Racial/ethnic and sociodemographic factors associated with micronutrient intakes and inadequacies among pregnant women in an urban US population.

OBJECTIVE: To assess sociodemographic correlates of micronutrient intakes from food and dietary supplements in an urban, ethnically diverse sample of pregnant women in the USA. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analyses of data collected using a validated semi-quantitative FFQ. Associations between racial, ethnic and sociodemographic factors and micronutrient intakes were examined using logistic regression controlling for pre-pregnancy BMI, maternal age and smoking status. SETTING: Prenatal clinics, Boston, MA, USA. SUBJECTS: Analyses included pregnant women (n 274) in the PRogramming of Intergenerational Stress Mechanisms (PRISM) study, an urban longitudinal cohort designed to examine how stress influences respiratory health in children when controlling for other environmental exposures (chemical stressors, nutrition). RESULTS: High frequencies of vitamin E (52 %), Mg (38 %), Fe (57 %) and vitamin D (77 %) inadequacies as well as suboptimal intakes of choline (95 %) and K (99 %) were observed. Factors associated with multiple antioxidant inadequacies included being Hispanic or African American, lower education and self-reported economic-related food insecurity. Hispanics had a higher prevalence of multiple methyl-nutrient inadequacies compared with African Americans; both had suboptimal betaine intakes and higher odds for vitamin B6 and Fe inadequacies compared with Caucasians. Nearly all women (98 %) reported Na intakes above the tolerable upper limit; excessive intakes of Mg (35 %), folate (37 %) and niacin (38 %) were also observed. Women reporting excessive intakes of these nutrients were more likely Caucasian or Hispanic, more highly educated, US-born and did not report food insecurity. CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic and other sociodemographic factors should be considered when tailoring periconceptional dietary interventions for urban ethnic women in the USA.

Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research Focused on Community-Based Delivery of Palliative Care: Overview of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Funding Initiative.

Palliative care is a growing specialty that addresses the needs of individuals diagnosed with advanced illness and their caregivers. Although palliative care has been shown to improve a variety of patient- and caregiver-centered outcomes, access to comprehensive palliative care services for patients is often limited. There is a need to identify the most effective approaches to delivering palliative care to patients in community settings. In fiscal year 2017, based on extensive input from a diverse set of stakeholders, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded nine multisite comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) trials focused on community-based delivery of palliative care for a total investment of $80 million. These studies, focusing on advance care planning and models of palliative care delivery, represent some of the largest most complex palliative care trials funded to date. Each study evaluates both patient and caregiver outcomes, and together, these trials include a broad range of health conditions, interventions, and settings of care. PCORI has also fostered a learning network of the funded awardees to facilitate the successful conduct of these CER studies and to support awardee efforts to develop collaborative products relevant to advancing the field of palliative care research and practice. The protocols of each of the nine trials, detailed in this issue, demonstrate the expansive reach of the investment PCORI has made in an effort to further the research agenda and provide substantive research evidence in stakeholder-identified areas of need in the field of palliative care.

Noncommercial US Funders' Policies on Trial Registration, Access to Summary Results, and Individual Patient Data Availability.

Importance: Incomplete information about existing research is an underlying cause of research waste. National and international initiatives and requirements have been launched to address this issue. Objectives: To characterize current clinical trial transparency policies among the largest noncommercial US funders and examine whether the policies are concordant with international funders. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective review of public information used methods developed for documenting funder policies internationally; 2 researchers searched each funder's website and Google between May and November 2018 to locate trial transparency policies for 10 top US funders. Key informants at each funding organization were contacted by email and given 3 or more weeks to review and confirm or correct the findings. Nonresponders were contacted 2 or more additional times. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize the findings. The study was conducted using publicly available policy information with findings confirmed by funder representatives where possible. Participants included top 10 noncommercial US health research funders with the highest reported investment in health research (2013 dollars) who fund clinical trials. Data analysis was conducted from November 6, 2018, to November 23, 2018. Exposures: Availability of policies addressing each of the 3 key trial transparency domains as specified by the World Health Organization in 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Independent assessment by 2 investigators of availability (yes or no) of a policy addressing registration for trials, sharing of summary results, and individual participant data sharing activities; requirements (yes, no, or supportive statement) of these policies in terms of completeness, timeliness, public access, and provision of additional technical or financial support to meet data sharing requirements; description (yes or no) of internal monitoring for policy adherence. Results: All 10 funders acknowledged the outreach. One funder who indicated that less than 1% of their research funding goes to clinical trials was removed. Six (67%) of the remaining 9 top US funders have a publicly available written policy for all 3 major trial transparency domains. The most comprehensive trial transparency practice among US funders addresses summary results sharing as follows: 8 of 9 US funders (89%) have a policy, 5 of 9 US funders (56%) require reporting of summary results within 1 year, and 6 of 9 US funders (67%) monitor compliance with their summary results sharing policy. For clinical trial registration, 7 of 9 US funders (78%) have a policy and 5 of 9 US funders (56%) require registration and monitor trial registration to measure adherence to the policy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, overall the proportion of US funders with policies and practices to support trial transparency in this sample was similar or compared favorably with the larger international sample of noncommercial funders recently reported.

Physicians and Students Take to the Streets to Ask: What Do People Want From Their Health Care?

With the aim of better understanding what the public (as opposed to "patients") wants from health care, this study asked people on the street, "What does the right health care mean to you?" Responses ranged from "Caring about me more than just in the appointment" to "That everyone should see exactly what medical treatment costs." A qualitative analysis revealed that all responses fell into 2 overarching categories: health care at the interpersonal level and health care at the system level. Approximately 66.7% of responses included system-level factors, whereas 59% of responses included interpersonal-level factors. We conclude that the public is cognizant of and concerned about issues that also concern patients and others working to improve health care and, thus, should be engaged in the process to design care in a way that meets their needs and preferences before they become ill or interact with the delivery system.