A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between e-cigarette use among non-tobacco users and initiating smoking of combustible cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid increase in e-cigarette use over the past decade has triggered an important public health question on the potential association between e-cigarette use and combustible cigarette smoking. Following AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA guidelines, this evidence synthesis sought to identify and characterize any associations between e-cigarette use among individuals not smoking cigarettes and initiation of cigarette smoking. METHODS: The protocol was registered on September 24, 2018 (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018108540). Three databases were queried from January 01, 2007 to April 26, 2023. Search results were screened using the PICOS review method. RESULTS: Among 55 included studies (40 "good" and 15 "fair"; evidence grade: "high") that adjusted for gender, age, and race/ethnicity between groups, generally, there was a significant association between non-regular e-cigarette use and initiation of cigarette smoking, further supported by the meta-analytic results (AOR 3.71; 95% CI 2.86-4.81). However, smoking initiation was most often measured as ever/current cigarette smoking. Two studies (quality: 2 "good") evaluated progression to regular cigarette smoking among individuals with regular use of e-cigarettes, and generally found no significant associations. One study ("good") evaluated smoking initiation among individuals with regular use of e-cigarettes, finding an increasing probability of ever smoking cigarettes with increased e-cigarette use. Twelve studies (10 "good" and two "fair") examining progression to regular smoking among individuals with non-regular use of e-cigarettes reported inconsistent findings. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous methodological flaws in the body of literature limit the generalizability of these results to all individuals who are not smoking cigarettes with few studies measuring established/regular use/smoking of e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Further, studies did not control adequately for specific confounding variables representing common liabilities between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking, nor did they account for sufficient follow-up durations. Collectively, these flaws limit the generalizability of findings to the question of an association between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking initiation.

Reporting and methodological quality of systematic literature reviews evaluating the associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors: a systematic quality review.

INTRODUCTION: Several published systematic reviews have examined the potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking, but their methodological and/or reporting quality have not yet been assessed. This systematic quality review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2 to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews investigating potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from 01 January 2007 to 24 June 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and reporting quality was assessed using PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Of 331 potentially relevant systematic reviews, 20 met predefined inclusion criteria. Most reviews (n = 15; 75%) reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking cessation, while three reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking initiation (15%); and two reported on cigarette smoking initiation and cessation (10%). According to AMSTAR 2 guidelines, 18 of the 20 reviews (90%) were "critically low" in overall confidence of the results, while two were ranked "low." Additionally, reporting quality varied across the reviews, with only 60% reporting at least half of the PRISMA items. DISCUSSION: Methodological limitations were identified across reviews examining potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors, indicating that findings from these reviews should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Future systematic reviews in this field should strive to adhere to AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA guidelines, to provide high quality syntheses of the available data with transparent and complete reporting.

Healing With CAARE: An Oasis of Care in the Changing Landscape of Translational Science.

There is increasing interest in understanding the impact of clinical and behavioral interventions in real-world settings. In this commentary, we draw on our experiences as partners in community engagement research to illustrate its effectiveness and practicality to reach and serve marginalized individuals across a spectrum of needs.

Pharmacotherapy for adults with alcohol use disorders in outpatient settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Alcohol use disorders cause substantial morbidity and early mortality yet remain greatly undertreated. Medications are considerably underused. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits and harms of medications (US FDA-approved and others) for adults with alcohol use disorders. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, FDA website, and clinical trials registries (January 1, 1970, to March 1, 2014). STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with at least 12 weeks' duration that reported eligible outcomes and head-to-head prospective cohort studies reporting health outcomes or harms. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models and calculated numbers needed to treat for benefit (NNTs) or harm (NNHs). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Alcohol consumption, motor vehicle crashes, injuries, quality of life, function, mortality, and harms. RESULTS: We included 122 RCTs and 1 cohort study (total 22,803 participants). Most assessed acamprosate (27 studies, n = 7519), naltrexone (53 studies, n = 9140), or both. The NNT to prevent return to any drinking for acamprosate was 12 (95% CI, 8 to 26; risk difference [RD], -0.09; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.04) and was 20 (95% CI, 11 to 500; RD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.002) for oral naltrexone (50 mg/d). The NNT to prevent return to heavy drinking was 12 (95% CI, 8 to 26; RD -0.09; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.04) for oral naltrexone (50 mg/d). Meta-analyses of trials comparing acamprosate to naltrexone found no statistically significant difference between them for return to any drinking (RD, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.08) or heavy drinking (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.06). For injectable naltrexone, meta-analyses found no association with return to any drinking (RD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.03) or heavy drinking (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.13) but found an association with reduction in heavy drinking days (weighted mean difference [WMD], -4.6%; 95% CI, -8.5% to -0.56%). Among medications used off-label, moderate evidence supports an association with improvement in some consumption outcomes for nalmefene (heavy drinking days per month: WMD, -2.0; 95% CI, -3.0 to -1.0; drinks per drinking day: WMD, -1.02; 95% CI, -1.77 to -0.28) and topiramate (% heavy drinking days: WMD, -9.0%; 95% CI, -15.3% to -2.7%; drinks per drinking day: WMD, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.48). For naltrexone and nalmefene, NNHs for withdrawal from trials due to adverse events were 48 (95% CI, 30 to 112) and 12 (95% CI, 7 to 50), respectively; risk was not significantly increased for acamprosate or topiramate. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both acamprosate and oral naltrexone were associated with reduction in return to drinking. When directly compared with one another, no significant differences were found between acamprosate and naltrexone for controlling alcohol consumption. Factors such as dosing frequency, potential adverse events, and availability of treatments may guide medication choice.

Examining characteristics of congregation members willing to attend health promotion in African American churches.

BACKGROUND: Although churches are an important partner for improving health within the African American community, it is not known how congregants are best reached by health promotion activities and thus how best to target members in recruitment. This study examined how characteristics of churches and congregants' beliefs and interests in faith-based health promotion related to their willingness to attend church-based health promotion activities. METHOD: We surveyed adult congregants (n = 1,204) of 11 predominately African American churches in North Carolina. Surveys collected data within four domains: demographics (age, sex, education), behavioral (church attendance, respondent food choices, and physical activity), cognitive (church-based health promotion belief, Bible-based healthy living interest, healthy living resource interest), or environmental (family health, church travel distance, church health ministry activity, church members' food choices). Analyses used a dichotomous outcome, interest in attending programs offered by the health ministry. Domain-specific models were constructed. Logistic generalized estimating equations adjusted for clustering. RESULTS: Of the 1,204 congregants, 72% were female, 57% were 50 years or older, 84% had a high school education or more, and 77% had a chronic health condition. In bivariate analyses and in models adjusting for all four domains, cognitive factors had the highest odds of willingness to attend. CONCLUSION: Congregants' belief in the church's role in health promotion and their desire to learn about healthy behaviors highlight the role of the African American church as a partner in addressing health disparities and the need to capitalize on this expectation through stronger partnerships between medical and faith communities.

Participating in research: attitudes within the African American church.

We assessed associations between pastor and congregant characteristics and congregant attitudes about research participation among African American churches. Respondents shared their attitudes regarding how willing, ready, and confident they were about research participation. The outcome measure, the index of research preparedness, summed responses across the domains of willingness, readiness, and confidence. Pastor age and pastor educational attainment were independently associated with a congregants' higher index of research preparedness. Young and educated pastors were significantly associated with congregant attitudes about participation preparedness, a finding that highlights the importance of the pastor regarding congregant research participation decisions.

A Systematic Review Investigating Associations Between E-Cigarette Use Among Former Cigarette Smokers and Relapse to Smoking Cigarettes.

As e-cigarette use has steadily increased over the recent years, the public health interest in the potential implications of e-cigarette use on cigarette smoking has grown in parallel. With strict adherence to PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review examined the potential associations between e-cigarette use and relapse to cigarette smoking among former cigarette smokers. The protocol was registered on November 06, 2018 (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018115674). Literature searches were executed from January 01, 2007 to August 20, 2022 and search results were screened according to the PICOS review method. One RCT and 10 adjusted studies examined relapse to cigarette smoking (evidence grade "moderate") among regular e-cigarette users, reporting mixed and inconsistent findings according to varying definitions of e-cigarette use and relapse. Findings were similarly inconsistent among the 8 adjusted studies examining relapse to cigarette smoking among non-regular e-cigarette users. The inconsistency in findings among studies evaluating regular measures of e-cigarette use, combined with the numerous methodological flaws in the overall body of literature, limit the generalizability of results associated with a causal association between e-cigarette use and relapse to cigarette smoking. Based on findings from this review, more robust studies are required to determine whether a causal association exists between e-cigarette use and relapse to cigarette smoking. Future studies should apply consistent measures of regular e-cigarette use to examine causality with future use patterns, and sufficiently account for known or suspected confounding variables to support inform determinations related to e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors.

Study title: A systematic review of RCTs to examine the risk of adverse cardiovascular events with nicotine use.

Associations between cigarette smoking and increased risk of cardiovascular disease are well established. However, it is unclear whether the association is mediated by exposure to nicotine and/or to other constituents in cigarette smoke. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) was to identify any potential associations between exposure to nicotine and the risk of clinically diagnosed adverse cardiovascular events in adult current users and nonusers of tobacco products. Among 1,996 results, 42 studies, comparing nicotine and non-nicotine groups, were included and were both qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized across the outcomes of arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death. The majority of studies evaluating nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death reported no events that occurred in either the nicotine or non-nicotine control groups. Among the studies that reported events, rates of adverse events were similarly low between both groups. Consistent with findings from previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, pooled data showed that rates for arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death were not significantly different between nicotine and non-nicotine groups. The overall quality of the body of evidence for each of the four outcomes of interest was graded as "moderate," limited only by the imprecision of results. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that, with moderate certainty, there are no significant associations between the use of nicotine and the risk of clinically diagnosed adverse cardiovascular events-specifically, arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death.

A systematic review of preclinical studies evaluating the association between nicotine and the initiation and progression of cancer.

Background: The association between cigarette smoking and the increased risk of many cancers is well established. Conversely, epidemiological studies of smokeless tobacco demonstrate decreased risk, or no elevated risk, of certain cancers versus smoking. However, it is unclear what role, if any, nicotine plays in these associations. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the available evidence from preclinical studies that examined the potential association between nicotine and the initiation and/or progression of cancer. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for articles published from inception until February 13, 2022. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated animal cancer or tumor models, compared nicotine and non-nicotine groups, and evaluated measures of cancer initiation or progression. Results: Among 1,137 identified articles, 61 were included in qualitative synthesis. Twelve studies reported data on tumor initiation, and 54 studies reported data on tumor progression. The majority of the tumor initiation studies did not identify an association between nicotine exposure and an increased risk of spontaneous tumor initiation. Results of tumor progression studies were inconsistent and varied across the reported measures, cancer type being evaluated, and animal cancer model used. Overall, the quality of reporting was poor, with many studies not demonstrating a high level of internal and/or external validity. Conclusions: In conclusion, although animal models have provided invaluable data for human health risk assessments of chemical exposures, the heterogeneity across the studies included in this systematic review make the interpretation and generalizability of the results difficult.

Assessing the Evidence on the Differential Impact of Menthol versus Non-menthol Cigarette Use on Initiation and Progression to Regular Smoking: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Despite numerous assessments of the public health impact of menthol cigarettes, a rigorous synthesis related to menthol cigarettes and behavioral outcomes is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the question: Does menthol cigarette use have a differential impact on initiation and progression to regular smoking compared to non-menthol cigarette use? Methods: We consulted 6 databases from their inception to October 15, 2021. We included articles comparing menthol versus non-menthol smokers among 4 predefined smoking initiation and progression outcomes. We assessed risk of bias was using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-Based Practice Center approach. We applied a random-effects model to pool adjusted odds ratios. Results: We qualitatively synthesized 16 adjusted studies across the outcomes. Results from one meta-analysis suggested no difference between menthol and non-menthol smokers in likelihood to report daily versus non-daily smoking. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis did not identify a consistent, statistically significant, or differential association between menthol use and progression to regular smoking. Varying definitions of outcome measures and lack of longitudinal evidence limited the confident conclusions that could be drawn from this evidence base.

Assessing the Evidence on the Differential Impact of Menthol versus Non-menthol Cigarette Use on Smoking Dependence in the US Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Menthol's effect on cigarette smoking behaviors is an intensely scrutinized US public health issue. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the question: Does menthol cigarette use have a differential impact on smoking dependence compared with non-menthol cigarette use? Methods: We consulted 6 databases from inception to October 15, 2021. We included articles comparing menthol versus non-menthol cigarette smokers against predefined smoking dependence outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the AHRQ Evidence-Based Practice Center approach. We applied a random-effects model to pool adjusted odds ratios. Results: We synthesized 37 demographically adjusted studies. Meta-analytic results suggested non-menthol smokers were equally/more likely to report daily versus non-daily smoking; menthol use was associated with needing a cigarette within one hour; cigarettes per day was not associated with menthol use; menthol use was associated with a low (vs high) Heaviness of Smoking Index score; and results were either non-significant or associated menthol use with lower TTFC. Conclusions: Despite consistently good or fair quality adjusted studies across several measures, results were discordant depending on measures used and means of measurement. Overall, the evidence is insufficient to draw clear conclusions on a differential association between menthol (vs non-menthol) cigarette use and smoking dependence.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association between E-cigarette Use among Cigarette Smokers and Quit Attempts Made to Abstain from Cigarette Smoking.

Objective: Following AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA guidelines, in this synthesis of evidence we sought to identify and characterize any associations between e-cigarette use among cigarette smokers and cigarette smoking quit attempts. Methods: We queried 3 databases from January 1, 2007 to January 5, 2021. Search results were screened using the PICOS review method. Included studies examined e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking quit attempts across e-cigarette use statuses. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-Based Practice Center approach. Finally, 4 random-effects models compared e-cigarette users and non- e-cigarette-users in terms of past year and prospective (6 to 12 months) cigarette smoking quit attempts. Results: We qualitatively synthesized 17 adjusted studies for this review. Two meta-analyses showed past year quit attempts were significantly associated with current e-cigarette users and 2 prospective data analyses found no significant association. Conclusions: The results of the meta- analyses emphasize temporality in the association between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking quit attempts. Numerous methodological limitations, including inadequate definitions of e-cigarette use and non-adjustment for confounding variables, limit the confidence in conclusions that can be drawn on the causal association between e-cigarette use and cigarettes smoking quit attempts.

Predicting glaucoma diagnosis in an elderly sample: revisiting the established populations for epidemiologic studies of the elderly.

UNLABELLED: Though research has examined race as an important factor in defining the scope of glaucoma in the United States, further exploration into other specific factors may help inform the design of preventive services to decrease rates of blindness due to glaucoma among minority groups. METHODS: This study examined glaucoma diagnosis among a sample of elderly patients from the North Carolina Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly. RESULTS: Caucasians without diabetes are more likely to have a glaucoma diagnosis. In contrast, having diabetes was a marginally significant predictor of a glaucoma diagnosis among African American study participants. CONCLUSION: Identifying individual-level characteristics and different service-level issues that underlie specific ethnic groups may help to develop more precisely targeted interventions to improve a full range of health care services for elderly patients.

Assessing the evidence on the differential impact of menthol versus non-menthol cigarette use on smoking cessation in the U.S. population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The potential impact of menthol versus non-menthol cigarette use on smoking behaviors is an intensely scrutinized topic in the public health arena. To date, several general literature reviews have been conducted, but findings and conclusions have been discordant. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines to examine the Key Question, "Does menthol cigarette use have a differential impact on smoking cessation compared with non-menthol cigarette use?" METHODS: Six databases-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo-were queried from inception to June 12, 2020. Articles comparing menthol versus non-menthol cigarette smokers in terms of at least one predefined smoking cessation outcome were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-Based Practice Center approach. A random-effects model utilizing the DerSimonian and Laird method to pool adjusted odds ratio was applied. Variations among pooled studies were assessed using Cochran's Q statistic, and heterogeneity was quantified using the inconsistency index (I2). RESULTS: Forty-three demographically adjusted studies (22 rated "good", 20 rated "fair", and one study rated "poor" individual study quality) comparing menthol and non-menthol smokers were qualitatively synthesized across the following measures (study count; strength of evidence): duration of abstinence (2; low); quit attempts (15; insufficient); rate of abstinence/quitting (29; moderate); change in smoking quantity/frequency (5; insufficient); and, return to smoking/relapse (2; insufficient). Overall, the qualitative synthesis failed to show a consistent trend for an association between menthol cigarette use and smoking cessation across outcomes. Meta-analyses found no difference between menthol and non-menthol cigarette use and either quit attempts or abstinence. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of consistency or statistical significance in the findings-combined with a "low" overall strength of evidence grade, based on deficiencies of indirectness and inconsistency-no consistent or significant associations between menthol cigarette use and smoking cessation were identified. Recommendations for future studies include increased focus on providing longitudinal, adjusted data collected from standardized outcome measures of cessation to better inform long-term smoking cessation and menthol cigarette use. Such improvements should also be further considered in more methodologically rigorous systematic reviews characterized by objectivity, comprehensiveness, and transparency with the ultimate objective of better informing public health and policy decision making.

Trust in Community-Engaged Research Partnerships: A Methodological Overview of Designing a Multisite Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Initiative.

Community-engaged research (CEnR) builds on the strengths of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) framework to address health in underserved and minority communities. There is a paucity of studies that identify the process from which trust develops in CEnR partnerships. This study responds to the need for empirical investigation of building and maintaining trust from a multistakeholder perspective. We conducted a multi-institutional pilot study using concept mapping with to better understand how trust, a critical outcome of CEnR partnerships, can act as "social capital." Concept mapping was used to collect data from the three stakeholder groups: community, health-care, and academic research partners across three CTSAs. Concept mapping is a mixed-methods approach that allows participants to brainstorm and identify factors that contribute to a concept and describe ways in which those factors relate to each other. This study offers important insights on developing an initial set of trust measures that can be used across CTSAs to understand differences and similarities in conceptualization of trust among key stakeholder groups, track changes in public trust in research, identify both positive and negative aspects of trust, identify characteristics that maintain trust, and inform the direction for future research.

Effect of ropinirole on sleep outcomes in patients with restless legs syndrome: meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from randomized controlled trials.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of ropinirole with those of placebo on sleep, as evaluated by specific domains of the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) sleep scale, as well as the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale, in patients with restless legs syndrome (RLS). DESIGN: Meta-analysis of six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials conducted in the United States and Europe. PATIENTS: A total of 1679 patients aged 18-79 years with primary moderate-to-severe RLS who received ropinirole (835 patients) or placebo (844 patients). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A systematic review of MEDLINE (January 1980-January 2007) and clinical trial registers was performed to identify placebo-controlled trials of ropinirole that used the 12-item MOS sleep scale to assess sleep in patients with RLS. Individual patient data from both published and nonpublished trials were pooled for meta-analysis. In the eligible studies, immediate-release ropinirole 0.25-6 mg or placebo had been given for at least 12 weeks. In addition, sleep scale summary scores for the domains of sleep quantity, adequacy, disturbance, and daytime somnolence had to have been assessed at baseline and at 12 weeks. Our meta-analysis found that at baseline study patients slept an average of 5.8 hours/night. At the end of 12 weeks, ropinirole-treated patients slept a mean of 2.5 hours/week more and had a 21% greater improvement from baseline in sleep adequacy scores compared with patients receiving placebo. Ropinirole-treated patients also had 14% less sleep disturbance and 8% less daytime somnolence than patients receiving placebo. Clinicians rated 63% of ropinirole-treated patients and 47% of patients receiving placebo as responders based on the CGI-I scale. Mixed effects analysis of covariance was used to estimate treatment effect adjusting for study center as a random effect, as well as the following fixed effects known to affect sleep: baseline sleep characteristics, age, sex, and chronic medical conditions. All differences were statistically significant (p<0.05), even after adjusting for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Pooled data from six similarly designed clinical trials provide evidence that ropinirole improves sleep quantity and adequacy, and lessens sleep disturbance and daytime somnolence in patients with primary RLS.

Comparison of methods to assess medication adherence and classify nonadherence.

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is suboptimal, and clinicians and researchers struggle with identifying nonadherent patients. Various measures of medication adherence exist, but there is controversy regarding which measures provide acceptable data and how nonadherence should be defined. OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement among patient self-report, pharmacy refill, and electronic adherence measures and compare the sensitivity and specificity of different cut-points for defining nonadherence. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 2 similarly designed randomized controlled trials that assessed a pharmacist's intervention to improve medication adherence among patients with hypertension or heart failure. For each participant, adherence was measured by patient self-report, prescription refill records, and electronic lids on medication containers. Agreement among measures was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient rho. Correlation coefficients were compared by patient characteristics using Fisher's Z transformation. The sensitivity and specificity of different cut-points for defining nonadherence were calculated. RESULTS: Median adherence was 84% for self-report, 86% for electronic, and 91% for prescription refill adherence measurement. Refill and electronic adherence demonstrated the best agreement among measures (rho = 0.48). Age, depression, and other comorbid conditions influenced agreement among measures. Measures were generally in agreement, regardless of how nonadherence was defined. A cut-point of 80% illustrated a fair balance between sensitivity and specificity for all measures. CONCLUSIONS: All measures provided similar estimates of overall adherence, although refill and electronic measures were in highest agreement. In selection of a measure, practitioners should consider population and disease characteristics, since measurement agreement could be influenced by these and other factors. The commonly used, clinically based cut-point of 80% had a reasonable balance between sensitivity and specificity in studies of adherence in patients with heart failure or hypertension.

Predicting medication use in an elderly hypertensive sample: revisiting the Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly Study.

UNLABELLED: Though some research has begun to examine specific factors related to race that should be targeted in the design of interventions to improve medication adherence, there remains an underreporting of factors that contribute to the use of hypertensive medications by race. METHODS: This study examined medication use reported by a sample of elderly, controlled and uncontrolled hypertensive patients from the North Carolina Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly (NC EPESE) study. RESULTS: In the adjusted final multivariable models of medication use over time in both Caucasian and African-American women, those with higher BMI were more likely to report taking their medication over time; satisfaction with their medical care was predictive among Caucasian women and receiving treatment from a minority physician was predictive among African-American women. CONCLUSION: Focusing on individual-level characteristics and the different issues that may underlie specific ethnic groups, healthcare provider characteristics in particular may help to develop more precisely targeted interventions to improve a full range of healthcare services that are often needed by elderly hypertensive patients.

Front line workers' attitudes towards psychiatric advance directives.

Studies have begun to explore provider attitudes' toward psychiatric advance directives (PADs) and how those attitudes are related to provider characteristics. The study gathered attitudinal data from a sample of 193 social workers serving mentally ill adults. Social workers with pro-healthcare power of attorney (HCPA) attitudes were likely to have prior experience with an HCPA and to believe that involuntary treatment violates the NASW Code of Ethics. Social workers are more favorable of HCPAs than advance instructions. The findings suggest that clinical experiences with PADs may positively impact social worker's perceptions of the law.

Understanding the personal and clinical utility of psychiatric advance directives: a qualitative perspective.

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are legal tools that allow competent individuals to declare preferences for future mental health treatment when they may not be capable of doing so as a result of a psychiatric crisis. PADs allow individuals to maintain self-determination during times when they are most vulnerable to loss of autonomy and in need of assistance to make their preferences known and honored. This article describes the content of twenty-eight open-ended, semi-structured qualitative interviews of adults with PADs who have experienced psychiatric crises. The qualitative analysis revealed three major themes from the interviews: (1) PADs as tools for empowerment and self-determination, (2) limited knowledge of PADs among service providers; and (3) difficulties communicating PADs to inpatient staff. In general, many participants expressed enthusiasm of the implementation of PADs but concern regarding clinicians' general lack of awareness about them. Additionally, some consumers discussed discomfort in even mentioning that they had a PAD to clinicians for fear of a negative response from them, or some type of involuntary treatment during their hospitalization. However, participants consistently viewed PADs as a positive tool to promote autonomy with the potential to facilitate stronger patient-provider relationships. Therefore, when working with individuals in psychiatric crisis who have a PAD, and who have never before experienced a sense of control over their own treatment, clinicians must recognize the potential troubling disequilibrium this sense of control may engender. In sum, though the most significant challenges facing the implementation of PADs involve clinicians' familiarity with and education about PADs, much promise for the future growth of PADs lies in the benefits perceived by the patients.