The CARE Health Advocacy Intervention Improves Trauma-Informed Practices at Domestic Violence Service Organizations to Address Brain Injury, Mental Health, and Substance Use.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact that domestic violence (DV) service organizations' (SO) agency-wide adoption of CARE had on improving DVSO trauma-informed care (TIC) practices, overall, and in relation to addressing brain injury and mental health. CARE is an advocacy intervention designed to raise DVSOs' capacity to C ONNECT with survivors; A CKNOWLEDGE that head trauma, strangulation, and mental health challenges are common; R ESPOND by accommodating needs in services and providing targeted referrals; and E VALUATE effectiveness of response to meet survivors' stated concerns. We hypothesized that TIC would significantly improve among DVSO staff with the agency's use of CARE. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS/DESIGN: Pre- ( n = 53) and 1-year post-CARE ( n = 60) implementation online surveys were completed by staff at 5 DVSOs in Ohio from 2017 to 2019. MAIN MEASURES: Trauma-Informed Practice Scales (TIPS) were used to assess agency support and overall staff impression of implementing TIC; scales were modified to assess the use of TIC-practices related to head trauma, strangulation, mental health, suicide, and substance use. Attitudes Regarding Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC-45) subscales assessed DVSO staff's endorsement of personal and organizational support in implementing TIC practices. Response options on the Survivor Defined Practice Scale (SDPS) were modified to gain staff insight into DVSO's ability to facilitate survivor empowerment. Differences in endorsement of TIC practices between pre- and post-CARE implementation were evaluated using regression models. RESULTS: DVSO agency environment ( P < .01) and overall staff impression ( P < .001) regarding implementing TIC practices, and in respect to head trauma ( P < .01), strangulation ( P < .01), mental health ( P < .01), suicide ( P = .04), and substance use ( P < .01), significantly improved with the agency's use of CARE. CARE increased DVSO staff's belief in personal and organizational support to implement TIC ( P < .01 and P = .02, respectively) and in their agency's ability to foster survivor empowerment ( P < .01). CONCLUSION: CARE improved TIC practices of DVSOs, overall, and to address brain injury and mental health.

Risk-stratified patients with resectable soft tissue sarcoma benefit from epirubicin-based adjuvant chemotherapy.

As adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for soft tissue sarcomas is controversial, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients seen at Washington University in St. Louis to evaluate whether it benefited our patient population. Patients were risk-assessed using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Predictive Nomogram (MSKPN). We defined high-risk patients by a MSKPN 4-year postoperative probability of sarcoma-specific death of ≥0.3 and investigated if they benefited from AC. Retrospective review was performed on patients seen between 15 February 1996 and 6 February 2010. A propensity score method in the logistic regression framework was used to model the likelihood of receiving AC. To make causal inference on the effect of AC on survival outcomes, a propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting approach was applied to survival analysis. Overall, 135 high-grade patients were assessed, 33 were treated with Ifosfamide/Epirubicin (I/Epi) and 102 were non AC patients. The stratified MSKPN risk was not significantly associated with any survival endpoint in the whole cohort, but trended for overall survival (OS) when evaluated against non AC patients. After adjustment for MSKPN risk and other variables, patients not receiving chemotherapy had significantly worse OS, recurrent free survival, and disease-specific survival (DSS) with adjusted hazard ratios of 4.18 (95% CI: 2.22-7.90), 8.96 (95% CI: 3.85-20.83), and 5.42 (95% CI: 2.09-14.06), respectively. In retrospective analyses, risk-stratified patients with soft tissue sarcoma benefited from I/Epi-based AC. Randomized I/Epi versus I/Doxorubicin clinical trials may determine the optimal adjuvant treatment.