patients managing chronic conditions. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The PCI rapidly identifies patients' perspectives on patient centeredness of their practice, making it ideal for administration in busy primary care settings that aim to efficiently address patient-identified needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.org Protocol ID: WLPS-1409-24372. TITLE: Integrating Behavioural Health and Primary Care for Comorbid Behavioural and Medical Problems (IBHPC).

Further Experience with the Practice Integration Profile: A Measure of Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration.

Valid measures of behavioral health integration have the potential to enable comparisons of various models of integration, contribute to the overall development of high-quality care, and evaluate outcomes that are strategically aligned with standard improvement efforts. The Practice Integration Profile has proven to discriminate among clinic types and integration efforts. We continued the validation of the measure's internal consistency, intra-rater consistency, and inter-rater consistency with a separate and larger sample from a broader array of practices. We found that the Practice Integration Profile demonstrated a high level of internal consistency, suggesting empirically sound measurement of independent attributes of integration, and high reliability over time. The Practice Integration Profile provides internally consistent and interpretable results and can serve as both a quality improvement and health services research tool.

Nonlinear relationship between nonresidential destinations and body mass index across a wide range of development.

BACKGROUND: Destination accessibility is an important measure of the built environment that is associated with active transport and body mass index (BMI). In higher density settings, an inverse association has been consistently found, but in lower density settings, findings are limited. We previously found a positive relationship between the density of nonresidential destinations (NRD) and BMI in a low-density state. We sought to test the generalizability of this unexpected finding using data from six other states that include a broader range of settlement densities. METHODS: We obtained the address, height, and weight of 16.9 million residents with a driver's license or state identification cards, as well as the location of 3.8 million NRDs in Washington, Oregon, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, and Maine from Dun & Bradstreet. We tested the association between NRDs∙ha-1 within 1 km of the home address, and self-reported BMI (kg∙m-2). Visualization by locally-weighted smoothing curves (LOWESS) revealed an inverted U-shape. A multivariable piecewise regression with a random intercept for state was used to assess the relationship. RESULTS: After accounting for age, sex, year of issue, and census tract social and economic variables, BMI correlated positively with NRDs in the low-to-mid density stratum (ß = +0.005 kg∙m-2/nonresidential building∙ha-1; 95% CI: +0.004,+0.006) and negatively in the mid-to-high density stratum (ß = -0.002; 95% CI: -0.004,-0.0003); a significant difference in slopes (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: BMI peaked in the middle density, with lower values in both the low and high-density extremes. These results suggest that the mechanisms by which NRDs are associated with obesity may differ by density level.

Barriers and facilitators to use of a clinical evidence technology in the management of skin problems in primary care: insights from mixed methods.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have examined the impact of a single clinical evidence technology (CET) on provider practice or patient outcomes from the provider's perspective. A previous cluster-randomized controlled trial with patient-reported data tested the effectiveness of a CET (i.e., VisualDx) in improving skin problem outcomes but found no significant effect. The objectives of this follow-up study were to identify barriers and facilitators to the use of the CET from the perspective of primary care providers (PCPs) and to identify reasons why the CET did not affect outcomes in the trial. METHODS: Using a convergent mixed methods design, the authors had PCPs complete a post-trial survey and participate in interviews about using the CET for managing patients' skin problems. Data from both methods were integrated. RESULTS: PCPs found the CET somewhat easy to use but only occasionally useful. Less experienced PCPs used the CET more frequently. Data from interviews revealed barriers and facilitators at four steps of evidence-based practice: clinical question recognition, information acquisition, appraisal of relevance, and application with patients. Facilitators included uncertainty in dermatology, intention for use, convenience of access, diagnosis and treatment support, and patient communication. Barriers included confidence in dermatology, preference for other sources, interface difficulties, presence of irrelevant information, and lack of decision impact. CONCLUSION: PCPs found the CET useful for diagnosis, treatment support, and patient communication. However, the barriers of interface difficulties, irrelevant search results, and preferred use of other sources limited its positive impact on patient skin problem management.

Did Clarification of Medicare Guidelines Change Outpatient Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Usage? A Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if there was a change in the number of outpatient physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) visits for Medicare beneficiaries, and in the number of beneficiaries receiving extended courses of >12 therapy visits, after the Jimmo vs Sebelius settlement. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) comparing calendar years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015. SETTING: Community in-home survey. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare Part-B recipients who received outpatient PT/OT (N=1183, median age 70.8) during pre-Jimmo settlement (2011-2012) and post-Jimmo settlement (2014-2015) time periods. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of therapy visits/patient/year and number of subjects who received >12 therapy visits/year estimated by linear and logistic regressions controlling for potential confounders (age, body mass index [BMI], and geographic region). RESULTS: The unadjusted median number of therapy visits/year increased from 7 to 8 after the settlement. Linear regression estimated a 1.02 increase in the number of therapy visits after the settlement (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23, 1.80; P=.01). The odds of having >12 therapy visits/year increased (odds ratio=1.41; 95% CI 1.02,1.96; P=.04). We observed a significant interaction between race and the effect of the settlement on the odds of having >12 therapy visits (OR 3.64; 95% CI 1.58, 8.39). Non-Hispanic white subjects saw an increase in utilization while a combined group of black, Hispanic and Asian subjects' utilization declined. CONCLUSION: Utilization of outpatient PT/OT changed after the 2013 Jimmo settlement. Further research is needed to determine the effect on patient outcomes and cost.

Effect of a clinical evidence technology on patient skin disease outcomes in primary care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Providers' use of clinical evidence technologies (CETs) improves their diagnosis and treatment decisions. Despite these benefits, few studies have evaluated the impact of CETs on patient outcomes. The investigators evaluated the effect of one CET, VisualDx, on skin problem outcomes in primary care. METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled pragmatic trial was conducted in outpatient clinics at an academic medical center in the northeastern United States. Participants were primary care providers (PCPs) and their adult patients seen for skin problems. The intervention was VisualDx, as used by PCPs. Outcomes were patient-reported time from index clinic visit to problem resolution, and the number of follow-up visits to any provider for the same problem. PCPs who were randomly assigned to the intervention agreed to use VisualDx as their primary evidence source for skin problems. Control group PCPs agreed not to use VisualDx. Investigators collected outcome data from patients by phone at thirty-day intervals. Cox proportional hazards models assessed time to resolution. Wilcoxon-rank sum tests and logistic regression compared the need for return appointments. RESULTS: Thirty-two PCPs and 433 patients participated. In proportional hazards modelling adjusted for provider clusters, the time from index visit to skin problem resolution was similar in both groups (hazard ratio=0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.70, 1.21; p=0.54). Patient follow-up appointments did not differ significantly between groups (odds ratio=1.26; CI=0.94, 1.70; p=0.29). CONCLUSION: This pragmatic trial tested the effectiveness of VisualDx on patient-reported skin disease outcomes in a generalizable clinical setting. There was no difference in skin problem resolution or number of follow-up visits when PCPs used VisualDx.

Trends in Imaging Use for the Evaluation and Followup of Kidney Stone Disease: A Single Center Experience.

PURPOSE: Recent reports support renal ultrasound as the initial imaging study to evaluate patients with suspected renal colic. However, urologists often advocate for computerized tomography to better define stone size and location, especially before proceeding with endourological intervention. One concern with using ultrasound as initial imaging is that computerized tomography may be required later, obviating the reduction in costs and radiation gained by using ultrasound. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of 10,680 episodes of stone disease in a total of 7,659 patients who presented to the emergency department or walk-in clinic with a chief complaint or visit diagnosis of urolithiasis from 2009 to 2015 at a single institution. Images obtained during the index encounter and in the following 90 days were recorded. RESULTS: The index encounter included computerized tomography in 47% of episodes, ultrasound in 20%, plain x-ray of the kidneys, ureters and bladder in 12% and no imaging in 29%. Of the index visits 49% included multiple testing. If no computerized tomography was obtained during the index visit, 10% of patients underwent computerized tomography later in the episode. Total imaging costs and radiation exposure during 90 days were significantly higher when computerized tomography was done at the index visit. If the initial image obtained during an episode was ultrasound, computerized tomography was performed in 20% of cases within 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Of patients who underwent an initial ultrasound 80% avoided computerized tomography imaging. Avoiding computerized tomography at the index visit was associated with substantial reductions in radiation exposure and imaging costs.

DWI for Renal Mass Characterization: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Performance.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the test performance of DWI in the characterization of renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed searches of three electronic databases for studies on renal mass characterization using DWI. Methodologic quality was assessed for each study. We quantitatively analyzed test performance for three clinical problems: first, benign versus malignant lesions; second, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) versus other malignancies; and, third, high-versus low-grade clear cell RCCs. We summarized performance as a single pair of sensitivity and specificity values or a summary ROC curve. RESULTS: The studies in the literature were limited in both quantity and quality. For classification of benign versus malignant lesions, four studies with 279 lesions yielded a single summary estimate of 86% sensitivity and 78% specificity. For differentiation of clear cell RCC from other malignancies, five studies showed marked heterogeneity not conducive to meta-analysis. For differentiation of high-from low-grade clear cell RCCs, three studies with 110 lesions showed a threshold effect appropriate for summary ROC construction: The AUC was 0.83. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests moderate accuracy of DWI for the prediction of malignancy and high-grade clear cell cancers, whereas DWI performance for ascertaining clear cell histologic grade remains unclear. To develop DWI as a noninvasive approach for the evaluation of solid renal masses, prospective studies with standardized test parameters are needed to better establish DWI performance and its impact on patient outcomes.

Inter-rater reliability for scoring children's dichotic words test responses.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether rater agreement is randomly distributed or varies importantly with test-taker characteristics, test words, or rater experience with the dichotic words test (DWT). DESIGN: DWT was administered to 34 children in 1st-4th grade and responses scored by two raters. The proportion of rater agreement was calculated for each child and for each word. Correlates of inter-rater agreement were explored. STUDY SAMPLE: Two raters judged 6686 total responses from 34 children. RESULTS: Overall agreement between the two raters was 0.97. Test-taker scores ranged from 35%-91% (mean = 81%). Agreement was associated with score but not with test-taker age or sex. Test words spanned the full range of difficulty (pass proportion 0.06-1.00). Rater agreement was not randomly distributed among the words. Inter-rater agreement for test words ranged from 0.82-1.00 and was associated with pass proportion (Spearman's ρ = 0.28; p < 0.0001). However, there were words at all pass proportions with perfect or near-perfect agreement. Rater agreement improved from 0.94 on the first day of data collection to 0.98 on the fifth day (p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Inter-rater reliability should be considered along with test item difficulty when developing speech audiometry materials, scoring protocols, and rater training.

Physical therapy for survivors of torture: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Torture can result in impaired functional mobility, reduced quality of life, and persistent pain. Physical therapy (PT) is recommended for holistic care of survivors of torture (SOT), however there are limited evidenced-based guidelines. We conducted a scoping review to identify and describe the approach and gaps in knowledge around the PT treatment of SOT. METHODS: We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Re-views. Nine databases were searched. Eligible sources involved PT treatment for SOT. Interventions were categorized into themes based on recommendations from the Physiotherapy and Refugees Edu-cation Project: 1) trauma-informed care, 2) body-awareness and empowerment, 3) pain management. RESULTS: The final analysis included 15 sources. Eight sources included all three themes; three of these eight sources were research studies examining outcomes following the PT intervention. While out-comes of these studies were significant for improvement among the PT groups, results must be taken cautiously due to methodological limitations of the trials. Studies assessing treatment that included only one theme resulted in no differences between the control and intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the scope of the literature regarding PT for SOT. A trauma-informed PT approach, co-ordinated with pain management, and body-awareness and empowerment interventions may address the complex needs of survivors. However, rigorous studies of this three-themed approach are lacking. As SOT seek medical services, healthcare providers must be prepared to care for these vulnerable people. Physical therapists are encouraged to utilize a holistic approach, and to examine outcomes of this approach for SOT.

The association of self-perceived changes due to COVID-19 with mental and physical health among adult primary care patients with multiple chronic conditions: A US-based longitudinal study.

Introduction: This study explores the association between self-perceived personal and community changes due to COVID-19 and health among vulnerable primary care patients experiencing multiple chronic conditions. Methods: Between September 2017 and February 2021, we obtained data from 2,426 primary care patients managing multiple chronic conditions from across the United States. We assessed the relationship between self-perceived personal and community changes due to COVID-19 and change in health measured by the PROMIS-29 mental and physical health summary scores, GAD-7 (anxiety), andPHQ-9 (depression), and DASI (functional capacity) adjusting for relevant demographic, neighborhood characteristics, and county covariates. Results: After adjustment, self-perceived personal and community changes due to COVID-19 were associated with significantly worse mental health summary scores (ß = -0.55; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = -0.72, -0.37), anxiety (ß = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.16, 0.39), depression (ß = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.22, 0.47), and physical health summary scores (ß = -0.44; 95% CI = 0.88, 0.00). There was no association with functional capacity (ß = - 0.05; 95% CI = -0.16, 0.05). Discussion: Among adults managing multiple chronic conditions, self-perceived personal and community changes due to COVID-19 were associated with health. This vulnerable population may be particularly susceptible to the negative effects of COVID-19. As we do not know the long-term health effects of COVID, this paper establishes a baseline of epidemiological data on COVID-19 burden and health among primary care patients with multiple chronic conditions.

Regional vs global physical therapy interventions to treat chronic pain in survivors of trauma: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A history of traumatic life events is associated with chronic pain in later life. Physical therapists utilize a variety of methods to treat pain, however, they have struggled to find effective interventions to improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare impairment-based, regional (REGION-PT) physical therapy (PT) to a global (GLOBAL-PT) model consisting of pain neuroscience education, graded motor imagery, and exercise for adults with chronic pain and history of trauma. DESIGN: Randomized Controlled Trial. METHODS: Adults ≥ 18 years of age with chronic pain and a history of ≥1 trauma identified through the Life Events Checklist received the allocated intervention once a week for six weeks. Treatment effects were assessed using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Ninety-eight participants completed the trial. There were no difference in outcomes between groups. There were significant interactions between race and intervention. Both interventions were associated with improvements in pain interference for white participants, but non-white participants experienced improvement only with GLOBAL-PT. Regardless of allocation, participants improved in physical function, six of the PROMIS-29 domains, and in pain interference measures. CONCLUSION: Both interventions are reasonable strategies for individuals with chronic pain and a history of trauma.

Left- vs right-sided migraine: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a historically unilateral head pain condition, the cause of which is not currently known. A growing body of literature suggests individuals who experience migraine with left-sided headache ("left-sided migraine") may be distinguished from those who experience migraine with right-sided headache ("right-sided migraine"). OBJECTIVE: In this scoping review, we explore migraine unilaterality by summarizing what is currently known about left- and right-sided migraine. METHODS: Two senior medical librarians worked with the lead authors to construct and refine a set of search terms to identify studies of subjects with left- or right-sided migraine published between 1988, which is the year of publication of the first edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), and December 8, 2021 (the date the searches were conducted). The following databases were searched: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Abstracts were loaded into Covidence review software, deduplicated, then screened by two authors to determine study eligibility. Eligible studies were those involving subjects diagnosed with migraine (according to ICHD criteria) in which the authors either: a) compared left- to right-sided migraine; or b) described (with analysis) a characteristic that differentiated the two. Data were extracted by the lead author, including ICHD version, the definition of unilateral migraine used by the authors, sample size, whether the findings were collected during or between attacks, and their key findings. The key findings were grouped into the following themes: handedness, symptoms, psychiatric assessments, cognitive testing, autonomic function, and imaging. RESULTS: After deduplication, the search yielded 5428 abstracts for screening. Of these, 179 met eligibility criteria and underwent full text review. 26 articles were included in the final analysis. All of the studies were observational. One study was performed during attack, nineteen between attacks, and six both during and between attacks. Left- and right-sided migraine were found to differ across multiple domains. In several cases, reciprocal findings were reported in left- and right-migraine. For example, both left- and right-sided migraine were associated with ipsilateral handedness, tinnitus, onset of first Parkinson's symptoms, changes in blood flow across the face, white matter hyperintensities on MRI, activation of the dorsal pons, hippocampal sclerosis, and thalamic NAA/Cho and NAA/Cr concentrations. In other cases, however, the findings were specific to one migraine laterality. For example, left-sided migraine was associated with worse quality of life, anxiety, bipolar disorder, PTSD, lower sympathetic activity, and higher parasympathetic activity. Whereas right-sided migraine was associated with poorer performance on multiple cognitive tests, a greater degree of anisocoria, changes in skin temperature, higher diastolic blood pressure, changes in blood flow through the middle cerebral and basilar arteries, and changes on EEG. CONCLUSION: Left- and right-sided migraine differed across a wide range of domains, raising the possibility that the pathophysiology of left- and right-migraine may not be identical.

The Association Between Depression and Substance Use Among Primary Care Patients With Comorbid Medical and Behavioral Health Conditions.

INTRODUCTION: The scope of primary care increasingly encompasses patient behavioral health problems, manifest typically through depression screening and treatment. Although substance use is highly comorbid with depression, it is not commonly identified and addressed in the primary care context. This study aimed to examine the association between the likelihood of substance use disorder and increased depression severity, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally, among a sample of 2409 patients from 41 geographically dispersed and diverse primary care clinics across the US. METHODS: This is secondary analysis of data obtained from a multi-site parent study of integrated behavioral health in primary care, among patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions. Patient reported outcome surveys were gathered from patients at 3 time points. The primary care practices were blind to which of their patients completed surveys. Included were standardized measures of depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) [PHQ-9] and substance use disorder likelihood (Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Short Screener [GSS]). RESULTS: Four percent of the study population screened positive for substance use disorder. PHQ-9 scores indicated depression among 43% of all patients. There was a significant association between the likelihood of substance use disorder and depression initially, at a 9-month follow-up, and over time. These associations remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, income, and other patient and contextual characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that substance use disorder is associated with depression severity cross-sectionally and over time. Primary care clinics and health systems might consider implementing substance use screening in addition to the more common screening strategies for depression. Especially for patients with severe depression or those who do not respond to frontline depression treatments, the undermining presence of a substance use disorder should be explored.

Practice-Level Documentation of Alcohol-Related Problems in Primary Care.

Importance: Rates of alcohol-associated deaths increased over the past 20 years, markedly between 2019 and 2020. The highest rates are among individuals aged 55 to 64 years, primarily attributable to alcoholic liver disease and psychiatric disorders due to use of alcohol. This study investigates potential geographic disparities in documentation of alcohol-related problems in primary care electronic health records, which could lead to undertreatment of alcohol use disorder. Objective: To identify disparities in documentation of alcohol-related problems by practice-level social deprivation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study using secondary data from the Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care clinical trial (September 21, 2017, to January 8, 2021) was performed. A national sample of 44 primary care practices with co-located behavioral health services was included in the analysis. Patients with 2 primary care visits within 2 years and at least 1 chronic medical condition and 1 behavioral health condition or at least 3 chronic medical conditions were included. Exposure: The primary exposure was practice-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI), a composite measure based on county income, educational level, employment, housing, single-parent households, and access to transportation (scores range from 0 to 100; 0 indicates affluent counties and 100 indicates disadvantaged counties). Main Outcomes and Measures: Documentation of an alcohol-related problem in the electronic health record was determined by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes or use of medications for alcohol use disorder in past 2 years. Multivariable models adjusted for alcohol consumption, screening for a substance use disorder, urban residence, age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, educational level, and number of chronic health conditions. Results: A total of 3105 participants (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [13.0] years; 64.1% female; 11.5% Black, 7.0% Hispanic, 76.7% White, and 11.9% other race or chose not to disclose; 47.8% household income <$30 000; and 80.7% urban residence). Participants had a mean (SD) of 4.0 (1.7) chronic conditions, 9.1% reported higher-risk alcohol consumption, 4% screened positive for substance use disorder, and 6% had a documented alcohol-related problem in the electronic health record. Mean (SD) practice-level SDI score was 45.1 (20.9). In analyses adjusted for individual-level alcohol use, demographic characteristics, and health status, practice-level SDI was inversely associated with the odds of documentation (odds ratio for each 10-unit increase in SDI, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, higher practice-level SDI was associated with lower odds of documentation of alcohol-related problems, after adjusting for individual-level covariates. These findings reinforce the need to address primary care practice-level barriers to diagnosis and documentation of alcohol-related problems. Practices located in high need areas may require more specialized training, resources, and practical evidence-based tools that are useful in settings where time is especially limited and patients are complex.

Practice integration profile revised: Improving item readability and completion.

INTRODUCTION: The Practice Integration Profile (PIP) is a reliable, valid, and broadly used measure of the integration of behavioral health (BH) into primary care. The PIP assesses operational and procedural elements that are grounded in the AHRQ Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration. Prior analyses of PIP data and feedback from users suggested the measure was in need of revisions. This article describes the process used to improve readability, clarity, and pragmatic utility of the instrument. METHOD: Two rounds of structured cognitive interviews were conducted with clinicians in primary care settings. After each round, interview transcripts were coded by an analytic team using an iterative and consensus-driven process. Themes were identified based on codes. Themes and recommendations for revisions were reviewed and modified by committee. RESULTS: Based on feedback and a prior factor analysis of the PIP, revisions were undertaken to: (a) eliminate redundant or overlapping items; (b) clarify the meaning of items; (c) standardize the response categories, and (d) place items in the most appropriate domains. The resulting measure has 28 items in five domains. DISCUSSION: PIP 2.0 will need further examination to confirm its continuing use as a foundational tool for evaluating integrated care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).