Initial assessment of medical post-traumatic stress among patients with chronic esophageal diseases.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis and management of chronic esophageal disease requires the use of potentially traumatic medical procedures, performed with or without sedation. Medical trauma and post-traumatic stress (PTS) are emerging as important considerations in patients with digestive illness. To date, no study assesses medical PTS from procedures in patients with esophageal disease. METHODS: Adult patients with achalasia, eosinophilic esophagitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or functional esophageal disease at a university-based gastroenterology clinic completed: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), Gastroesophageal Disease Questionnaire, Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire, Northwestern Esophageal Quality of Life scale (HRQoL), NIH-PROMIS Depression scale, and a study-specific questionnaire about esophageal procedures (endoscopy with sedation; functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) with sedation; high-resolution manometry (HRM); wireless pH testing; or 24-h pH-impedance testing). KEY RESULTS: Half of 149 participants reported at least one traumatic procedure, with HRM most often cited. Only 2.7% met the cutoff for PTS on PCL-5. This increased to 7.1% for patients with a traumatic procedure combined with experiencing intense fear. Rates of moderate-severe PTS ranged from 7.4%-12% for all patients and 14%-29% for those with a traumatic procedure with fear. Medical PTS was associated with poorer HRQoL, and increased esophageal symptoms, depression, and hypervigilance and symptom anxiety. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Preliminary evidence suggests medical PTS affects few patients with esophageal disease. However traumatic procedures, most often associated with HRM, significantly increase PTS symptoms. The potential impacts of medical PTS on esophageal patient assessment and outcomes are considerable and warrants further study.

Psychosocial Aspects of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgeries and Endoscopic Therapies.

Obesity is a prevalent progressive and relapsing disease for which there are several levels of intervention, including metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) and now endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs). Preoperative psychological assessment focused on cognitive status, psychiatric symptoms, eating disorders, social support, and substance use is useful in optimizing patient outcomes and minimizing risks in MBS. Very little is known about the psychosocial needs of patients seeking EBMTs, though these investigations will be forthcoming if these therapies become more widespread. As MBS and EBMT inherently alter the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, considerations for the longer-term GI functioning of the patient are relevant and should be considered and monitored.

Using factorial mediation analysis to better understand the effects of interventions.

To improve understanding of how interventions work or why they do not work, there is need for methods of testing hypotheses about the causal mechanisms underlying the individual and combined effects of the components that make up interventions. Factorial mediation analysis, i.e., mediation analysis applied to data from a factorial optimization trial, enables testing such hypotheses. In this commentary, we demonstrate how factorial mediation analysis can contribute detailed information about an intervention's causal mechanisms. We briefly review the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the factorial experiment. We use an empirical example from a 25 factorial optimization trial to demonstrate how factorial mediation analysis opens possibilities for better understanding the individual and combined effects of intervention components. Factorial mediation analysis has important potential to advance theory about interventions and to inform intervention improvements.

Obesity Status on associations between cancer-related beliefs and health behaviors in cancer survivors: Implications for patient-clinician communication.

OBJECTIVE: Associations between cancer beliefs and health behavior engagement are largely unexplored in cancer survivors, particularly among those with overweight and obesity. We investigated belief-behavior associations for cancer survivors, and whether obesity altered these associations. METHODS: Cancer survivors were identified from the National Cancer Institute HINTS Survey 5 data and classified as having had an obesity-related cancer or not. Linear and multiple logistic regression analyses examined whether cancer risk beliefs and self-efficacy predicted dining out behaviors and physical activity (PA). Restricted analyses were conducted in those with overweight or obesity. RESULTS: Low self-efficacy to take care of one's health was associated with longer sitting time in the overall sample (p = 0.04). In cancer survivors with overweight or obesity, engagement in healthier behaviors was associated with 1) feeling less overwhelmed by cancer risk recommendations and 2) believing that PA or obesity influences cancer development (both p < 0.05). Among those with overweight and obesity, associations between cancer beliefs and health behaviors were not significantly different by cancer type (obesity-related vs. not). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity altered associations between cancer risk beliefs and health behavior engagement from the overall sample. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Weight status may be a useful tailoring factor when delivering health-promoting interventions for cancer survivors.

A Factorial Experiment to Optimize Remotely Delivered Behavioral Treatment for Obesity: Results of the Opt-IN Study.

OBJECTIVE: Intensive behavioral obesity treatments face scalability challenges, but evidence is lacking about which treatment components could be cut back without reducing weight loss. The Optimization of Remotely Delivered Intensive Lifestyle Treatment for Obesity (Opt-IN) study applied the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to develop an entirely remotely delivered, technology-supported weight-loss package to maximize the amount of weight loss attainable for ≤$500. METHODS: Six-month weight loss was examined among adults (N = 562) with BMI ≥ 25 who were randomly assigned to conditions in a factorial experiment crossing five dichotomous treatment components set to either low/high (12 vs. 24 coaching calls) or off/on (primary care provider reports, text messaging, meal replacements, and buddy training). RESULTS: About 84.3% of participants completed the final assessment. The treatment package yielding maximum weight loss for ≤$500 included 12 coaching calls, buddy training, and primary care provider progress reports; produced average weight loss of 6.1 kg, with 57.1% losing ≥5% and 51.8% losing ≥7%; and cost $427 per person. The most expensive candidate-treatment component (24 vs. 12 coaching calls) was screened out of the optimized treatment package because it did not increase weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically testing each treatment component's effect on weight loss made it possible to eliminate more expensive but less impactful components, yielding an optimized, resource-efficient obesity treatment for evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.