Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 37
Filter
1.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes ; 17(2): e010119, 2024 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38328915

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Undiagnosed hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) are common and contribute to excess cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We examined whether BP control, changes in BP, and patient behaviors and attitudes were associated with a new hypertension diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of 323 participants from BP-CHECK (Blood Pressure Checks for Diagnosing Hypertension), a randomized diagnostic study of BP measuring methods in adults without diagnosed hypertension with elevated BP recruited from 12 primary care clinics of an integrated health care system in Washington State during 2017 to 2019. All 323 participants returned a positive diagnostic test for hypertension based on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and were followed for 6 months. We used linear regression to examine the relationships between a new hypertension diagnosis (primary independent variable) and differences in the change in study outcomes from baseline to 6-month. RESULTS: Mean age of study participants was 58.3 years (SD, 13.1), 147 (45%) were women, and 253 (80%) were of non-Hispanic White race. At 6 months, 154 of 323 (48%) participants had a new hypertension diagnosis of whom 88 achieved target BP control. Participants with a new hypertension diagnosis experienced significantly larger declines from baseline in BP (adjusted mean difference: systolic BP, -7.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -10.3 to -4.8]; diastolic BP, -3.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.6 to -2.0]) compared with undiagnosed peers. They were also significantly more likely to achieve BP control by 6 months compared with undiagnosed participants (adjusted relative risk, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.1 to 2.0]). At 6 months, 101 of 323 participants (31%) with a positive ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic test remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of participants with high BP on screening and ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic testing remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications after 6 months. New strategies are needed to enhance integration of BP diagnostic testing into clinical practice. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03130257.


Subject(s)
Hypertension , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , Blood Pressure , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , Health Behavior , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/drug therapy , Hypertension/epidemiology , Aged , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
2.
JAMA ; 330(20): 1971-1981, 2023 11 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38015219

ABSTRACT

Importance: Optimal strategies for increasing cervical cancer screening may differ by patient screening history and health care setting. Mailing human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to individuals who are overdue for screening increases adherence; however, offering self-sampling kits to screening-adherent individuals has not been evaluated in the US. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of direct-mail and opt-in approaches for offering HPV self-sampling kits to individuals by cervical cancer screening history (screening-adherent and currently due, overdue, or unknown). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted in Kaiser Permanente Washington, a US integrated health care delivery system. Individuals aged 30 to 64 years with female sex, a primary care clinician, and no hysterectomy were identified through electronic health records (EHRs) and enrolled between November 20, 2020, and January 28, 2022, with follow-up through July 29, 2022. Interventions: Individuals stratified as due (eg, at the time of randomization, these individuals have been previously screened and are due for their next screening in ≤3 months) were randomized to receive usual care (patient reminders and clinician EHR alerts [n = 3671]), education (usual care plus educational materials about screening [n = 3960]), direct mail (usual care plus educational materials and a mailed self-sampling kit [n = 1482]), or to opt in (usual care plus educational materials and the option to request a kit [n = 3956]). Individuals who were overdue for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 5488), education (n = 1408), or direct mail (n = 1415). Individuals with unknown history for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 2983), education (n = 3486), or to opt in (n = 3506). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was screening completion within 6 months. Primary analyses compared direct-mail or opt-in participants with individuals randomized to the education group. Results: The intention-to-treat analyses included 31 355 randomized individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.9 [10.4] years). Among those who were due for screening, compared with receiving education alone (1885 [47.6%]), screening completion was 14.1% (95% CI, 11.2%-16.9%) higher in the direct-mail group (914 [61.7%]) and 3.5% (95% CI, 1.2%-5.7%) higher in the opt-in group (2020 [51.1%]). Among individuals who were overdue, screening completion was 16.9% (95% CI, 13.8%-20.0%) higher in the direct-mail group (505 [35.7%]) compared with education alone (264 [18.8%]). Among those with unknown history, screening was 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.9%) higher in the opt-in group (634 [18.1%]) compared with education alone (555 [15.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Within a US health care system, direct-mail self-sampling increased cervical cancer screening by more than 14% in individuals who were due or overdue for cervical cancer screening. The opt-in approach minimally increased screening. To increase screening adherence, systems implementing HPV self-sampling should prioritize direct-mail outreach for individuals who are due or overdue for screening. For individuals with unknown screening history, testing alternative outreach approaches and additional efforts to document screening history are warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04679675.


Subject(s)
Early Detection of Cancer , Papillomavirus Infections , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Educational Status , Human Papillomavirus Viruses/isolation & purification , Papillomavirus Infections/complications , Papillomavirus Infections/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/etiology , Diagnostic Self Evaluation , United States/epidemiology , Adult , Postal Service
3.
JAMA Netw Open ; 6(3): e234052, 2023 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36947040

ABSTRACT

Importance: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling addresses barriers to cervical cancer screening, and mailed self-sampling kits have been reported to increase screening uptake. International research suggests mailed kits are cost-effective in certain settings. However, the cost-effectiveness of mailing HPV self-sampling kits for increasing screening uptake has not been evaluated in the US. Objective: To conduct an economic evaluation of a mailed HPV self-sampling intervention among underscreened women enrolled in an integrated US health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation involved a cost-effectiveness analysis of results from a randomized clinical trial of 19 851 women aged 30 to 64 years enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), a US-based integrated health care system. Women were identified through electronic medical records, and eligible participants were enrolled in a health plan for at least 3 years and 5 months, had a primary care clinician, had not received a Papanicolaou test for at least 3 years and 5 months, and had not received a hysterectomy. Enrollment occurred from February 25, 2014, to August 29, 2016, with follow-up through February 25, 2018. The current economic evaluation was conducted between August 2, 2021, and July 30, 2022. Intervention delivery costs were calculated from both the KPWA and Medicare perspectives and were based on either wellness visit or Papanicolaou test-only visit costs. Intervention: Participants in the control group received usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc outreach for screening. Participants in the intervention group received usual care plus a mailed HPV self-sampling kit. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost (intervention group minus control group) divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening (intervention group minus control group) within 6 months of randomization. Results: Among 19 851 women (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [9.5] years; 76.7% White), 9960 were randomized to the intervention group, and 9891 were randomized to the control group. Baseline ICERs ranged from $85.84 (95% CI, $85.68-$85.99) using KPWA wellness visits as the cost basis to $146.29 (95% CI, $146.20-$146.38) using Medicare Papanicolaou test-only visits as the cost source. Subgroups of participants aged 50 to 64 years and participants most recently overdue for screening achieved cost-effectiveness at lower levels of willingness to pay for an additional completed screening than other subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, mailing HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening was cost-effective for increased screening uptake relative to usual care. These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates among eligible women in US health care systems.


Subject(s)
Papillomavirus Infections , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Aged , Female , United States , Humans , Middle Aged , Human Papillomavirus Viruses , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Papillomavirus Infections/diagnosis , Papillomaviridae , Medicare
4.
J Pain ; 24(2): 282-303, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36180008

ABSTRACT

Both mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) are effective for chronic low back pain (CLBP), but little is known regarding who might benefit more from one than the other. Using data from a randomized trial comparing MBSR, CBT, and usual care (UC) for adults aged 20 to 70 years with CLBP (N = 297), we examined baseline characteristics that moderated treatment effects or were associated with improvement regardless of treatment. Outcomes included 8-week function (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire), pain bothersomeness (0-10 numerical rating scale), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8). There were differences in the effects of CBT versus MBSR on pain based on participant gender (P = .03) and baseline depressive symptoms (P = .01), but the only statistically significant moderator after Bonferroni correction was the nonjudging dimension of mindfulness. Scores on this measure moderated the effects of CBT versus MBSR on both function (P = .001) and pain (P = .04). Pain control beliefs (P <.001) and lower anxiety (P < .001) predicted improvement regardless of treatment. Replication of these findings is needed to guide treatment decision-making for CLBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial and analysis plan were preregistered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01467843). PERSPECTIVE: Although few potential moderators and nonspecific predictors of benefits from CBT or MBSR for CLBP were statistically significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons, these findings suggest potentially fruitful directions for confirmatory research while providing reassurance that patients could reasonably expect to benefit from either treatment.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy , Low Back Pain , Mindfulness , Adult , Humans , Mindfulness/methods , Low Back Pain/therapy , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/methods , Pain Management , Anxiety Disorders , Stress, Psychological/therapy , Treatment Outcome , Chronic Pain/therapy
5.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 122: 106960, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36241145

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mailing HPV self-sampling kits to overdue individuals increases cervical cancer screening adherence; offering self-sampling to previously adherent individuals has not been evaluated in the U.S. Given heterogeneity of the U.S. health system and population, data are needed to optimize how HPV self-sampling is offered to individuals who are overdue, due after successful past screening, or have an unknown screening history. METHODS: STEP is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial set within a U.S. integrated healthcare delivery system, designed to compare different outreach approaches for offering HPV self-sampling in populations defined by prior screening behavior (previously-adherent, overdue, or unknown screening history). Over 14 months, eligible individuals were identified through electronic medical record (EMR) data and randomized to Usual Care (UC), Education (UC + educational materials about cervical cancer screening), Direct-Mail (UC + Education + a mailed self-sampling kit) or Opt-In (UC + Education + option to request a kit), depending on screening history. The primary objective is to compare screening completion by outreach approach and screening history. Secondary objectives include evaluating incremental cost-effectiveness of outreach approaches, and identifying patient preference for, and satisfaction with, HPV self-screening, and barriers to abnormal results follow-up (measured through interviews and focus groups). CONCLUSIONS: The trial was designed to generate data that U.S. health systems can use to inform primary HPV screening implementation strategies that incorporate HPV self-sampling options to improve screening access, adherence, and patient satisfaction. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale and design of this pragmatic trial.


Subject(s)
Alphapapillomavirus , Papillomavirus Infections , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Papillomaviridae , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Mass Screening/methods , Delivery of Health Care , Self Care/methods
6.
Trials ; 23(1): 402, 2022 May 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35562781

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for evidence on how interventions can prevent or mitigate cancer-related financial hardship. Our objectives are to compare self-reported financial hardship, quality of life, and health services use between patients receiving a financial navigation intervention versus a comparison group at 12 months follow-up, and to assess patient-level factors associated with dose received of a financial navigation intervention. METHODS: The Cancer Financial Experience (CAFÉ) study is a multi-site randomized controlled trial (RCT) with individual-level randomization. Participants will be offered either brief (one financial navigation cycle, Arm 2) or extended (three financial navigation cycles, Arm 3) financial navigation. The intervention period for both Arms 2 and 3 is 6 months. The comparison group (Arm 1) will receive enhanced usual care. The setting for the CAFÉ study is the medical oncology and radiation oncology clinics at two integrated health systems in the Pacific Northwest. Inclusion criteria includes age 18 or older with a recent cancer diagnosis and visit to a study clinic as identified through administrative data. Outcomes will be assessed at 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are self-reported financial distress and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes are delayed or foregone care; receipt of medical financial assistance; and account delinquency. A mixed methods exploratory analysis will investigate factors associated with total intervention dose received. DISCUSSION: The CAFÉ study will provide much-needed early trial evidence on the impact of financial navigation in reducing cancer-related financial hardship. It is theory-informed, clinic-based, aligned with patient preferences, and has been developed following preliminary qualitative studies and stakeholder input. By design, it will provide prospective evidence on the potential benefits of financial navigation on patient-relevant cancer outcomes. The CAFÉ trial's strengths include its broad inclusion criteria, its equity-focused sampling plan, its novel intervention developed in partnership with clinical and operations stakeholders, and mixed methods secondary analyses related to intervention dose offered and dose received. The resulting analytic dataset will allow for rich mixed methods analysis and provide critical information related to implementation of the intervention should it prove effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05018000 . August 23, 2021.


Subject(s)
Financial Stress , Neoplasms , Adolescent , Humans , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Quality of Life , Treatment Outcome
7.
J Gen Intern Med ; 37(5): 1073-1080, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34047921

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Screening over many years is required to optimize colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a CRC screening intervention on adherence to CRC screening over 9 years. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: Integrated health care system in Washington state. PARTICIPANTS: Between August 2008 and November 2009, 4653 adults in a Washington state integrated health care system aged 50-74 due for CRC screening were randomized to usual care (UC; N =1163) or UC plus study interventions (interventions: N = 3490). INTERVENTIONS: Years 1 and 2: (arm 1) UC or this plus study interventions; (arm 2) mailed fecal tests or information on scheduling colonoscopy; (arm 3) mailings plus brief telephone assistance; or (arm 4) mailings and assistance plus nurse navigation. In year 3, stepped-intensity participants (arms 2, 3, and 4 combined) still eligible for screening were randomized to either stopped or continued interventions in years 3 and 5-9. MAIN MEASURES: Time in adherence to CRC testing over 9 years (covered time, primary outcome), and percent with no CRC testing in participants assigned to any intervention compared to UC only. Poisson regression models estimated incidence rate ratios for covered time, adjusting for patient characteristics and accounting for variable follow-up time. KEY RESULTS: Compared to UC, intervention participants had 21% more covered time over 9 years (57.5% vs. 69.1%; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.25, P<0.001). Fecal testing accounted for almost all additional covered time among intervention patients. Compared to UC, intervention participants were also more likely to have completed at least one CRC screening test over 9 years or until censorship (88.6% vs. 80.6%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An outreach program that included mailed fecal tests and phone follow-up led to increased adherence to CRC testing and fewer age-eligible individuals without any CRC testing over 9 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systems of Support (SOS) to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up (SOS), NCT00697047, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00697047.


Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Aged , Child , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Humans , Middle Aged , Occult Blood , Postal Service
8.
Prev Med ; 154: 106896, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34800474

ABSTRACT

Women overdue for cervical cancer screening often have other preventive care gaps. We examined whether mailing unsolicited human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to increase cervical cancer screening impacted receipt of other preventive services women were due for: mammography, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, influenza vaccination, depression screening, and diabetic HbA1c monitoring. From 2014 to 2016, 16,590 underscreened women were randomized to receive a mailed kit or usual care Pap reminders within Kaiser Permanente Washington. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of preventive services receipt within 12-months between the intervention vs. control arms, and within the intervention arm (comparing those returning a kit vs. attending Pap vs. nothing), adjusting models for demographic variables. There were no significant between-arm differences in uptake of any of the preventive services: intervention vs. control: mammography OR = 1.01 (95% confidence interval:0.88-1.17), CRC screening OR = 0.98 (0.86-1.13), influenza vaccination OR = 0.99 (0.92-1.06), depression screening OR = 1.07 (0.99-1.16), HbA1c OR = 0.84 (0.62-1.13). Within the intervention arm, preventive services uptake was higher in women who completed cervical cancer screening vs. did not, with stronger effects for women who attended Pap: Pap vs. nothing: mammography OR = 11.81 (8.11-17.19), CRC screening OR = 7.31 (5.57-9.58), influenza vaccination OR = 2.06 (1.82-2.32), depression screening OR = 1.79 (1.57-2.05), HbA1c OR = 3.35 (1.49-7.52); kit vs. nothing: mammography OR = 2.26 (1.56-3.26), CRC screening OR = 5.05 (3.57-7.14), influenza vaccination OR = 1.67 (1.41-1.98), depression screening OR = 1.09 (0.89-1.33), HbA1c OR = 1.23 (0.57-2.65). Mailing HPV self-sampling kits to underscreened women did not negatively impact uptake of other preventive services. However, overall preventive service uptake was the highest among women who attended in-clinic cervical cancer screening.


Subject(s)
Alphapapillomavirus , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated , Papillomavirus Infections , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Female , Humans , Mass Screening , Papillomaviridae , Papillomavirus Infections/diagnosis , Papillomavirus Infections/prevention & control , Preventive Health Services , United States , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/prevention & control , Vaginal Smears
9.
JAMA Netw Open ; 2(7): e196570, 2019 07 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31276178

ABSTRACT

Importance: Colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Objective: To examine whether guaranteed money or probabilistic lottery financial incentives conditional on completion of colorectal cancer screening increase screening uptake, particularly among groups with lower screening rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 3-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 13, 2017, through April 12, 2018, at 21 medical centers in an integrated health care system in western Washington. A total of 838 age-eligible patients overdue for colorectal cancer screening who completed a questionnaire that confirmed eligibility and included sociodemographic and psychosocial questions were enrolled. Interventions: Interventions were (1) mail only (n = 284; up to 3 mailings that included information on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and screening test choices, a fecal immunochemical test [FIT], and a reminder letter if necessary), (2) mail and monetary (n = 270; mailings plus guaranteed $10 on screening completion), or (3) mail and lottery (n = 284; mailings plus a 1 in 10 chance of receiving $50 on screening completion). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was completion of any colorectal cancer screening within 6 months of randomization. Secondary outcomes were FIT or colonoscopy completion within 6 months of randomization. Intervention effects were compared across sociodemographic subgroups and self-reported psychosocial measures. Results: A total of 838 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [7.2] years; 546 [65.2%] female; 433 [52.2%] white race and 101 [12.1%] Hispanic ethnicity) were included in the study. Completion of any colorectal screening was not significantly higher for the mail and monetary group (207 of 270 [76.7%]) or the mail and lottery group (212 of 284 [74.6%]) than for the mail only group (203 of 284 [71.5%]) (P = .11). For FIT completion, interventions had a statistically significant effect (P = .04), with a net increase of 7.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-15.1%) in the mail and monetary group and 7.1% (95% CI, -0.2% to 14.3%) in the mail and lottery group compared with the mail only group. For patients with Medicaid insurance, the net increase compared with mail only in FIT completion for the mail and monetary or the mail and lottery group was 37.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-64.3%) (34.2% for the mail and monetary group and 40.4% for the mail and lottery group) compared with a net increase of only 5.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 12.2%) among those not Medicaid insured (test for interaction P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Financial incentives increased FIT uptake but not overall colorectal cancer screening. Financial incentives may decrease screening disparities among some sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00697047.


Subject(s)
Colonoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Colorectal Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Motivation , Occult Blood , Attitude to Health , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Demography , Early Detection of Cancer/economics , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Early Detection of Cancer/psychology , Early Detection of Cancer/standards , Female , Financial Support , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Postal Service/methods , Postal Service/statistics & numerical data , Socioeconomic Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires , Washington/epidemiology
10.
J Occup Environ Med ; 60(11): e569-e574, 2018 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30188491

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the relationship between diabetes mellitus (DM) and measures of worker productivity, direct health care costs, and costs associated with lost productivity (LP) among health care industry workers across two integrated health care systems. METHODS: We used data from the Value Based Benefit Design Health and Wellness Study Phase II (VBD), a prospective study of employees surveyed across health systems. Survey and health care utilization data were linked to estimate LP and health care utilization costs. RESULTS: Mean marginal lost productive time per week was 0.56 hours higher for respondents with DM. Mean adjusted monthly total health care utilization costs were $467 higher for respondents with DM. CONCLUSION: The impact of DM is reflected in higher rates of LP and higher indirect costs for employers related to LP and higher health care resource use.


Subject(s)
Cost of Illness , Diabetes Mellitus/economics , Efficiency , Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data , Health Care Sector/statistics & numerical data , Absenteeism , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Electronic Health Records , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Presenteeism , Prospective Studies , Self Report , Young Adult
11.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 66(2): 247-253, 2018 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29134629

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether higher cumulative proton pump inhibitor (PPI) exposure is associated with greater dementia risk. DESIGN: Prospective population-based cohort study. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Washington, an integrated healthcare delivery system in Seattle, Washington. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 65 and older without dementia at study entry (N = 3,484). MEASUREMENTS: Participants were screened for dementia every 2 years, and those who screened positive underwent extensive evaluation. Dementia outcomes were determined using standard diagnostic criteria. Time-varying PPI exposure was determined from computerized pharmacy data and consisted of total standardized daily doses (TSDDs) dispensed to an individual in the prior 10 years. We also assessed duration of use. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the association between PPI exposure and time to dementia or Alzheimer's disease (AD). RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, 827 participants (23.7%) developed dementia (670 with possible or probable AD). PPI exposure was not associated with risk of dementia (P = .66) or AD (P = .77). For dementia, the risk for specific levels of cumulative exposure compared to no use was: 365 TSDDs (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65-1.18), 1,095 TSDDs (HR 0.99, CI 0.75-1.30) and 1,825 TSDDs (HR 1.13, CI 0.82-1.56). These TSDD levels represent approximately 1, 3 and 5 years of daily use respectively. Duration of PPI use was not associated with dementia outcomes either. CONCLUSION: Proton pump inhibitor use was not associated with dementia risk, even for people with high cumulative exposure. Although there are other safety concerns with long-term PPI use, results from our study do not support that these medications should be avoided out of concern about dementia risk.


Subject(s)
Dementia/chemically induced , Proton Pump Inhibitors/adverse effects , Proton Pump Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Inappropriate Prescribing , Male , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Washington
12.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976) ; 42(20): 1511-1520, 2017 Oct 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28742756

ABSTRACT

STUDY DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a randomized trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) versus usual care alone (UC) for chronic low back pain (CLBP). OBJECTIVE: To determine 1-year cost-effectiveness of CBT and MBSR compared to 33 UC. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CLBP is expensive in terms of healthcare costs and lost productivity. Mind-body interventions have been found effective for back pain, but their cost-effectiveness is unexplored. METHODS: A total of 342 adults in an integrated healthcare system with CLBP were randomized to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or UC (n = 113). CBT and MBSR were offered in 8-weekly 2-hour group sessions. Cost-effectiveness from the societal perspective was calculated as the incremental sum of healthcare costs and productivity losses over change in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The payer perspective only included healthcare costs. This economic evaluation was limited to the 301 health plan members enrolled ≥180 days in the years pre-and postrandomization. RESULTS: Compared with UC, the mean incremental cost per participant to society of CBT was $125 (95% confidence interval, CI: -4103, 4307) and of MBSR was -$724 (CI: -4386, 2778)-that is, a net saving of $724. Incremental costs per participant to the health plan were $495 for CBT over UC and -$982 for MBSR, and incremental back-related costs per participant were $984 for CBT over UC and -$127 for MBSR. These costs (and cost savings) were associated with statistically significant gains in QALYs over UC: 0.041 (0.015, 0.067) for CBT and 0.034 (0.008, 0.060) for MBSR. CONCLUSION: In this setting CBT and MBSR have high probabilities of being cost-effective, and MBSR may be cost saving, as compared with UC for adults with CLBP. These findings suggest that MBSR, and to a lesser extent CBT, may provide cost-effective treatment for CLBP for payers and society. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain/economics , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods , Low Back Pain/economics , Mindfulness/economics , Stress, Psychological/economics , Adult , Chronic Pain/therapy , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/methods , Female , Health Care Costs , Humans , Low Back Pain/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Mindfulness/methods , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Stress, Psychological/therapy , Treatment Outcome
13.
Cancer ; 123(22): 4472-4480, 2017 Nov 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28753230

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Screening over many years is required to optimize reductions in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality. However, no prior trials have compared strategies for obtaining long-term adherence. METHODS: Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up was implemented in an integrated health care organization in Washington State. Between 2008 and 2009, 4675 individuals aged 50 to 74 years were randomized to receive the usual care (UC), which included clinic-based strategies to increase CRC screening (arm 1), or, in years 1 and 2, mailings with a call-in number for colonoscopy and mailed fecal tests (arm 2), mailings plus brief telephone assistance (arm 3), or mailings and assistance plus nurse navigation (arm 4). Active-intervention subjects (those in arms 2, 3, and 4 combined) who were still eligible for CRC screening were randomized to mailings being stopped or continued in years 3 and 5. The time in compliance with CRC screening over 5 years was compared for persons assigned to any intervention and persons assigned to UC. Screening tests contributed time on the basis of national guidelines for screening intervals (fecal tests annually, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years). RESULTS: All participants contributed data, but they were censored at disenrollment, death, the age of 76 years, or a diagnosis of CRC. Compared with UC participants, intervention participants had 31% more adjusted covered time over 5 years (incidence rate ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.37; covered time, 47.5% vs 62.1%). Fecal testing accounted for almost all additional covered time. CONCLUSIONS: In a health care organization with clinic-based activities to increase CRC screening, a centralized program led to increased CRC screening adherence over 5 years. Longer term data on screening adherence and its impact on CRC outcomes are needed. Cancer 2017;123:4472-80. © 2017 American Cancer Society.


Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer/standards , Mass Screening/standards , Patient Compliance , Postal Service , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Reminder Systems , Aged , Colonoscopy/standards , Colonoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/methods , Middle Aged , Occult Blood , Patient Compliance/statistics & numerical data , Reminder Systems/standards , Telephone , Time Factors
14.
Perm J ; 21: 16-070, 2017.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28406786

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Health care costs have increasingly shifted to patients, and financial distress caused by medical care has increased. Patients may wish to discuss costs with their clinicians. OBJECTIVE: Describe patient preferences for communication about cost in the clinical setting. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-administered survey of a stratified random sample of the population insured in an integrated health care system in Washington State. Our sampling frame was the entire membership aged 21 years or older. Sampling was stratified by sex and group practice enrollment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preference for discussing health care costs with one's physician. We conducted regression analyses to determine predictors of communication preference; potential predictors included demographic characteristics, financial burden, delay in seeking care because of cost, and socioeconomic variables. Survey responses were weighted to adjust for nonresponse and sampling. RESULTS: Of 7200 invitations sent, 2200 survey responses were returned. Ninety-two percent wished to know their out-of-pocket costs before beginning treatment. Most respondents preferred their physician talk with them about out-of-pocket costs (81.4%) and expressed comfort with discussing costs with their physician (75.6%). Overall, 43.7% reported any delay in seeking care in the previous 12 months. One in 5 respondents (21.6%) reported family medical debt. Delay in seeking care was positively and independently associated with preferring to discuss costs with one's physician; current medical financial burden was not. CONCLUSION: Patient preferences for communication about costs with physicians are high, and medical debt and delay in care-seeking are prevalent. Delay in care-seeking independently predicts cost communication preferences.


Subject(s)
Communication , Health Expenditures , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Insurance Coverage , Patient Preference , Physician-Patient Relations , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Family , Female , Health Care Costs , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Physicians , Surveys and Questionnaires , Washington , Young Adult
16.
J Fam Med ; 4(3)2017.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29399669

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that mailed fecal testing programs are effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening participation. However, few healthcare organization in the US have Implemented such programs. METHODS: Stakeholders from one clinic in an integrated healthcare system in Washington State initiated collaboration with researchers with expertise in CRC screening, aiming to increase screening rates at their clinic. Age-eligible individuals who were overdue for CRC screening and had previously completed a fecal test were randomized to receive mailed fecal immunochemical test kits (FIT) at the start of the project (Early) or 6 months later (Late). Outcomes included comparing FIT completion at 6 months by randomization group, and overall CRC screening rates at 12 months. We also assessed implementation facilitators and challenges. RESULTS: Overall 2,421 FIT tests were mailed at a cost of $10,739. At 6 months, FIT completion was significantly higher among the Early compared to the Late group (62% vs.47%, p <0.001). By 12 months, after both groups had received mailings, 71% in each group had completed a FIT. The clinic's overall CRC screening rate was 75.1% at baseline and 78.0% 12 months later. Key constructs associated with successful program implementation included strong stakeholder involvement, use of evidence-based strategies, simplicity, and low cost. Challenges included lack of a plan for maintaining the program. DISCUSSION: Collaboration between clinic stakeholders and researchers led to a successful project that rapidly increased CRC screening rates. However, institutional normalization of the program would be required to maintain it.

17.
Pain ; 157(11): 2434-2444, 2016 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27257859

ABSTRACT

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is believed to improve chronic pain problems by decreasing patient catastrophizing and increasing patient self-efficacy for managing pain. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is believed to benefit patients with chronic pain by increasing mindfulness and pain acceptance. However, little is known about how these therapeutic mechanism variables relate to each other or whether they are differentially impacted by MBSR vs CBT. In a randomized controlled trial comparing MBSR, CBT, and usual care (UC) for adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain (N = 342), we examined (1) baseline relationships among measures of catastrophizing, self-efficacy, acceptance, and mindfulness and (2) changes on these measures in the 3 treatment groups. At baseline, catastrophizing was associated negatively with self-efficacy, acceptance, and 3 aspects of mindfulness (nonreactivity, nonjudging, and acting with awareness; all P values <0.01). Acceptance was associated positively with self-efficacy (P < 0.01) and mindfulness (P values <0.05) measures. Catastrophizing decreased slightly more posttreatment with MBSR than with CBT or UC (omnibus P = 0.002). Both treatments were effective compared with UC in decreasing catastrophizing at 52 weeks (omnibus P = 0.001). In both the entire randomized sample and the subsample of participants who attended ≥6 of the 8 MBSR or CBT sessions, differences between MBSR and CBT at up to 52 weeks were few, small in size, and of questionable clinical meaningfulness. The results indicate overlap across measures of catastrophizing, self-efficacy, acceptance, and mindfulness and similar effects of MBSR and CBT on these measures among individuals with chronic low back pain.


Subject(s)
Catastrophization , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy , Low Back Pain , Mindfulness/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Self Efficacy , Stress, Psychological/rehabilitation , Adult , Aged , Chronic Pain/rehabilitation , Female , Humans , Low Back Pain/complications , Low Back Pain/psychology , Low Back Pain/rehabilitation , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Young Adult
18.
JAMA ; 315(12): 1240-9, 2016.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27002445

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, interviewer-blind, clinical trial in an integrated health care system in Washington State of 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 and randomly assigned to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or usual care (n = 113). INTERVENTIONS: CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR (training in mindfulness meditation and yoga) were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. Usual care included whatever care participants received. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement from baseline in functional limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range, 0-23) and in self-reported back pain bothersomeness (scale, 0-10) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: There were 342 randomized participants, the mean (SD) [range] age was 49.3 (12.3) [20-70] years, 224 (65.7%) were women, mean duration of back pain was 7.3 years (range, 3 months-50 years), 123 (53.7%) attended 6 or more of the 8 sessions, 294 (86.0%) completed the study at 26 weeks, and 290 (84.8%) completed the study at 52 weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for those who received MBSR (60.5%) and CBT (57.7%) than for usual care (44.1%) (overall P = .04; relative risk [RR] for MBSR vs usual care, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.77]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.18]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.69]). The percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was 43.6% in the MBSR group and 44.9% in the CBT group, vs 26.6% in the usual care group (overall P = .01; RR for MBSR vs usual care, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.15-2.34]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78-1.36]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]). Findings for MBSR persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with usual care, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. These findings suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.


Subject(s)
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/methods , Low Back Pain/psychology , Low Back Pain/therapy , Mindfulness/methods , Stress, Psychological/therapy , Yoga , Adult , Female , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Sample Size , Stress, Physiological , Treatment Outcome , Washington , Young Adult
19.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 64(3): 602-7, 2016 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26865152

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the associations between anesthesia and dementia or Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk using prospectively collected data. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling members of the Adult Changes in Thought cohort aged 65 and older and free of dementia at baseline (N = 3,988). MEASUREMENTS: Participants self-reported all prior surgical procedures with general or neuraxial (spinal or epidural) anesthesia at baseline and reported new procedures every 2 years. People undergoing high-risk surgery with general anesthesia, other surgery with general anesthesia, and other surgery with neuraxial anesthesia exposures were compared with those with no surgery and no anesthesia. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dementia and AD associated with time-varying lifetime and recent (past 5 years) anesthesia exposures. RESULTS: At baseline, 254 (6%) people reported never having anesthesia; 248 (6%) had had one or more high-risk surgeries with general anesthesia, 3,363 (84%) had had one or more other surgeries with general anesthesia, and 123 (3%) had had one or more surgeries with neuraxial anesthesia. High-risk surgery with general anesthesia was not associated with greater risk of dementia (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.58-1.28) or AD (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.61-1.49) than no history of anesthesia. People with any history of other surgery with general anesthesia had a lower risk of dementia (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.46-0.85) and AD (HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.46-0.93) than people with no history of anesthesia. There was no association between recent anesthesia exposure and dementia or AD. CONCLUSION: Anesthesia exposure was not associated with of dementia or AD in older adults.


Subject(s)
Alzheimer Disease/chemically induced , Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Anesthesia, Local/adverse effects , Dementia/chemically induced , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Alzheimer Disease/epidemiology , Anesthesia, General/statistics & numerical data , Anesthesia, Local/statistics & numerical data , Dementia/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Proportional Hazards Models , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors
20.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 63(8): 1519-26, 2015 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26289681

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether prescription opioid use is associated with higher dementia risk or greater cognitive decline. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Group Health, an integrated healthcare delivery system. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling individuals aged 65 and older without dementia with at least 10 years of Group Health enrollment at baseline (N = 3,434; median age 74). MEASUREMENTS: The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) was administered every 2 years. Low scores triggered detailed evaluation, and a multidisciplinary committee assigned dementia diagnoses. From computerized pharmacy data, cumulative opioid exposure was defined as total standardized doses (TSDs) dispensed over 10 years (excluding the most recent year because of possible prodromal symptoms). For comparison, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), characterized similarly, was examined. Dementia risk was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models and CASI trajectory using linear regression models and generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-seven participants (23%) developed dementia over a mean follow-up of 7.3 years; 637 (19%) had possible or probable Alzheimer's disease. For cumulative opioid use, the hazard ratios (HRs) for dementia were 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.88-1.26) for 11 to 30 TSDs, 0.88 (95% CI = 0.70-1.09) for 31 to 90 TSDs, and 1.29 (95% CI = 1.02-1.62) for 91 or more TSDs, versus 0 to 10 TSDs. A similar pattern was seen for NSAID use. Heavier opioid use was not associated with more-rapid cognitive decline. CONCLUSION: People with the heaviest opioid or NSAID use had slightly higher dementia risk than people with little or no use. These results may reflect an effect of chronic pain on cognition or residual confounding. Although opioids have other risks, little evidence of long-term cognitive harm specific to opioids was found.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/adverse effects , Cognition Disorders/chemically induced , Cognition/drug effects , Dementia/chemically induced , Pain/drug therapy , Prescription Drugs/adverse effects , Risk Assessment , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Cognition Disorders/epidemiology , Dementia/epidemiology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Incidence , Male , Population Surveillance , Proportional Hazards Models , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Washington/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL