Association Between Unmet Essential Social Needs and Influenza Vaccination in US Adults.

BACKGROUND: Although social factors influence uptake of preventive services, the association between social needs and influenza vaccination has not been comprehensively evaluated for adults seeking primary care in the USA. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between unmet social needs and influenza vaccination. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional, multivariable logistic regression. PARTICIPANTS: Persons completing ambulatory visits in a primary care department at a midwestern, urban, multispecialty, academic medical center between July 2017 and July 2019 (N = 7955 individuals included). MAIN MEASURES: Completion of influenza vaccination in the 2018-2019 influenza season (primary outcome) or any year (secondary outcome) against 11 essential social needs (childcare, companionship, food security, health literacy, home safety, neighborhood safety, housing, health care provider costs, prescription costs, transportation, and utilities). Demographics, diabetic status, COPD, smoking status, office visit frequency, and hierarchical condition category risk scores were included as covariates. KEY RESULTS: Individuals with transportation vulnerability were less likely to be vaccinated against influenza (current-year aOR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.53-0.78, p < 0.001; any-year aOR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47-0.71, p < 0.001). Poor health literacy promoted any-year, but not current-year, influenza vaccination (any-year aOR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.01-1.69, p = 0.043). Older age, female sex, diabetes, more comorbidities, and more frequent primary care visits were associated with greater influenza vaccination. Persons with Black or other/multiple race and current smokers were less frequently vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Transportation vulnerability, health literacy, smoking, age, sex, race, comorbidity, and office visit frequency are associated with influenza vaccination. Primary care-led interventions should consider these factors when designing outreach interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Multiple modes of Lrp4 function in modulation of Wnt/ß-catenin signaling during tooth development.

During development and homeostasis, precise control of Wnt/ß-catenin signaling is in part achieved by secreted and membrane proteins that negatively control activity of the Wnt co-receptors Lrp5 and Lrp6. Lrp4 is related to Lrp5/6 and is implicated in modulation of Wnt/ß-catenin signaling, presumably through its ability to bind to the Wise (Sostdc1)/sclerostin (Sost) family of Wnt antagonists. To gain insights into the molecular mechanisms of Lrp4 function in modulating Wnt signaling, we performed an array of genetic analyses in murine tooth development, where Lrp4 and Wise play important roles. We provide genetic evidence that Lrp4 mediates the Wnt inhibitory function of Wise and also modulates Wnt/ß-catenin signaling independently of Wise. Chimeric receptor analyses raise the possibility that the Lrp4 extracellular domain interacts with Wnt ligands, as well as the Wnt antagonists. Diverse modes of Lrp4 function are supported by severe tooth phenotypes of mice carrying a human mutation known to abolish Lrp4 binding to Sost. Our data suggest a model whereby Lrp4 modulates Wnt/ß-catenin signaling via interaction with Wnt ligands and antagonists in a context-dependent manner.

Putting the "learning" in "pre-learning": effects of a self-directed study hall on skill acquisition in a simulation-based central line insertion course.

BACKGROUND: Opportunities to practice procedural skills in the clinical learning environment are decreasing, and faculty time to coach skills is limited, even in simulation-based training. Self-directed learning with hands-on practice early in a procedural skill course might help maximize the benefit of later faculty coaching and clinical experience. However, it may also lead to well-learned errors if learners lack critical guidance. The present study sought to investigate the effects of a hands-on, self-directed "study hall" for central line insertion among first-year residents. METHODS: Learner cohorts before vs. after introduction of the study hall (n = 49) were compared on their pre- and post-test performance of key procedural behaviors that were comparable across cohorts, with all learners receiving traditional instructor-led training between tests. RESULTS: Study hall participants spent a median of 116 min in hands-on practice (range 57-175). They scored higher at pre-test (44% vs. 27%, p = .00; Cohen's d = 0.95) and at post-test (80% vs. 72%, p = .02; Cohen's d = 0.69). A dose-response relationship was found, such that 2 h of study hall were roughly equivalent to the performance improvement seen with four clinical observations or supervised insertions of central lines. CONCLUSIONS: Self-directed, hands-on "study hall" supported improved procedural skill learning in the context of limited faculty availability. Potential additional benefits make the approach worth further experimentation and evaluation.

Assessing the utility of yearly pre-season laboratory screening for athletes on a major professional sports team.

OBJECTIVES: Professional athletes undergo annual pre-season laboratory screening, although clinical evidence supporting the practice is limited and no uniform set of guidelines on pre-season laboratory screening exists. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical value of annual pre-season laboratory screening tests for a major professional sports team over multiple years. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all laboratory results as well as screening ECGs for a single major professional sports team over a 9-year timeframe (2009-2017). RESULTS: The data show that 10.01% of initial screening test results were abnormal and 40.32% of abnormal tests resulted in additional testing. Overall, only 0.35% of initial tests resulted in a clinically significant outcome. Non-US born players showed a significantly higher average rate of abnormal tests/year compared to US-born players (p-value 0.006), but there was no difference in clinically significant outcomes. There was no relationship between athlete age and laboratory screening outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population, yearly pre-season laboratory screening of professional athletes did not yield substantial clinically significant outcomes and would not be warranted under normal clinical standards. Future best practice guidelines should combine research concerning effects of family medical history, race, gender, country of origin, and type of sport on athlete health when creating recommendations for which pre-season laboratory screenings may be pertinent even with evidence of little utility.