"What choice do we have?" Reactive and proactive decision-making for aging in place with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Promoting options for aging in place (AIP) has broad appeal to policymakers and professionals providing services to persons living with dementia (PWD). However, the benefits or burdens of AIP likely vary among individuals and families. We sought to describe factors influencing decision-making to age in place versus seek a higher level of residential care for PWD. METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken as part of a larger mixed-methods study utilizing semi-structured interviews with PWD, family care partners, and dementia clinicians. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with constant comparison. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation within subgroups. RESULTS: We conducted 74 interviews among 14 PWD, 36 care partners, and 24 clinicians. Preferences for AIP were driven by (1) desire to preserve independence, (2) a sense that the "best care" is delivered by loved ones and in a familiar environment, (3) distrust and fear of care facilities, and (4) caregiver guilt. PWD and care partners frequently considered moving from home as a "last resort" and wanted to avoid planning for future care needs. Many decisions to move were reactive and triggered by patient safety events, physical dependency, or the loss of caregiver. Proactive decision-making was facilitated by (1) prior experience witnessing the challenges of caring for a person with advanced dementia in the home; and (2) having substantial financial resources such that participants could seek major home adaptations or avoid "lower quality" institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions regarding care setting for PWD frequently do not feel like a choice and are made under imperfect conditions. Programs using AIP as an outcome measure should recognize the various patient-centered and non-patient-centered factors that influence such choices, and interventions should be designed to promote more informed and equitable decision-making for care setting in dementia.

Children and Adolescents with Disabilities and Exposure to Disasters, Terrorism, and the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Scoping Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper reviews the empirical literature on exposures to disaster or terrorism and their impacts on the health and well-being of children with disabilities and their families since the last published update in 2017. We also review the literature on studies examining the mental health and functioning of children with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: Few studies have examined the effects of disaster or terrorism on children with disabilities. Research shows that children with disabilities and their families have higher levels of disaster exposure, lower levels of disaster preparedness, and less recovery support due to longstanding discriminatory practices. Similarly, many reports of the COVID-19 pandemic have documented its negative and disproportionate impacts on children with disabilities and their families. In the setting of climate change, environmental disasters are expected to increase in frequency and severity. Future studies identifying mitigating factors to disasters, including COVID-19; increasing preparedness on an individual, community, and global level; and evaluating post-disaster trauma-informed treatment practices are imperative to support the health and well-being of children with disabilities and their families.

Comparing the reporting and conduct quality of exercise and pharmacological randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the quality of exercise randomised controlled trial (RCT) reporting and conduct in clinical populations (ie, adults with or at risk of chronic conditions) and compare with matched pharmacological RCTs. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCO). STUDY SELECTION: RCTs of exercise in clinical populations with matching pharmacological RCTs published in leading clinical, medical and specialist journals with impact factors ≥15. REVIEW METHODS: Overall RCT quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers using three research reporting guidelines (ie, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT; pharmacological RCTs)/CONSORT for non-pharmacological treatments; exercise RCTs), CONSORT-Harms, Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and two risk of bias assessment (research conduct) tools (ie, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Jadad Scale). We compared research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs with matched pharmacological RCTs, and examined factors associated with quality in exercise and pharmacological RCTs, separately. FINDINGS: Forty-eight exercise RCTs (11 658 patients; median sample n=138) and 48 matched pharmacological RCTs were evaluated (18 501 patients; median sample n=160). RCTs were conducted primarily in cardiovascular medicine (43%) or oncology (31%). Overall quality score (composite of all research reporting and conduct quality scores; primary endpoint) for exercise RCTs was 58% (median score 46 of 80; IQR: 39-51) compared with 77% (53 of 68; IQR: 47-58) in the matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.001). Individual quality scores for trial reporting and conduct were lower in exercise RCTs compared with matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.03). Factors associated with higher overall quality scores for exercise RCTs were journal impact factor (≥25), sample size (≥152) and publication year (≥2013). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs is inferior to matched pharmacological RCTs. Suboptimal RCT reporting and conduct impact the fidelity, interpretation, and reproducibility of exercise trials and, ultimately, implementation of exercise in clinical populations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018095033.

Preparing Future Pediatricians to Meet the Behavioral and Mental Health Needs of Children.

The increasing prevalence of behavioral and/or mental health (B/MH) problems among children, adolescents, and young adults is rapidly forcing the pediatric community to examine its professional responsibility in response to this epidemic. Stakeholders involved in pediatric workforce training were brought together in April 2018, invited by the American Board of Pediatrics and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, to consider facilitators and barriers for pediatrician training to enhance care for B/MH problems and to catalyze commitment to improvement efforts. During the interactive meeting, parents, young adult patients, and trainees, together with leaders of pediatric training programs and health care organizations, acknowledged the growing B/MH epidemic and discussed past and current efforts to improve training and care, including integrated delivery models. Attendees committed in writing to making a change within their department or organization to improve training. There also was agreement that organizations that set the standards for training and certification bear some responsibility to ensure that future pediatricians are prepared to meet the needs of children and adolescents. Reports on commitments to change 12 months after the meeting indicated that although attendees had encountered a variety of barriers, many had creatively moved forward to improve training at the program or organizational level. This article describes the context for the April 2018 meeting, themes arising from the meeting, results from the commitments to change, and 3 case studies. Taken together, they suggest we, as a pediatric community, can and must collaborate to improve training and, by extension, care.

Pediatric Residency Education and the Behavioral and Mental Health Crisis: A Call to Action.

For at least 4 decades, the need for improved pediatric residency training in behavioral and mental health has been recognized. The prevalence of behavioral and mental health conditions in children, adolescents, and young adults has increased during that period. However, as recently as 2013, 65% of pediatricians surveyed by the American Academy of Pediatrics indicated that they lacked training in recognizing and treating mental health problems. Current pediatric residency training requirements do not stipulate curricular elements or assessment requirements in behavioral and mental health, and fewer than half of pediatric residents surveyed felt that their competence in dealing with mental health problems was good to excellent. It is time that pediatric residency programs develop the capacity to prepare their residents to meet the behavioral and mental health needs of their patients. Meeting this challenge will require a robust curriculum and effective assessment tools. Ideal training environments will include primary care ambulatory sites that encourage residents to work longitudinally in partnership with general pediatricians and behavioral and mental health trainees and providers; behavioral and mental health training must be integrated into both ambulatory and inpatient experiences. Faculty development will be needed, and in most programs it will be necessary to include nonpediatrician mental health providers to enhance pediatrician faculty expertise. The American Board of Pediatrics intends to partner with other organizations to ensure that pediatric trainees develop the competence needed to meet the behavioral and mental health needs of their patients.

Improving teaching on an inpatient pediatrics service: a retrospective analysis of a program change.

BACKGROUND: The traditional role of the faculty inpatient attending providing clinical care and effectively teaching residents and medical students is threatened by increasing documentation requirements, pressures to increase clinical productivity, and insufficient funding available for medical education. In order to sustain and improve clinical education on a general pediatric inpatient service, we instituted a comprehensive program change. Our program consisted of creating detailed job descriptions, setting clear expectations, and providing salary support for faculty inpatient attending physicians serving in clinical and educational roles. This study was aimed at assessing the impact of this program change on the learners' perceptions of their faculty attending physicians and learners' experiences on the inpatient rotations. METHODS: We analyzed resident and medical student electronic evaluations of both clinical and teaching faculty attending physician characteristics, as well as resident evaluations of an inpatient rotation experience. We compared the proportions of "superior" ratings versus all other ratings prior to the educational intervention (2005-2006, baseline) with the two subsequent years post intervention (2006-2007, year 1; 2007-2008, year 2). We also compared medical student scores on a comprehensive National Board of Medical Examiners clinical subject examination pre and post intervention. RESULTS: When compared to the baseline year, pediatric residents were more likely to rate as superior the quality of didactic teaching (OR=1.7 [1.0-2.8] year 1; OR=2.0 [1.1-3.5] year 2) and attendings' appeal as a role model (OR=1.9 [1.1-3.3] year 2). Residents were also more likely to rate as superior the quality of feedback and evaluation they received from the attending (OR=2.1 [1.2-3.7] year 1; OR=3.9 [2.2-7.1] year 2). Similar improvements were also noted in medical student evaluations of faculty attendings. Most notably, medical students were significantly more likely to rate feedback on their data gathering and physical examination skills as superior (OR=4.2 [2.0-8.6] year 1; OR=6.4 [3.0-13.6] year 2). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive program which includes clear role descriptions along with faculty expectations, as well as salary support for faculty in clinical and educational roles, can improve resident and medical student experiences on a general pediatric inpatient service. The authors provide sufficient detail to replicate this program to other settings.