Substandard housing and the risk of COVID-19 infection and disease severity: A retrospective cohort study.

In this study we examine associations between substandard housing and the risk of COVID-19 infection and severity during the first year of the pandemic by linking individual-level housing and clinical datasets. Residents of Chelsea, Massachusetts who were tested for COVID-19 at any Mass General Brigham testing site and who lived at a property that had received a city housing inspection were included (N = 2873). Chelsea is a densely populated city with a high prevalence of substandard housing. Inspected properties with housing code violations were considered substandard; inspected properties without violations were considered adequate. COVID-19 infection was defined as any positive PCR test, and severe disease defined as hospitalization with COVID-19. We used a propensity score design to match individuals on variables including age, race, sex, and income. In the severity model, we also matched on ten comorbidities. We estimated the risk of COVID-19 infection and severity associated with substandard housing using Cox Proportional Hazards models for lockdown, the first phase of reopening, and the full study period. In our sample, 32% (919/2873) of individuals tested positive for COVID-19 and 5.9% (135/2297) had severe disease. During lockdown, substandard housing was associated with a 48% increased risk of COVID-19 infection (95%CI 1.1-2.0, p = 0.006). Through Phase 1 reopening, substandard housing was associated with a 39% increased infection risk (95%CI 1.1-1.8, p = 0.020). The difference in risk attenuated over the full study period. There was no difference in severe disease risk between the two groups. The increased risk, observed only during lockdown and early reopening - when residents were most exposed to their housing - strengthens claims that substandard housing conveys higher infection risk. The results demonstrate the value of combining cross-sector datasets. Existing city housing data can be leveraged 1) to identify and prioritize high-risk areas for future pandemic response, and 2) for longer-term housing solutions.

Characteristics of Advanced Practice Nurses Receiving Top Industry Payments and Their Practice Settings: a Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The pharmaceutical industry promotes prescribing through the cultivation of key opinion leaders. Advanced practice nurses (APNs) are a growing and influential group of prescribers across generalist and specialty practice. Public reporting of industry payments to APNs allows for exploration of their influence within practice settings. OBJECTIVE: To understand the characteristics of APNs with top industry payments including their positions of influence and other payment recipients at the same address. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study of US national Open Payments reports of industry payments made between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. PARTICIPANTS: APNs who received > $50,000 USD in industry payments for speaking, consulting, and honoraria ("personal fees"). MEASURES: Description of top APN recipients' practice setting type, clinical specialty, presence of other payment recipients, value of payments attributed to the same address, and top manufacturers and therapeutic categories associated with payments to top APN recipients. Structured content analysis of public-facing websites for evidence of APNs' clinical, research, and teaching leadership. RESULTS: A total of 99 APNs received > $50,000 USD in aggregate personal fees and a median $74,080 USD (IQR $57,303-101,702) in aggregate payments. They shared a practice setting with a median of 1 (IQR 0-5) physician and 0 (IQR 0-3) other APN payment recipients and were often the only (39%, 42/109) or the dominant (45%, 30/67) payment recipient in their practice setting. In total, 36% held clinical leadership positions, 25% led scientific research, and 18% had university appointments. Forty-two percent (37/88) owned a clinical practice, including cosmetic clinics (51%, 19/37) and mental/behavioral health clinics (24%, 9/37). CONCLUSIONS: Top APN payment recipients attracted high-value payments in practice settings and specialities associated with high-cost drug development; however, there may be little oversight of APNs' industry relationships. Policy development related to industry relationships must be inclusive of and responsive to the activities of interprofessional providers.

A global perspective of advanced practice nursing research: A review of systematic reviews protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020, the World Health Organization called for the expansion and greater recognition of all nursing roles, including advanced practice nurses (APNs), to better meet patient care needs. As defined by the International Council of Nurses (ICN), the two most common APN roles include nurse practitioners (NPs) and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs). They help ensure care to communities as well as patients and families with acute, chronic or complex conditions. Moreover, APNs support providers to deliver high quality care and improve access to services. Currently, there is much variability in the use of advanced practice nursing roles globally. A clearer understanding of the roles that are in place across the globe, and how they are being used will support greater role harmonization, and inform global priorities for advanced practice nursing education, research, and policy reform. OBJECTIVE: To identify current gaps in advanced practice nursing research globally. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review of systematic reviews will provide a description of the current state of the research, including gaps, on advanced practice nursing globally. We will include reviews that examine APNs, NPs or CNSs using recognized role definitions. We will search the CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health, HealthStar, PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews and Controlled Trials Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Joanna Briggs Institute, and Web of Science electronic databases for reviews published from January 2011 onwards, with no restrictions on jurisdiction or language. We will search the grey literature and hand search the reference lists of all relevant reviews to identify additional studies. We will extract country, patient, provider, health system, educational, and policy/scope of practice data. We will assess the quality of each included review using the CASP criteria, and summarize their findings. This review of systematic reviews protocol was developed following the PRISMA-P recommendations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021278532.

Advanced Practice Nursing Roles, Regulation, Education, and Practice: A Global Study.

Background and Objectives: Several subgroups of the International Council of Nurses Nurse Practitioner/Advanced Practice Nurse Network (ICN NP/APNN) have periodically analyzed APN (nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist) development around the world. The primary objective of this study was to describe the global status of APN practice regarding scope of practice, education, regulation, and practice climate. An additional objective was to look for gaps in these same areas of role development in order to recommend future initiatives. Methods: An online survey was developed by the research team, and included questions on APN practice roles, education, regulation/credentialing, and practice climate. The study was launched in August 2018 at the 10th Annual ICN NP/APNN Conference in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Links to the survey were provided there and via multiple platforms over the next year. Results: Survey results from 325 respondents, representing 26 countries, were analyzed through descriptive techniques. Although progress was reported, particularly in education, results indicated the APN profession around the world continues to struggle over titling, title protection, regulation development, credentialing, and barriers to practice. Conclusions and Practice/Policy Relevance: APNs have the potential to help the world reach the Sustainable Development Goal of universal health coverage. Several recommendations are provided to help ensure APNs achieve these goals.

Qualitative Methods in Health Care Research.

Healthcare research is a systematic inquiry intended to generate robust evidence about important issues in the fields of medicine and healthcare. Qualitative research has ample possibilities within the arena of healthcare research. This article aims to inform healthcare professionals regarding qualitative research, its significance, and applicability in the field of healthcare. A wide variety of phenomena that cannot be explained using the quantitative approach can be explored and conveyed using a qualitative method. The major types of qualitative research designs are narrative research, phenomenological research, grounded theory research, ethnographic research, historical research, and case study research. The greatest strength of the qualitative research approach lies in the richness and depth of the healthcare exploration and description it makes. In health research, these methods are considered as the most humanistic and person-centered way of discovering and uncovering thoughts and actions of human beings.

Opioid Prescribing by Nurse Practitioners in Medicare Part D: Impact of State Scope of Practice Legislation.

Many state legislatures restrict nurse practitioner (NP) scope of practice as a way of addressing patient safety concerns. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of state NP scope of practice laws on the prescription of oxycodone and hydrocodone containing medications by NP and MD/DO/PA prescribers to Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Using the Medicare Part D public use file, we analyzed oxycodone and hydrocodone containing prescriptions per Medicare Part D beneficiary by prescriber type, NP state scope of practice, and geographic variables. Our results demonstrate that the state scope of practice variable had the same effect, in identical direction and significance, on NP opioid prescribing patterns as it had on MD/DO/PA prescribers, a group to whom NP scope of practice laws do not apply. Thus, scope of practice in this study was not an exclusive predictor of NP practice and prescribing.

Advancing a School of Nursing Center for Climate Change, Climate Justice, and Health.

This chapter addresses the development and advancement of the Center for Climate Change, Climate Justice, and Health (CCCCJH) in the School of Nursing at the MGH Institute of Health Professions, the first nurse-led center emerged from the overwhelming evidence of climate change and its associated deleterious health consequences. The Center steering committee developed a mission, vision, and core values as well as a logo to guide the first year of initiatives and galvanize the efforts for the future. Workshop and symposium development, implementation, and evaluation are discussed. Future directions and the importance of educational initiatives aimed at expanding nursing and interprofessional knowledge of the intersection of climate and health are discussed.

Nurse Prescribing From the Global Vantage Point: The Intersection Between Role and Policy.

Nurses around the world are increasingly prescribing and managing pharmaceutical agents. Prescribing by nurses is currently based on varying nursing roles, depending on national and regional norms and practices. Prescribing occurs within the advance practice, advanced level, and task-sharing roles, depending on the country. It is evolving both within and outside of traditional regulatory frameworks. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to describe the nurse prescribing globally among various nursing roles that support and facilitate the practice. We gathered practice, statutory, and regulatory information from gray and peer-reviewed literature, Google search and Google scholar, government websites, PubMed, and CINAHL electronic databases. In contrast to previous global policy reviews that focus primarily on high-income nations, our findings suggest that nurse prescribing occurs extensively in all six continents. Nurse prescribing within the context of advanced practice nursing occurs mostly in high-income countries. However, the predominant model of nurse prescribing from the global context occurs within the advanced level role by postbasic or postprofessional nurses. Additional nurse prescribing occurs through less formal task-sharing arrangements, primarily in low- to middle-income countries. In general, nurse prescribing is evolving rapidly around the world but within highly variable roles and regulatory frameworks. Codifying these roles by strengthening of educational and regulatory standards may serve to enhance the health system capacity, especially in low- to middle-income countries.

Randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention on migraine: A study protocol.

AIM: To describe a randomized controlled trial protocol that evaluates the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention in improving the outcomes (quality of life, disability, intensity, frequency and duration) of patients with migraine. BACKGROUND: Migraine affects various facets of Quality of Life and results in moderate to high levels of disability among migraineurs. Migraine pain can be intense and unremitting that can interfere with the daily routine and reduce the ability to think and function normally. Many people can lower their risk of a migraine by simply avoiding stress, getting enough sleep, eating regularly and by avoiding triggers. Hence, the present study aims at evaluating the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention in managing migraine headaches. The multicomponent intervention includes behavioural lifestyle modification program and sessions of pranayama (a form of yogic breathing exercise). DESIGN: The study is a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded trial with parallel arms. METHODS: The study participants are randomized to intervention and control arms. The participants randomized to the intervention arm would receive the specific multicomponent intervention based on the protocol. The participants in the control arm would receive routine care. They are followed up for 24 weeks and the outcomes are assessed. DISCUSSION: Various studies report that non-pharmacological therapies and integrative therapies play a major role in the management of migraine headaches. The findings of the study are expected to open up new horizons in health care arena emphasizing the use of non-pharmacological therapy for less focused areas of primary care health problems such as migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI). The CTRI India is one of the primary registries in the WHO registry network (Ctri.nic.in, ). CTRI reference ID: CTRI/2015/10/006282.

More than a prescriber: gerontological nurse practitioners' perspectives on prescribing and pharmaceutical marketing.

The purpose of this study was to gain understanding about nurse practitioners' (NPs') prescriptive decision making for geriatric patients with attention to pharmaceutical marketing influences. Prior research has focused on physician prescribers and identified suboptimal practices. Because the majority of medications are prescribed to older adults, NPs in geriatric practice were targeted as an information-rich group to interview about prescribing issues. Given the exploratory nature of this research, qualitative focus group methods were employed using content analysis. Fifteen NPs were recruited at an annual national geriatric NP conference. They worked in all regions of the United States, had an average of 9 years prescribing experience, and participated in 1 of the 2 focus groups. The key theme that emerged was that they were more than a prescriber. Findings revealed overwhelming consistency among the NP participants that their nursing background instilled a holistic approach that encompassed both nondrug and therapeutic drug options and skepticism about drug marketing, as well as offered a positive difference by tailoring to their patients' biophysical, psychological, and economic needs with an involvement in the interplay of geriatric care issues not typically addressed by physicians. The participants' reported approaches were in alignment with geriatric prescribing recommendations.

"Under the radar": nurse practitioner prescribers and pharmaceutical industry promotions.

OBJECTIVE: To assess nurse practitioners' interactions with pharmaceutical industry promotional activities and their perception of information reliability and self-reported prescribing behaviors. STUDY DESIGN: Self-administered online survey. METHODS: A nationally randomized sample of nurse practitioner prescribers was surveyed. Eligibility criteria included current clinical practice and licensure to prescribe medications in their state of practice. RESULTS: A total of 263 responses were analyzed. Almost all respondents (96%) reported regular contact with pharmaceutical sales representatives, and most (71%) reported receiving information on new drugs directly from pharmaceutical sales representatives some or most of the time. A large portion (66%) dispensed drug samples regularly to their patients, and 73% believed that samples were somewhat or very helpful in learning about new drugs. Eighty-one percent of respondents thought that it was ethically acceptable to give out samples to anyone, and 90% believed that it was acceptable to attend lunch and dinner events sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Almost half (48%) stated that they were more likely to prescribe a drug that was highlighted during a lunch or dinner event. Most respondents stated that it was ethically acceptable for speakers to be paid by industry. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse practitioner prescribers had extensive contact with pharmaceutical industry promotional activities such as pharmaceutical representative contact, receipt of drug samples, and regular attendance at industry-sponsored meal events and continuing education programs. They reported that industry interface with nurse practitioner prescribers in the form of sponsored meals, education events, and paid speakers was ethically acceptable.

Prescribers and pharmaceutical representatives: why are we still meeting?

CONTEXT: Research suggests that pharmaceutical marketing influences prescribing and may cause cognitive dissonance for prescribers. This work has primarily been with physicians and physician-trainees. Questions remain regarding why prescribers continue to meet with pharmaceutical representatives (PRs). OBJECTIVE: To describe the reasons that prescribers from various health professions continue to interact with PRs despite growing evidence of the influence of these interactions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multi-disciplinary focus groups with 61 participants held in practice settings and at society meetings. RESULTS: Most prescribers participating in our focus groups believe that overall PR interactions are beneficial to patient care and practice health. They either trust the information from PRs or feel that they are equipped to evaluate it independently. Despite acknowledgement of study findings to the contrary, prescribers state that they are able to effectively manage PR interactions such that their own prescribing is not adversely impacted. Prescribers describe few specific strategies or policies for these interactions, and report that policies are not consistently implemented with all members of a clinic or institution. Some prescribers perceive an inherent contradiction between academic centers and national societies receiving money from pharmaceutical companies, and then recommending restriction at the level of the individual prescriber. Prescribers with different training backgrounds present a few novel reasons for these meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence that PR detailing influences prescribing, providers from several health professions continue to believe that PR interactions improve patient care, and that they can adequately evaluate and filter information presented to them by PRs. Focus group comments suggest that cultural change is necessary to break the norms that exist in many settings. Applying policies consistently, considering non-physician members of the healthcare team, working with trainees, restructuring the current primary care model and offering convenient, individualized, non-biased educational options may aid success.

The use of antibiotics for viral upper respiratory tract infections: an analysis of nurse practitioner and physician prescribing practices in ambulatory care, 1997-2001.

PURPOSE: There are extensive data that describe the prescriptive behaviors of physicians (MDs) for upper respiratory tract infections; however, there is a paucity of data on the antibiotic-prescribing patterns of nurse practitioners (NPs). The purpose of this study was to describe and predict factors that are associated with antibiotic prescribing by NPs and MDs for viral upper respiratory infections in the ambulatory setting. DATA SOURCES: The study utilized a cross-sectional retrospective design of data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey between 1997 and 2001. Data were collected on a national probability sample of 506 NP and 13,692 MD visits for patients with nonspecific upper respiratory tract infection, viral pharyngitis, and bronchitis. CONCLUSIONS: Bivariate analysis found no significant differences in antibiotic prescribing for viral upper respiratory tract infections by NPs (50.4%) and MDs (53%). Broad-spectrum antibiotics accounted for 36.6% of the NP antibiotic prescriptions and for 33.2% of the MD antibiotic prescriptions. Multivariate analysis identified several clinical and nonclinical factors that are associated with NP antibiotic prescribing. The strongest positive predictors of NP antibiotic prescribing were black race, Medicaid insurance, Northeast region, and diagnoses of viral pharyngitis and bronchitis. The significant negative predictor was Medicaid insurance status. The strongest positive predictors of MD prescribing were viral pharyngitis, bronchitis, and non-antibiotic prescription. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: The excessive use of antibiotics for upper respiratory infections of viral etiology by both NPs and MDs suggests the continuing need for educational initiatives such as "academic detailing" as well as increasing involvement by both groups of providers in the dissemination of clinical guidelines and system-based quality assurance programs. Also, the lower rate of antibiotic prescribing for viral infections by NPs for patients with Medicaid insurance suggests more appropriate cost-effective care in this population of patients. More study is needed in general on prescribing by NPs for Medicaid patients. Finally, the strong association of nonclinical factors suggests the need for awareness and improvement of prescribing decisions by both NPs and MDs.