RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Medical students have higher rates of depression and psychologic distress than the general population, which may negatively impact academic performance and professional conduct. This study assessed whether 10-20 min of daily mindfulness meditation for 30 days, using a mobile phone application, could decrease perceived stress and improve well-being for medical students. METHODS: Eighty-eight medical students were stratified by class year and randomized to either intervention or control groups to use the mobile application Headspace, an audio-guided mindfulness meditation program, for 30 days. All participants completed the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), and General Well-Being Schedule (GWBS) at baseline (T1), 30 days (T2), and 60 days (T3). Repeated measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) was conducted for intervention versus control groups across T1, T2, and T3 to examine differences in stress, mindfulness, and well-being. RESULTS: There was a significant interaction between time and treatment group for perceived stress and well-being. Perceived stress significantly decreased for the intervention group from T1 to T3 (F[2,142] = 3.98, p < 0.05). General well-being significantly increased for the intervention group compared to the control group from T1 to T2, and the increase was sustained through T3 (F[2,144] = 3.36, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight that a mobile audio-guided mindfulness meditation program is an effective means to decrease perceived stress in medical students, which may have implications on patient care. Integrating mindfulness training into medical school curricula for management of school- and work-related stress may lead to fewer negative physician outcomes (e.g., burnout, anxiety, and depression) and improved physician and patient outcomes. This has implications for a broad group of therapists and healthcare providers, ultimately improving quality of healing and patient care.
Asunto(s)
Meditación/métodos , Atención Plena/métodos , Aplicaciones Móviles , Estrés Psicológico/terapia , Estudiantes de Medicina , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudiantes de Medicina/psicología , Estudiantes de Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Many therapies exist for treating adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), also referred to as attention-deficit disorder (ADD), but there is no research regarding cost differences associated with initiating alternative ADD/ADHD drug therapies in adults. OBJECTIVE: To compare from the perspective of a large self-insured employer the risk-adjusted direct health care costs associated with 3 alternative drug therapies for ADD in newly treated patients: extended-release methylphenidate (osmotic release oral system-MPH), mixed amphetamine salts extended release (MAS-XR), or atomoxetine. METHODS: We analyzed data from a US claims database of 5 million beneficiaries from 31 large self-insured employers (1999-2004). Analysis was restricted to adults aged 18 to 64 years with at least 1 diagnosis of ADD/ADHD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] codes 314.0x--attention deficit disorder; 314.00--attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity; or 314.01--attention-deficit disorder with hyperactivity) and at least 1 pharmacy claim for OROS-MPH, MAS-XR, or atomoxetine identified using National Drug Codes. In preliminary analysis, we calculated the duration of index ADHD drug therapy as time from index therapy initiation to a minimum 60-day gap. Because the median duration of index ADHD drug therapy was found to be approximately 90 days, the primary measures were total direct medical plus drug costs and medical-only costs computed over 6 months following therapy initiation. Adults were required to have continuous eligibility 6 months before and 6 months after their latest drug therapy initiation and no ADHD therapy during the previous 6 months. Cost was measured as the payment amount made by the health plan to the provider rather than billed charges, and it excluded patient copayments and deductibles. Medical costs included costs incurred for all-cause inpatient and outpatient/other services. Costs were adjusted for inflation to 2004 U.S. dollars using the consumer price index for medical care. T tests were used for descriptive cost comparisons. Generalized linear models (GLMs) were used to compare costs of adults receiving alternative therapies, adjusting for demographic characteristics, substance abuse, depression, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: Of the 4,569 patients who received 1 of these 3 drug therapies for ADHD, 31.8% received OROS-MPH for a median duration of 99 days of therapy, 34.0% received MAS-XR for a median 128 days, and 34.2% received atomoxetine for a median 86 days. In the 6-month follow-up period, the mean (standard deviation) total medical and drug costs were $2,008 ($3,231) for OROS-MPH, $2,169 ($4,828) for MAS-XR, and $2,540 ($4,269) for atomoxetine-treated adults. The GLM for patient characteristics suggested that 6-month, risk-adjusted mean medical costs, excluding drug costs, for adults treated with OROS-MPH were $142 less (10.4%, $1,220 vs. $1,362) compared with MAS-XR (P =0.022) and $132 less (9.8%, $1,220 vs. $1,352) compared with atomoxetine (P =0.033); risk-adjusted mean medical costs were not significantly different between MAS-XR and atomoxetine. The GLM comparison of risk-adjusted total direct costs, including drug cost, was on average $156 less (8.0%, $1,782 vs. $1,938) for OROS-MPH compared with MAS-XR (P = 0.017) and $226 less (11.3%, $1,782 vs. $2,008) compared with atomoxetine (P <0.001); the risk-adjusted total direct costs were not significantly different between MAS-XR and atomoxetine. Two high-cost outliers (greater than 99.96th percentile, 1 each for OROS-MPH and atomoxetine) accounted for $47 (30%) of the $156 cost difference between OROS-MPH and MAS-XR and $11 (5%) of the $226 cost difference between OROS-MPH and atomoxetine, and the medical diagnoses for the highest-cost claims for these 2 outlier patients were unrelated to ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for patient characteristics including substance abuse, depression, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index, adults treated with OROS-MPH had, on average, slightly lower medical and total medical and drug costs than those treated with MAS-XR or atomoxetine over the 6-month period after drug therapy initiation. Approximately 30% of the cost difference compared with MAS-XR was attributable to 1 high-cost outlier with medical diagnoses for the highest-cost claim that were unrelated to ADHD.