RESUMEN
Since their inception in 1975, the Department of Veterans Affairs Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers (GRECCs) have served as incubators of innovation in geriatrics. Their contributions to the VA mission were last reviewed in 2012. Herein, we describe the continuing impact of GRECCs in research, clinical, and educational areas, focusing on the period between 2018 and 2022. GRECC research spans the continuum from bench to bedside, with a growing research portfolio notable for highly influential publications. GRECC education connects healthcare professions trainees and practicing clinicians, as well as Veterans and their caregivers, to engaging learning experiences. Clinical advancements, including age-friendly care, span the continuum of care and leverage technology to link disparate geographical sites. GRECCs are uniquely positioned to serve older adults given their alignment with the largest integrated health system in the United States and their integration with academic health centers. As such, the GRECCs honor Veterans as they age by building VA capacity to care for the increasing number of aging Veterans seeking care from VA. GRECC advancements also benefit non-VA healthcare systems, their academic affiliates, and non-Veteran older adults. GRECCs make invaluable contributions to advancing geriatric and gerontological science, training healthcare professionals, and developing innovative models of geriatric care.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Pain is highly prevalent in older adults and often contextualized by multiple clinical conditions (pain comorbidities). Pain comorbidities increase with age and this makes clinical decisions more complex. To address gaps in clinical training and geriatric pain management, we established the Pain in Aging-Educational Assessment of Need (PAEAN) project to appraise the impacts of medical and mental health conditions on clinical decision-making regarding older adults with pain. We here report development and pilot testing of the PAEAN survey instrument to assess clinician perspectives. Methods: Mixed-methods approaches were used. Scoping review methodology was applied to appraise both research literature and selected Medicare-based data. A geographically and professionally diverse interprofessional advisory panel of experts in pain research, medical education, and geriatrics was formed to advise development of the list of pain comorbidities potentially impacting healthcare professional clinical decision-making. A survey instrument was developed, and pilot tested by diverse licensed healthcare practitioners from 2 institutions. Respondents were asked to rate agreement regarding clinical decision-making impact using a 5-point Likert scale. Items were scored for percent agreement. Results: Scoping reviews indicated that pain conditions and comorbidities are prevalent in older adults but not universally recognized. We found no research literature directly guiding pain educators in designing pain education modules that mirror older adult clinical complexity. The interprofessional advisory panel identified 26 common clinical conditions for inclusion in the pilot PAEAN instrument. Conditions fell into three main categories: "major medical", i.e., cardio-vascular-pulmonary; metabolic; and neuropsychiatric/age-related. The instrument was pilot tested by surveying clinically active healthcare providers, e.g., physicians, nurse practitioners, who all responded completely. Median survey completion time was less than 3 min. Conclusion: This study, developing and pilot testing our "Pain in Aging-Educational Assessment of Need" (PAEAN) instrument, suggests that 1) many clinical conditions impact pain clinical decision-making, and 2) surveying healthcare practitioners about the impact of pain comorbidities on clinical decision-making for older adults is highly feasible. Given the challenges intrinsic to safe and effective clinical care of older adults with pain, and attendant risks, together with the paucity of existing relevant work, much more education and research are needed.
RESUMEN
Two questions regarding the scientific literature have become grist for public discussion: 1) what place should P values have in reporting the results of studies? 2) How should the perceived difficulty in replicating the results reported in published studies be addressed? We consider these questions to be 2 sides of the same coin; failing to address them can lead to an incomplete or incorrect message being sent to the reader. If P values (which are derived from the estimate of the effect size and a measure of the precision of the estimate of the effect) are used improperly, for example reporting only significant findings, or reporting P values without account for multiple comparisons, or failing to indicate the number of tests performed, the scientific record can be biased. Moreover, if there is a lack of transparency in the conduct of a study and reporting of study results, it will not be possible to repeat a study in a manner that allows inferences from the original study to be reproduced or to design and conduct a different experiment whose aim is to confirm the original study's findings. The goal of this article is to discuss how P values can be used in a manner that is consistent with the scientific method, and to increase transparency and reproducibility in the conduct and analysis of nutrition research.
Asunto(s)
Revelación , Ciencias de la Nutrición , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Edición/normas , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Proyectos de Investigación , Políticas Editoriales , Humanos , Proyectos de Investigación/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of pain and disability. Substance use complicates the management of LBP, and potential risks increase with aging. Despite implications for an aging, diverse U.S. population, substance use and LBP comorbidity remain poorly defined. The objective of this study was to characterize LBP and substance use diagnoses in older U.S. adults by age, gender, and race. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of a random national sample. SUBJECTS: Older adults including 1,477,594 U.S. Medicare Part B beneficiaries. METHODS: Bayesian analysis of 37,634,210 claims, with 10,775,869 administrative and 92,903,649 diagnostic code assignments. RESULTS: LBP was diagnosed in 14.8±0.06% of those more than 65 years of age, more in females than in males (15.8±0.08% vs. 13.4±0.09%), and slightly less in those more than 85 years of age (13.3±0.2%). Substance use diagnosis varied by substance: nicotine, 9.6±0.02%; opioid, 2.8±0.01%; and alcohol, 1.3±0.01%. Substance use diagnosis declined with advancing age cohort. Opioid use diagnosis was markedly higher for those in whom LBP was diagnosed (10.5%) than for those not diagnosed with LBP (1.5%). Most older adults (54.9%) with an opioid diagnosis were diagnosed with LBP. Gender differences were modest. Relative rates of substance use diagnoses in LBP were modest for nicotine and alcohol. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with LBP have high relative rates of opioid diagnoses, irrespective of gender or age. Most older adults with opioid-related diagnoses have LBP, compared with a minority of those not opioid diagnosed. In caring for older adults with LBP or opioid-related diagnoses, health systems must anticipate complexity and support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in managing pain comorbidities. Older adults may benefit from proactive incorporation of non-opioid pain treatments. Further study is needed.