An organizational assessment of 101 Community-Based Adult Services centers to identify and address gaps in influenza vaccination among Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries.

INTRODUCTION: Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries are at high risk of experiencing severe disease from influenza. Yet, immunization assessment followed by influenza vaccination (when needed) are not regularly performed at Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) centers in/near medically underserved areas. To better understand this challenge, an organizational assessment was conducted in early 2020 to identify and examine modifiable factors that may impede or facilitate immunization assessment and influenza vaccination at CBAS centers in Los Angeles County (LAC), California. METHODS: All 158 CBAS centers in LAC were asked to complete a 17-question survey. The survey asked about immunization assessment, gaps in communication with primary care providers, knowledge and use of the California Immunization Registry (CAIR), and institutional policies for influenza vaccination. In addition, the survey asked each center about its vaccination policy for staff and clients, including whether or not increasing vaccinations was an interest/priority for the center. Best subsets algorithms (regression models) were performed to identify factors that may influence CBAS centers' practices on immunization assessment and vaccination. RESULTS: Of the 158 centers, 101 (66 %) completed the survey. A majority did not conduct immunization assessments for influenza (n = 59; 58 %); nearly-two-thirds (n = 70; 71 %) reported it would be feasible to do so if the practice is integrated as part of the individualized/nursing plan of care. Best subsets algorithms showed the strongest factors influencing whether CBAS centers assess for influenza vaccination were: center size, staff training on CAIR, presence of barriers to vaccination, and the belief that it is the center's responsibility to conduct immunization assessments and vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that practice gaps in immunization assessment and influenza vaccination are common at LAC's CBAS centers. Closing these gaps may help LAC (and California) improve influenza vaccine uptake and other vaccinations (e.g., pneumococcal, COVID-19) among the most vulnerable of the state's aging populations, Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries.

Gender-related differences in dyspepsia: a qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Relative to men, women are diagnosed more frequently with functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. With increased awareness of basic gender differences in perception and treatment of visceral pain, there has been new interest in research on gender disparity in the care of people with functional GI disorders. Past attention has focused on irritable bowel syndrome, whereas gender differences in other disorders are less well described. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to systematically review studies that have examined gender-related differences among patients with dyspepsia. METHODS: MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, and PsycINFO databases were searched for English-language articles on dyspepsia published between 1966 and August 2001. Epidemiologic studies, clinical trials, review articles, and conceptual articles from peer-reviewed journals were included for review. Findings were summarized and discussed within a framework of biological and psychosocial factors. Statistical analysis of combined data was inappropriate because of the inconsistent definition of dyspepsia among different studies and wide variation in the types of articles reviewed. RESULTS: Studies that examine gender-related differences in patients with dyspepsia have focused their investigations on the clinical epidemiology and pathophysiology of dyspepsia. In most epidemiologic studies, no gender analysis was performed beyond a description of sample demographics, and when statistical significance was tested, few consistent gender differences were found. Overall, it appears that men and women with dyspepsia possibly differ with respect to pattern of symptoms, pain perception or modulation, and antinociceptive mechanisms, but these observations have not been confirmed. No study evaluated the clinical implications of these possible differences. CONCLUSIONS: Future efforts should be directed to not only examine gender-related differences in the clinical epidemiology of dyspepsia, but also understand their clinical significance. Therefore, well-designed population-based studies using a consistent definition of dyspepsia are needed to investigate the prevalence of dyspepsia symptoms and patterns of dyspepsia management among men and women.

Women with diabetes have poorer control of blood pressure than men.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is associated with a higher coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in women compared with men. Less aggressive control of the CHD risk factors in women can contribute to this excess mortality. Because hypertension has a high prevalence in subjects with diabetes, we compared the control of this risk factor between men and women. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing blood pressure levels and trends over a 1-year period between men and women with diabetes receiving primary care. Using a chronic disease registry database, subjects with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, aged >or=18, were identified for inclusion. Mean weighted systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were calculated for subjects with multiple longitudinal readings. Subjects were classified into four blood pressure control categories based on the mean weighted blood pressure. Comparisons were made between men and women before and after controlling for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 3181 subjects (46% women) were included in the study. More women than men were in the moderate and severely elevated blood pressure categories (40% and 6% compared with 32% and 5%, respectively, p<0.001). The unadjusted mean SBP was 3 mm Hg higher in women (139 mm Hg in women compared with 136 in men, p<0.001). These differences remained significant after controlling for baseline variables. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with diabetes receiving medical care, women had poorer control of blood pressure and a significantly higher mean SBP compared with men. These findings might partially explain the excess CHD mortality in women with diabetes.

Predictors of blood pressure control in patients with diabetes and hypertension seen in primary care clinics.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) is not well controlled in the majority of patients with both diabetes and hypertension. This study was designed to identify predictors of BP control in patients with both diabetes and hypertension who are seen in primary care clinics. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted by identifying a cohort of patients diagnosed with diabetes before January 1, 2000 (inception) who met predefined criteria for hypertension at inception and who received primary care in the ensuing 3-year study period (January 1, 2000, to February 31, 2002). Using the mean of all BP values between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2002, subjects were divided into two groups: those with controlled BP and those with uncontrolled BP. The distribution of clinical predictors was compared between the two groups. Independent predictors were identified using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Predictors of poor BP control were as follows: 1) isolated systolic hypertension at inception (OR= 0.62, CI = 0.47 to 0.82); 2) uncontrolled BP at inception (OR = 0.71, CI = 0.55 to 0.93); 3) use of oral hypoglycemic drugs versus diet and exercise alone or insulin use (OR = 0.73, CI = 0.56 to 0.95); 4) use of three or more antihypertensive drugs (OR = 0.74, CI = 0.56 to 0.97); and 5) older age (OR = 0.98, CI = 0.97 to 0.99). Predictors of better control were 1) use of nitrates (OR = 1.82, CI = 1.26 to 2.64); 2) history of coronary heart disease (OR = 1.47, CI = 1.08 to 2.00); and 3) at least one annual visit to subspecialist physician (OR = 1.43, CI = 1.09 to 1.88). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with both diabetes and hypertension who are older, have isolated systolic hypertension, use oral hypoglycemic drugs, or use three or more antihypertensive drugs should be targeted for better BP control. The roles of nitrate medication and subspecialist physicians in achieving better BP control needs further study.

Use of clinical prediction rules in detecting osteoporosis in a population-based sample of postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis clinical prediction rules attempt to identify the postmenopausal women in whom, on the basis of individual risk factors, bone densitometry will detect low bone mass. We assessed and compared the diagnostic properties of the following 3 osteoporosis clinical prediction rules: the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation, Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, and National Osteoporosis Foundation practice guidelines. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of an existing population-based sample of postmenopausal women 45 years or older (N = 202) in Rochester, Minn. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, and positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios were calculated using the World Health Organization diagnosis of osteoporosis as the reference standard. The Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 29%, PPV of 27%, NPV of 100%, LR+ of 1.4, and LR- of 0. The Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument had a sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 40%, PPV of 29%, NPV of 77%, LR+ of 1.4, and LR- of 0.4. The National Osteoporosis Foundation practice guidelines had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 10%, PPV of 27%, NPV of 100%, LR+ of 1.1, and LR- of 0. The Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument were much more specific in postmenopausal women younger than 65 years compared with those 65 years or older. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that these clinical prediction rules do not perform well as a general screening method to identify postmenopausal women who are more likely to have osteoporosis; however, the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation may be useful in identifying some women who need not undergo testing, especially younger postmenopausal women.

A prospective clinical practice intervention to improve osteoporosis management following distal forearm fracture.

Secondary prevention of osteoporosis after fracture is underutilized, despite cost-effective therapies. This clinical practice intervention aimed to improve osteoporosis care of the postfracture patient. Residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, USA, > or = age 45 who sustained a moderate trauma distal forearm fracture were identified, and participants received educational materials, referral for bone densitometry and physician consultation to address osteoporosis in January 1999 through October 2000. Osteoporosis educational materials were provided to patients at the time of recruitment, and primary care physicians provided osteoporosis practice guidelines. Outcomes included: completion of bone densitometry, acceptance of interventions at the first postfracture primary care physician visit, and adherence to advice at 6 months. There were 105 patients identified (80% women), but only 58 agreed to participate (88% women). Women with lower T-scores (< -1.5) had an 89% initial treatment rate, and 67% were adherent to treatment at 6 months. All women with normal bone density (T-score above -1.5) were advised by their primary care physicians about antiresorptive treatment, and 100% adhered to these recommendations, even though they were not eligible for such treatment based on the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines. None of the men accepted the treatments offered, despite T-scores that fell at or below the NOF treatment threshold. Bone densitometry and consultation improved osteoporosis interventions after index fracture from a 16% baseline rate in the population (1993-1997) to a 45% overall rate for the study population. In summary, while referral for bone densitometry and discussion by a physician about postfracture osteoporosis preventive treatments did increase treatment rate, the majority of patients at highest risk did not accept interventions. Further initiatives are needed to overcome both system and patient barriers.

Osteoporosis intervention following distal forearm fractures: a missed opportunity?

BACKGROUND: Fractures are a manifestation of osteoporosis, but therapeutic interventions to reduce the risk of recurrent fractures are not widespread. OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of osteoporosis treatment in postmenopausal women following distal forearm fracture. METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study included all postmenopausal women, 45 years or older, residing in Olmsted County, Minnesota, who sustained a distal forearm fracture due to minimal trauma (a fall from standing height or under) in 1993 to 1997. Complete medical records were reviewed for each subject and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the relationship of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics to therapeutic interventions for osteoporosis within 12 months following the fracture. RESULTS: A total of 343 women with a mean age of 70.5 years had a minimal trauma distal forearm fracture. Within 12 months, 83% had seen a nonorthopedic physician. Of these, 17% had a pharmacologic osteoporosis intervention and the 12-month actuarially estimated cumulative incidence of any intervention was 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14%-22%). In a multivariate analysis, treatment was more likely to be offered to those with a prior diagnosis of osteoporosis (relative risk [RR], 2.08; 95% CI, 1.21-3.58), previous distal forearm fracture (RR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.30-4.34), or history of cigarette smoking (RR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.11-3.12). CONCLUSIONS: Effective osteoporosis interventions are underutilized among postmenopausal women who experience an osteoporotic fracture. Further work is needed to overcome barriers to optimal osteoporosis management in these women who are at high risk for future complications of osteoporosis.