Acceptability of a sitting reduction intervention for older adults with obesity.

BACKGROUND: Older adults spend more time sitting than any other age group, contributing to poor health outcomes. Effective behavioral interventions are needed to encourage less sitting among older adults, specifically those with obesity, but these programs must be acceptable to the target population. We explored participant acceptance of a theory-based and technology-enhanced sitting reduction intervention designed for older adults (I-STAND). METHODS: The 12-week I-STAND intervention consisted of 6 health coaching contacts, a study workbook, a Jawbone UP band to remind participants to take breaks from sitting, and feedback on sitting behaviors (generated from wearing an activPAL device for 7 days at the beginning and mid-point of the study). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 participants after they completed the intervention. Interview transcripts were iteratively coded by a team, and thematic analysis was used to identify and refine emerging themes. RESULTS: Overall, participants were satisfied with the I-STAND intervention, thought the sedentary behavior goals of the intervention were easy to incorporate, and found the technologies to be helpful additions to (but not substitutes for) health coaching. Barriers to standing more included poor health, ingrained sedentary habits, lack of motivation to change sedentary behavior, and social norms that dictate when it is appropriate to sit/stand. Facilitators to standing more included increased awareness of sitting, a sense of accountability, daily activities that involved standing, social support, and changing ways of interacting in the home environment. Participants reported that the intervention improved physical health, increased energy, increased readiness to engage in physical activity, improved mood, and reduced stress. CONCLUSIONS: The technology-enhanced sedentary behavior reduction intervention was acceptable, easy to incorporate, and had a positive perceived health impact on older adults with obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The I-STAND study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT02692560 ) February 2016.

Evaluation of the Safer Use of Antipsychotics in Youth Study on Population Level Antipsychotic Initiation: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

Background: Antipsychotics carry a higher-risk profile than other psychotropic medications and may be prescribed for youth with conditions in which other first-line treatments are more appropriate. This study aimed to evaluate the population-level effect of the Safer Use of Antipsychotics in Youth (SUAY) trial, which aimed to reduce person-days of antipsychotic use among participants. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using segmented regression to measure changes in prescribing trends of antipsychotic initiation rates pre-SUAY and post-SUAY trial at four U.S. health systems between 2013 and 2020. Results: In our overall model, adjusted for age and insurance type, antipsychotic initiation rates decreased by 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30, 1.16, p = 0.002) prescriptions per 10,000 person-months before the SUAY trial. In the first quarter following the start of the trial, there was an immediate decrease in the rate of antipsychotic initiations of 6.57 (95% CI: 0.99, 12.15) prescriptions per 10,000 person-months. When comparing the posttrial period to the pretrial period, there was an increase of 1.09 (95% CI: 0.32, 1.85) prescriptions per 10,000 person-months, but the increasing rate in the posttrial period alone was not statistically significant (0.36 prescriptions per 10,000 person-months, 95% CI: -0.27, 0.99). Conclusion: The declining trend of antipsychotic initiation seen between 2013 and 2018 (pre-SUAY trial) may have naturally reached a level at which prescribing was clinically warranted and appropriate, resulting in a floor effect. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in the final three quarters of the posttrial period, may also be related to increased antipsychotic medication initiation.

Changes in Self-Reported Health and Psychosocial Outcomes in Older Adults Enrolled in Sedentary Behavior Intervention Study.

PURPOSE: To estimate changes in self-reported health and psychosocial factors associated with a 12-week sedentary behavior intervention for older adults. DESIGN: Exploratory secondary analysis of pilot randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Washington. SUBJECTS: Sixty adults aged 60 to 89 with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to the I-STAND intervention or control group. I-STAND involved 6 coaching sessions, a study workbook, Jawbone UP activity tracker to prompt breaks from sitting, and activPAL feedback on objective sitting time. MEASURES: At baseline and 12-week follow-up, participants completed a survey with validated measures of self-reported health outcomes (depression, stress, memory/concentration, sleep, pain, ability to do daily activities, energy, and quality of life) and modified scales measuring psychosocial factors (perceived benefits/barriers, social support, self-efficacy, and sedentary habit strength) regarding sedentary behavior. ANALYSIS: Generalized linear models assessed associations between group assignment and change in each self-reported health and psychosocial score, adjusting for baseline scores. RESULTS: I-STAND participants demonstrated improvements in self-efficacy (ß = 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10 to 0.60) and reduced habit strength (ß= -0.23, 95% CI: -0.42 to -0.04) compared to control participants. There were no significant differences in self-reported health outcomes, although power was limited in this exploratory analysis. CONCLUSION: A sedentary behavior reduction intervention for older adults resulted in improvements for some psychosocial factors. Health outcomes may require longer than 12 weeks to observe improvements.

Systematic Multi-Domain Alzheimer's Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT): Study Protocol.

This article describes the protocol for the Systematic Multi-domain Alzheimer's Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT), a single-blind randomized pilot trial to test a personalized, pragmatic, multi-domain Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk reduction intervention in a US integrated healthcare delivery system. Study participants will be 200 higher-risk older adults (age 70-89 years with subjective cognitive complaints, low normal performance on cognitive screen, and ≥ two modifiable risk factors targeted by our intervention) who will be recruited from selected primary care clinics of Kaiser Permanente Washington, oversampling people with non-white race or Hispanic ethnicity. Study participants will be randomly assigned to a two-year Alzheimer's risk reduction intervention (SMARRT) or a Health Education (HE) control. Randomization will be stratified by clinic, race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white versus non-white or Hispanic), and age (70-79, 80-89). Participants randomized to the SMARRT group will work with a behavioral coach and nurse to develop a personalized plan related to their risk factors (poorly controlled hypertension, diabetes with evidence of hyper or hypoglycemia, depressive symptoms, poor sleep quality, contraindicated medications, physical inactivity, low cognitive stimulation, social isolation, poor diet, smoking). Participants in the HE control group will be mailed general health education information about these risk factors for AD. The primary outcome is two-year cognitive change on a cognitive test composite score. Secondary outcomes include: 1) improvement in targeted risk factors, 2) individual cognitive domain composite scores, 3) physical performance, 4) functional ability, 5) quality of life, and 6) incidence of mild cognitive impairment, AD, and dementia. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed in both groups at baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.

Awareness and uptake of direct-to-consumer genetic testing among cancer cases, their relatives, and controls: the Northwest Cancer Genetics Network.

AIMS: To determine if awareness of, interest in, and use of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing is greater in a sample of high-risk individuals (cancer cases and their relatives), compared to controls. METHODS: Participants were recruited from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Network. A follow-up survey was mailed to participants to assess DTC genetic testing awareness, interest, and use. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred sixty-seven participants responded to the survey. Forty-nine percent of respondents were aware of DTC genetic testing. Of those aware, 19% indicated interest in obtaining and <1% reported having used DTC genetic testing. Additional information supplied by respondents who reported use of DTC genetic tests indicated that 55% of these respondents likely engaged in clinical genetic testing, rather than DTC genetic testing. CONCLUSION: Awareness of DTC genetic testing was greater in our sample of high-risk individuals than in controls and population-based studies. Although interest in and use of these tests among cases in our sample were equivalent to other population-based studies, interest in testing was higher among relatives and people who self-referred for a registry focused on cancer than among cases and controls. Additionally, our results suggest that there may be some confusion about what constitutes DTC genetic testing.