Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review.

Guidelines strongly recommend trauma-focused therapies to treat posttraumatic stress disorder. Implementation of cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and prolonged exposure (PE) in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and non-VHA settings began in 2006. We conducted a systematic review of implementation facilitators and challenges and strategies to address barriers. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception until March 2021 for English-language articles. Two individuals reviewed eligibility and rated quality. Quantitative results were abstracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Qualitative results were independently coded by two reviewers and finalized through consensus. We used RE-AIM and CFIR frameworks to synthesize findings. 29 eligible studies addressed CPT/PE, mostly conducted in VHA. Training/education with audit/feedback was the primary implementation strategy and was linked to improved provider CPT/PE perceptions and self-efficacy. Use was not widespread. Only six studies tested other implementation strategies with mixed impact. Following VHA implementation, strong support for training, perceived effectiveness for patients and benefits for clinics, and positive patient experiences and relationships with providers were reported. However, barriers persisted including perceived protocol inflexibility, complex referral processes and patient complexity and competing needs. In non-VHA settings, providers perceived fewer barriers, but few were CPT/PE trained. Across both settings, fewer studies targeted patient factors. Training/education with audit/feedback improved perceptions and the availability of CPT/PE, but not consistent use. Studies testing implementation strategies to address post-training challenges, including patient-level factors, are needed. A few studies are underway in VHA to test patient-focused and other implementation strategies. Research assessing actual vs perceived barriers in non-VHA settings is needed to elucidate unique challenges experienced.

Evaluation of Implementation Strategies for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR): a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) is a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) priority. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) are effective for chronic pain and several mental health conditions. We synthesized evidence on implementation strategies to increase EBP access and use. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception until March 2021 for articles on EBP implementation within integrated health systems to treat chronic pain or chronic mental health conditions. Reviewers independently screened articles, extracted results, coded qualitative findings, and rated quality using modified criteria from Newcastle-Ottawa (quantitative results) or Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (qualitative results). We categorized implementation strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) framework and classified outcomes using RE-AIM domains (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance). RESULTS: Twelve articles (reporting results from 10 studies) evaluated CBT (k = 11) and ACT (k = 1) implementation strategies in large integrated healthcare systems. No studies evaluated MBSR implementation. Eight articles evaluated strategies within VHA. Six articles reported on national VHA EBP implementation programs; all involved training/education, facilitation, and audit/feedback. CBT and ACT implementation demonstrated moderate to large improvements in patient symptoms and quality of life. Trainings increased mental health provider self-efficacy in delivering EBPs, improved provider EBP perceptions, and increased provider EBP use during programs, but had unclear impacts on Reach. It was unclear whether external facilitation added benefit. Provider EBP maintenance was modest; barriers included competing professional time demands and patient barriers. DISCUSSION: Multi-faceted CBT and ACT implementation programs increased provider EBP Adoption but had unclear impacts on Reach. Future implementation efforts should further evaluate Reach, Adoption, and Maintenance; assess the added value of external facilitation; and consider strategies targeting patient barriers. Future work should use implementation frameworks to guide evaluations of barriers and facilitators, processes of change, and outcomes. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021252038.

Barriers and Facilitators of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Chronic Pain in Adults: A Systematic Review.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) have demonstrated effectiveness for improving outcomes in chronic pain. These evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) remain underutilized in clinical practice, however. To identify research gaps and next steps for improving uptake of EBPs, we conducted a systematic review of patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers and facilitators of their use for chronic pain. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases from inception through September 2022. Prespecified eligibility criteria included outpatient treatment of adults with chronic pain; examination of barriers and facilitators and/or evaluation of implementation strategies; conducted in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, Canada or Australia; and publication in English. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and rated quality. We conducted a qualitative synthesis of results using a best-fit framework approach building upon domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We identified 34 eligible studies (33 moderate or high quality), most (n = 28) of which addressed patient-level factors. Shared barriers across EBPs included variable patient buy-in to therapy rationale and competing responsibilities for patients; shared facilitators included positive group or patient-therapist dynamics. Most studies examining ACT and all examining MBSR assessed only group formats. No studies compared barriers, facilitators, or implementation strategies of group CBT to individual CBT, or of telehealth to in-person EBPs. Conceptual mismatches of patient knowledge and beliefs with therapy principles were largely analyzed qualitatively, and studies did not explore how these mismatches were addressed to support engagement. Future research on EBPs for chronic pain in real-world practice settings is needed to explore provider and system-level barriers and facilitators, heterogeneity of effects and uptake, and both effects and uptake of EBPs delivered in various formats, including group vs individual therapy and telehealth or asynchronous digital approaches. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review synthesizes evidence on barriers and facilitators to uptake of cognitive behavioral therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness-based stress reduction for chronic pain. Findings can guide future implementation work to increase availability and use of evidence-based psychotherapies for treatment of chronic pain. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42021252038.

Effects of Nurse Staffing on Resident Outcomes in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence on effects of nurse staffing in nursing homes on resident outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Studies evaluating the effects of nurse staffing levels, total staffing, or skill mix on pressure ulcers, nursing home associated infections, and pain outcomes for adult residents in US nursing homes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database for English-language articles published between January 2000 and May 2021. We also searched for gray literature and sought expert referrals. Two reviewers participated in determination of eligibility, assessment of methodological quality, and abstraction of data. Abstracted data included study design; setting and population characteristics; and resident outcomes. We rated overall certainty of evidence (very low, low, moderate, and high) for each outcome using GRADE. RESULTS: Of 9152 unique citations, 378 articles underwent full-text review. We identified 22 eligible studies that addressed pressure ulcers (k = 15), COVID-19 cases and/or mortality (k = 4), other infections (k = 8), and moderate-severe pain among residents (k = 7); some examined multiple outcomes. Most studies (k = 17) were rated moderate or high quality. All studies were observational. Overall, registered nurse (RN) staffing was probably associated with fewer pressure ulcers (moderate certainty) and possibly fewer COVID-19 infections/mortality (low certainty), other infections (low certainty) and lower rates of moderate-severe pain (low certainty). Higher skill mix was probably associated with fewer pressure ulcers, higher resident COVID-19 infections, fewer other infections, and lower rates of moderate-severe pain (low certainty for all outcomes). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Higher RN staffing and skill mix may be associated with better nursing home resident outcomes, while results were mixed for total staffing. Increasing RN staffing levels and skill mix are one of a variety of approaches to improve nursing home care.

COVID-19 postacute care major organ damage: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Major organ complications have been reported in patients hospitalised for COVID-19; most studies lacked controls. OBJECTIVE: Examine major organ damage postdischarge among adults hospitalised for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 controls. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library from 1 January 2020 to 19 May 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language studies of adults discharged from hospital for COVID-19; reporting major organ damage. Single review of abstracts; independent dual review of full text. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies. Outcome data were not pooled due to heterogeneity in populations, study designs and outcome assessment methods; findings are narratively synthesised. RESULTS: Of 124 studies in a full evidence report, 9 included non-COVID controls and are described here. Four of the nine (three USA, one UK) used large administrative databases. Four of the remaining five studies enrolled <600 COVID-19 patients. Mean or median age ranged from 49 to 70 years with 46%-94% male and 48%-78% White race; 10%-40% had been in intensive care units. Follow-up ranged from 4 weeks to 22 weeks postdischarge. Four used hospitalised controls, three non-hospitalised controls and two were unclear. Studies used various definitions of, and methods to assess, major organ damage outcomes. While the magnitude of effect differed across studies, incident cardiac, pulmonary, liver, acute and chronic kidney, stroke, diabetes, and coagulation disorders were consistently greater in adults hospitalised for COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19 controls. LIMITATIONS: Applicability to subgroups (age, gender, COVID-19 severity, treatment, vaccination status) and non-hospitalised patients is unknown. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Postacute COVID-19 major organ damage is common and likely higher than controls. However, there is substantial uncertainty. More consistent reporting of clinical outcomes and pre-COVID health status along with careful selection of control groups are needed to address evidence gaps. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020204788.

Major Update 2: Remdesivir for Adults With COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians Practice Points.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is approved for the treatment of adults hospitalized with COVID-19. PURPOSE: To update a living review of remdesivir for adults with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Several electronic U.S. Food and Drug Administration, company, and journal websites from 1 January 2020 through 19 October 2021. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted, and a second reviewer verified data. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. DATA SYNTHESIS: Since the last update (search date 9 August 2021), 1 new RCT and 1 new subtrial comparing a 10-day course of remdesivir with control (placebo or standard care) were identified. This review summarizes and updates the evidence on the cumulative 5 RCTs and 2 subtrials for this comparison. Our updated results confirm a 10-day course of remdesivir, compared with control, probably results in little to no mortality reduction (5 RCTs). Updated results also confirm that remdesivir probably results in a moderate increase in the proportion of patients recovered by day 29 (4 RCTs) and may reduce time to clinical improvement (2 RCTs) and hospital length of stay (4 RCTs). New RCTs, by increasing the strength of evidence, lead to an updated conclusion that remdesivir probably results in a small reduction in the proportion of patients receiving ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at specific follow-up times (4 RCTs). New RCTs also alter the conclusions for harms-remdesivir, compared with control, may lead to a small reduction in serious adverse events but may lead to a small increase in any adverse event. LIMITATION: The RCTs differed in definitions of COVID-19 severity and outcomes reported. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, the findings confirm that remdesivir probably results in little to no difference in mortality and increases the proportion of patients recovered. Remdesivir may reduce time to clinical improvement and may lead to small reductions in serious adverse events but may result in a small increase in any adverse event. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Care Coordination Models and Tools-Systematic Review and Key Informant Interviews.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination (CC) interventions involve systematic strategies to address fragmentation and enhance continuity of care. However, it remains unclear whether CC can sufficiently address patient needs and improve outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center, and VA Evidence Synthesis Program, from inception to September 2019. Two individuals reviewed eligibility and rated quality using modified AMSTAR 2. Eligible systematic reviews (SR) examined diverse CC interventions for community-dwelling adults with ambulatory care sensitive conditions and/or at higher risk for acute care. From eligible SR and relevant included primary studies, we abstracted the following: study and intervention characteristics; target population(s); effects on hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and/or patient experience; setting characteristics; and tools and approaches used. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals who implemented CC interventions. RESULTS: Of 2324 unique citations, 16 SR were eligible; 14 examined case management or transitional care interventions; and 2 evaluated intensive primary care models. Two SR highlighted selection for specific risk factors as important for effectiveness; one of these also indicated high intensity (e.g., more patient contacts) and/or multidisciplinary plans were key. Most SR found inconsistent effects on reducing hospitalizations or ED visits; few reported on patient experience. Effective interventions were implemented in multiple settings, including rural community hospitals, academic medical centers (in urban settings), and public hospitals serving largely poor, uninsured populations. Primary studies reported variable approaches to improve patient-provider communication, including health coaching and role-playing. SR, primary studies, and key informant interviews did not identify tools for measuring patient trust or care team integration. Sustainability of CC interventions varied and some were adapted over time. DISCUSSION: CC interventions have inconsistent effects on reducing hospitalizations and ED visits. Future work should address how they should be adapted to different healthcare settings and which tools or approaches are most helpful for implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42020156359.

Physical functioning and mental health treatment initiation and retention for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most US adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) do not initiate mental health treatment within a year of diagnosis. Increasing treatment uptake can improve health and quality of life for those with PTSD. Individuals with PTSD are more likely to report poor physical functioning, which may contribute to difficulty with treatment initiation and retention. We sought to determine the effects of poor physical functioning on mental health treatment initiation and retention for individuals with PTSD. METHODS: We used data for a national cohort of veterans in VA care; diagnosed with PTSD in June 2008-July 2009; with no mental health treatment in the prior year; and who responded to baseline surveys on physical functioning and PTSD symptoms (n = 6,765). Physical functioning was assessed using Veterans RAND 12-item Short Form Health Survey, and encoded as limitations in physical functioning and role limitations due to physical health. Treatment initiation (within 6 months of diagnosis) was determined using VA data and categorized as none (reference), only medications, only psychotherapy, or both. Treatment retention was defined as having ≥ 4 months of appropriate antidepressant or ≥ 8 psychotherapy encounters. RESULTS: In multinomial models, greater limitations in physical functioning were associated with lower odds of initiating only psychotherapy (OR 0.82 [95 % CI 0.68, 0.97] for limited a little and OR 0.74 [0.61, 0.90] for limited a lot, compared to reference "Not limited at all"). However, it was not associated with initiation of medications alone (OR 1.04 [0.85, 1.28] for limited a little and OR 1.07 [0.86, 1.34] for limited a lot) or combined with psychotherapy (OR 1.03 [0.85, 1.25] for limited a little and OR 0.95 [0.78, 1.17] for limited a lot). Greater limitations in physical functioning were also associated with lower odds of psychotherapy retention (OR 0.69 [0.53, 0.89] for limited a lot) but not for medications (e.g., OR 0.96 [0.79, 1.17] for limited a lot). Role limitations was only associated with initiation of both medications and psychotherapy, but there was no effect gradient (OR 1.38 [1.03, 1.86] for limitations a little or some of the time, and OR 1.18 [0.63, 1.06] for most or all of the time, compared to reference "None of the time"). Accounting for chronic physical health conditions did not attenuate associations between limitations in physical functioning (or role limitations) and PTSD treatment; having more chronic conditions was associated with lower odds of both initiation and retention for all treatments (e.g., for 2 + conditions OR 0.53 [0.41, 0.67] for initiation of psychotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: Greater limitations in physical functioning may be a barrier to psychotherapy initiation and retention. Future interventions addressing physical functioning may enhance uptake of psychotherapy.

Life-space mobility and healthcare costs and utilization in older men.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of life-space score with subsequent healthcare costs and utilization. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study (Osteoporotic Fracture in Men [MrOS]). SETTING: Six U.S. sites. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1555 community-dwelling men (mean age 79.3 years; 91.5% white, non-Hispanic) participating in the MrOS Year 7 (Y7) examination linked with their Medicare claims data. MEASUREMENTS: Life-space during the past month was assessed as 0 (daily restriction to one's bedroom) to 120 (daily trips outside one's town without assistance) and categorized (0-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-120). Total annualized direct healthcare costs and utilization were ascertained during 36 months after the Y7 examination. RESULTS: Mean total annualized costs (2020 U.S. dollars) steadily increased across category of life-space score, from $7954 (standard deviation [SD] 16,576) among men with life-space scores of 101-120 to $26,430 (SD 28,433) among men with life-space scores of 0-40 (p < 0.001). After adjustment for demographics, men with a life-space score of 0-40 versus men with a life-space score of 101-120 had greater mean total costs (cost ratio [CR] = 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.84-3.45) and greater risk of subsequent hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 4.72, 95% CI 2.61-8.53) and skilled nursing facility (SNF) stay (OR 7.32, 95% CI 3.65-14.66). Life-space score was no longer significantly associated with total healthcare costs (CR for 0-40 vs 101-120 1.29; 95% CI 0.91-1.84) and hospitalization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.89-3.51) after simultaneous consideration of demographics, medical factors, self-reported health and function, and the frailty phenotype; the association of life-space with SNF stay remained significant (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.26-6.49). CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the importance of function and mobility in predicting future healthcare costs and suggest the simple and convenient life-space score may in part capture risks from major geriatric domains and improve identification of older, community-dwelling men likely to require costly care.

Major Update: Remdesivir for Adults With COVID-19 : A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians Practice Points.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is being studied and used for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To update a previous review of remdesivir for adults with COVID-19, including new meta-analyses of patients with COVID-19 of any severity compared with control. DATA SOURCES: Several sources from 1 January 2020 through 7 December 2020. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19. New evidence is incorporated by using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: 1 reviewer abstracted data; a second reviewer verified the data. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. DATA SYNTHESIS: The update includes 5 RCTs, incorporating data from a new large RCT and the final results of a previous RCT. Compared with control, a 10-day course of remdesivir probably results in little to no reduction in mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.06]; 4 RCTs) but may result in a small reduction in the proportion of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.71 [CI, 0.56 to 0.90]; 3 RCTs). Remdesivir probably results in a moderate increase in the percentage of patients who recovered and a moderate decrease in serious adverse events and may result in a large reduction in time to recovery. Effect on hospital length of stay or percentage remaining hospitalized is mixed. Compared with a 10-day course for those not requiring ventilation at baseline, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, the need for ventilation, and serious adverse events while increasing the percentage of patients who recovered or clinically improved. LIMITATION: Summarizing findings was challenging because of varying disease severity definitions and outcomes. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably results in little to no mortality difference but probably improves the percentage recovered and reduces serious harms and may result in a small reduction in the proportion receiving ventilation. For patients not receiving ventilation, a 5-day course may provide greater benefits and fewer harms with lower drug costs than a 10-day course. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Remdesivir for Adults With COVID-19 : A Living Systematic Review for American College of Physicians Practice Points.

BACKGROUND: Few treatments exist for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Several databases, tables of contents of journals, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration and company websites were searched from 1 January through 31 August 2020. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized trials of remdesivir treatments for adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. New evidence will be incorporated using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction and risk-of-bias assessment verified by a second reviewer; GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods used for certainty-of-evidence assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four randomized trials were included. In adults with severe COVID-19, remdesivir compared with placebo probably improves recovery by a large amount (absolute risk difference [ARD] range, 7% to 10%) and may result in a small reduction in mortality (ARD range, -4% to 1%) and a shorter time to recovery or clinical improvement. Remdesivir may have little to no effect on hospital length of stay. Remdesivir probably reduces serious adverse events by a moderate amount (ARD range, -6% to -8%). Compared with a 10-day remdesivir course, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, increase recovery or clinical improvement by small to moderate amounts, reduce time to recovery, and reduce serious adverse events among hospitalized patients not requiring mechanical ventilation. Recovery due to remdesivir may not vary by age, sex, symptom duration, or disease severity. LIMITATIONS: Low-certainty evidence with few published trials, including 1 preliminary report and 2 open-label trials. Trials excluded pregnant women and adults with severe kidney or liver disease. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably improves recovery and reduces serious adverse events and may reduce mortality and time to clinical improvement. For adults not receiving mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, a 5-day course of remdesivir may provide similar benefits to and fewer harms than a 10-day course. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service, and Evidence Synthesis Program.

Interventions to Prevent or Delay Long-Term Nursing Home Placement for Adults with Impairments-a Systematic Review of Reviews.

BACKGROUND: With continued growth in the older adult population, US federal and state costs for long-term care services are projected to increase. Recent policy changes have shifted funding to home and community-based services (HCBS), but it remains unclear whether HCBS can prevent or delay long-term nursing home placement (NHP). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (OVID), Sociological Abstracts, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Embase (from inception through September 2018); and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center, and VA Evidence Synthesis Program reports (from inception through November 2018) for English-language systematic reviews. We also sought expert referrals. Eligible reviews addressed HCBS for community-dwelling adults with, or at risk of developing, physical and/or cognitive impairments. Two individuals rated quality (using modified AMSTAR 2) and abstracted review characteristics, including definition of NHP and interventions. From a prioritized subset of the highest-quality and most recent reviews, we abstracted intervention effects and strength of evidence (as reported by review authors). RESULTS: Of 47 eligible reviews, most focused on caregiver support (n = 10), respite care and adult day programs (n = 9), case management (n = 8), and preventive home visits (n = 6). Among 20 prioritized reviews, 12 exclusively included randomized controlled trials, while the rest also included observational studies. Prioritized reviews found no overall benefit or inconsistent effects for caregiver support (n = 2), respite care and adult day programs (n = 3), case management (n = 4), and preventive home visits (n = 2). For caregiver support, case management, and preventive home visits, some reviews highlighted that a few studies of higher-intensity models reduced NHP. Reviews on other interventions (n = 9) generally found a lack of evidence examining NHP. DISCUSSION: Evidence indicated no benefit or inconsistent effects of HCBS in preventing or delaying NHP. Demonstration of substantial impacts on NHP may require longer-term studies of higher-intensity interventions that can be adapted for a variety of settings. Registration PROSPERO # CRD42018116198.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Complex Interventions to Meet the Needs of VA Stakeholders: Experience of the Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program.

BACKGROUND: Complex health care interventions involve multiple distinct elements that contribute to their functioning. Conducting systematic reviews of complex interventions has substantial challenges. Although methodological guidance exists, less is known about the practical strategies and approaches undertaken by systematic review groups to navigate common challenges and enhance impacts of systematic review findings. OBJECTIVES: Describe pragmatic approaches taken by Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Programs (VA ESP) in conducting systematic reviews of effectiveness and implementation barriers and facilitators for complex interventions to provide VA stakeholders with evidence to guide national health care practice and policy. RESULTS: We describe 3 systematic reviews conducted by VA ESP teams to evaluate the evidence for complex health care interventions. We summarize key findings, implications for future research needs and policy, dissemination of findings, and approaches taken to address common challenges. The VA ESP experience adds to existing systematic review methods and provides a perspective on generating rigorous and relevant reviews of complex interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Reviews of complex interventions often encounter challenges related to sources of variability in many dimensions, and lack of clarity and information in reporting of intervention elements, local context, and implementation factors. Evidence synthesis teams should work closely with stakeholders to understand their needs, synthesize and interpret results in meaningful ways, and explore implications that are most relevant for day-to-day clinical practice and operational decisions of learning health care systems. More evaluation of the impact of systematic reviews may improve uptake of findings from future reviews and enhance translation of evidence into practice and policy.

Enrollment and Retention of Men and Women in Health Services Research and Development Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Sex- and gender-specific science is essential to inform patient-centered, evidence-based care. Developing such evidence requires adequate inclusion of both women and men in trials. We sought to describe study participation of women and men in Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development trials. METHODS: We identified recent health services research trials from one Health Services Research and Development Center of Innovation and compared the participation of women and men from trial recruitment to study completion. We also calculated the participation to prevalence ratio (PPR) by sex for each trial. RESULTS: We included eight trials that started recruitment between 2011 and 2014. Only one study purposefully attempted to boost the recruitment of women. Overall, the PPR for women ranged from 0.2 to 4.5, with seven studies having a PPR of greater than 1, indicating that women participated in these trials at proportions greater than their prevalence in the disease population within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The PPR for men ranged from 0.8 to 1.1. Retention was best with those studies that used administrative data for final outcomes assessment. No studies provided results stratified by sex or conducted analyses to explore treatment effect by sex. CONCLUSIONS: At a single site, women participated in Health Services Research and Development trials at similar or greater rates to men without cross-study efforts to enrich the recruitment or retention of women. Adding strategic recruitment approaches could further boost the proportion of women in Department of Veterans Affairs trials and enable adequately powered sex-based analyses.

Hospitalization-Associated Change in Gait Speed and Risk of Functional Limitations for Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization-associated functional decline is a common problem for older adults, but it is unclear how hospitalizations affect physical performance measures such as gait speed. We sought to determine hospitalization-associated change in gait speed and likelihood of new limitations in mobility and activities of daily living (ADLs). METHODS: We used longitudinal data over 5 years from the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study, a prospective cohort of black and white community-dwelling men and women, aged 70-79 years, who had no limitations in mobility (difficulty walking 1/4 mile or climbing 10 steps) or ADLs (transferring, bathing, dressing, and eating) at baseline. Gait speed, and new self-reported limitations in mobility and ADLs were assessed annually. Selected participants (n = 2,963) had no limitations at the beginning of each 1-year interval. Hospitalizations were self-reported every 6 months and verified with medical record data. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine hospitalization-associated change in gait speed and odds of new limitations over each 1-year interval. Fully adjusted models included demographics, hospitalization within the past year, health conditions, symptoms, body mass index, and health-related behaviors. RESULTS: In fully adjusted models, any hospitalization was associated with decrease in gait speed (-0.04 m/s; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.05 to -0.03) and higher odds of new limitations in mobility or ADLs (odds ratio = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.70-2.28), and separately with increased odds of new mobility limitation (odds ratio = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.90-2.60) and new ADL limitations (odds ratio = 1.84, 95% CI: 1.53-2.21). Multiple hospitalizations within a year were associated with gait speed decline (-0.06 m/s; 95% CI: -0.08 to -0.04) and greater odds of new limitations in mobility or ADLs (odds ratio = 2.96, 95% CI: 2.23-3.95). CONCLUSIONS: Functionally independent older adults experienced hospitalization-associated declines in gait speed and new limitations in mobility and ADLs.

Evidence Review-Social Determinants of Health for Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is committed to providing high-quality care and addressing health disparities for vulnerable Veterans. To meet these goals, VA policymakers need guidance on how to address social determinants in operations planning and day-to-day clinical care for Veterans. METHOD: MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts were searched from inception to January 2017. Additional articles were suggested by peer reviewers and/or found through search of work associated with US and VA cohorts. Eligible articles compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and/or Veterans engaged with those not engaged in VA healthcare. Our evidence maps summarized study characteristics, social determinant(s) addressed, and whether health behaviors, health services utilization, and/or health outcomes were examined. Qualitative syntheses and quality assessment were performed for articles on rurality, trauma exposure, and sexual orientation. RESULTS: We screened 7242 citations and found 131 eligible articles-99 compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and 40 included engaged vs non-engaged Veterans. Most articles were cross-sectional and addressed socioeconomic factors (e.g., education and income). Fewer articles addressed rurality (N = 20), trauma exposure (N = 17), or sexual orientation (N = 2); none examined gender identity. We found no differences in rural residence between Veterans and non-Veterans, nor between engaged and non-engaged Veterans (moderate strength evidence). There was insufficient evidence for role of rurality in health behaviors, health services utilization, or health outcomes. Trauma exposures, including from events preceding military service, were more prevalent for Veterans vs non-Veterans and for engaged vs non-engaged Veterans (low-strength evidence); exposures were associated with smoking (low-strength evidence). DISCUSSION: Little published literature exists on some emerging social determinants. We found no differences in rural residence between our groups of interest, but trauma exposure was higher in Veterans (vs non-Veterans) and engaged (vs non-engaged). We recommend consistent measures for social determinants, clear conceptual frameworks, and analytic strategies that account for the complex relationships between social determinants and health.

12-month trajectories of depressive symptoms among nurses-Contribution of personality, job characteristics, coping, and burnout.

BACKGROUND: Job related factors have been associated with higher risk for developing depression, but past studies lacked full consideration of individual factors such as personality and coping. We sought to evaluate associations of personality, coping, job characteristics, and burnout with 12-month trajectories of depressive symptoms among nursing workers. METHODS: Cohort of nursing workers (N = 281) in a private hospital system, with baseline assessments of personality, job characteristics, and coping. Burnout and depression were measured at baseline and during monthly follow-ups. Linear mixed modeling was used to examine contributions to between- and within-individual variation in monthly depressive symptoms. RESULTS: Personality trait of negative affectivity accounted for 36% of between-individual variation in depressive symptoms over 12 months, while job characteristics and coping explained an additional 5% and 8% of this variation, respectively. Exhaustion dimension of burnout was associated with between-individual variation in depressive symptoms (fixed effect ß coefficient 2.44, p < 0.001), but not with within-individual variation in symptoms. Disengagement dimension of burnout was not associated with between-individual variation in depressive symptoms, but contributed to within-individual variation in depressive symptoms over time (fixed effect ß coefficient 0.52, p = 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Participants were nursing workers within a single hospital system. Participants who were excluded due to missing baseline data were more likely of non-white race, which may also limit the generalizability of our results. We used latent variables to represent certain job and coping characteristics, which may make our results less comparable with other studies examining the role of these factors in work-associated depression. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions to prevent depression in healthcare workers should consider multiple job and individual factors. Potential components include strategies to manage negative affectivity and reduce avoidant coping, such as cognitive reframing and mindfulness-based techniques, and organizational approaches to address burnout through augmentation of job resources.

Internet Use and Technology-Related Attitudes of Veterans and Informal Caregivers of Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are interested in technology-enhanced interventions to improve patient access and outcomes. However, there is uncertainty about feasibility and acceptability for groups who may benefit but are at risk for disparities in technology use. Thus, we sought to describe characteristics of Internet use and technology-related attitudes for two such groups: (1) Veterans with multi-morbidity and high acute care utilization and (2) informal caregivers of Veterans with substantial care needs at home. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used survey data from two ongoing trials, for 423 Veteran and 169 caregiver participants, respectively. Questions examined Internet use in the past year, willingness to communicate via videoconferencing, and comfort with new technology devices. RESULTS: Most participants used Internet in the past year (81% of Veterans, 82% of caregivers); the majority of users (83% of Veterans, 92% of caregivers) accessed Internet at least a few times a week, and used a private laptop or computer (81% of Veterans, 89% of caregivers). Most were willing to use videoconferencing via private devices (77-83%). A majority of participants were comfortable attempting to use new devices with in-person assistance (80% of Veterans, 85% of caregivers), whereas lower proportions were comfortable "on your own" (58-59% for Veterans and caregivers). Internet use was associated with comfort with new technology devices (odds ratio 2.76, 95% confidence interval 1.70-4.53). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that technology-enhanced healthcare interventions are feasible and acceptable for Veterans with multi-morbidity and high healthcare utilization, and informal caregivers of Veterans. In-person assistance may be important for those with no recent Internet use.

Risk stratification for return emergency department visits among high-risk patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare 2 methods of identifying patients at high-risk of repeat emergency department (ED) use: high Care Assessment Need (CAN) score (≥90), derived from a model using Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data, and "Super User" status, defined as more than 3 ED visits within 6 months of the index ED visit. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Using McNemar's test, we compared rates of high-risk classification between CAN score and Super User status. We examined differences in patient characteristics and healthcare utilization across 4 levels of risk classification: high CAN and Super User status (n = 198), CAN <90 and non-Super User (n = 622), high CAN and non-Super User (n = 616), or Super User and CAN score <90 (n = 106). We used logistic regression to identify associations between risk classification and any ED visit within 90 days. RESULTS: Of 1542 veterans, 52.8% (n = 814) had a CAN score ≥90 and 19.7% (n = 304) were Super Users (P <.0001), indicating discrepant rates of high-risk classification. However, we found no differences in patient characteristics. Rates of subsequent ED use were high: 63.1% of patients had 1 or more ED visits. No levels of risk classification were associated with subsequent ED use within 90 days (P = .25). CONCLUSIONS: Among the VHA users with multimorbidity and 3 or more prior ED visits or hospitalizations, subsequent ED use was high. Although CAN scores have demonstrated utility for predicting hospitalizations and deaths, prior utilization and multimorbidity without further risk classification identified a high-risk group for repeat ED use.