Exploration of provider exercise prescriptions and exercise referrals to place or professional: A pilot survey research study

Background: Physical inactivity contributes to roughly $28 billion in annual US health care expenditures, although few US-based providers write exercise prescriptions (EPs). Little research has explored the practice of provider referrals to places for exercise as part of an EP or part of general exercise counseling, despite the known relationship between place and health. The purpose of this pilot study, conducted with Northeast Ohio-based providers, was to assess a new instrument designed to explore provider practices related to EP and referral to place and professional.Methods: The 88-item survey combined standardized and new items to fully address the purpose. Providers were surveyed via paper and online methods. Logistic regression was conducted to explore factors related to referrals to a specific place or exercise professional.Results: Of 166 providers who completed the survey, 14.8% of prescribed exercise to patients and 54.3% referred patients to an exercise professional or specific place. Logistic regression analysis suggested that physicians who prescribed exercise were more likely to provide a referral to professional or place (OR = 6.12, 95% CI = 1.36 – 27.47) while physicians who had accurate knowledge of exercise recommendations were less likely to provide a referral to a professional or place (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.04 – 0.57).Conclusions: A key reason for failure to prescribe place-based exercise referrals was provider unfamiliarity with convenient and safelocations other than health system owned fitness facilities, so provision of exercise location resources for providers potentially willincrease use of EPs

Necessidade de aprimoramento do atendimento à saúde no sistema carcerário

OBJETIVO Analisar a estrutura física, as condições de trabalho dos profissionais da saúde e o delineamento de processos estabelecidos em unidades prisionais. MÉTODOS Foram analisados 34 centros de detenção provisória e 69 unidades prisionais masculinas e seis femininas do Estado de São Paulo, Brasil, em 2009. Foi desenvolvido instrumento autoaplicativo para coleta de dados quantitativos sobre as características de estrutura, equipamento e pessoal para atendimento à saúde nas unidades prisionais. A análise de variância (ANOVA) ou equivalente não paramétrico e os testes de Qui-quadrado ou Fisher foram utilizados para comparação de variáveis contínuas ou categóricas, respectivamente, entre os grupos estudados. RESULTADOS Os principais problemas foram o retardo nos resultados de exames laboratoriais e de imagem. Quanto às equipes, grande maioria apresentou condições próximas da proposta pela Comissão InterGestores Bipartite 2013, mas sem que isso se refletisse em melhoria dos indicadores. Com relação ao processo, observou-se que mais de 60,0% das unidades prisionais estão localizadas em cidades pequenas, sem condições estruturais de saúde para garantir o atendimento secundário ou terciário para continuidade do processo de tratamento. CONCLUSÕES O perfil apresentado das unidades prisionais do País poderá ser utilizado para planejamento e acompanhamento de ações futuras para melhoria contínua das condições estruturais de saúde

Reducing Adverse Self-Medication Behaviors in Older Adults with Hypertension: Results of an e-health Clinical Efficacy Trial

A randomized controlled efficacy trial targeting older adults with hypertension (age 60 and over) provided an e-health, tailored intervention with the “next generation” of the Personal Education Program (PEP-NG). Eleven primary care practices with advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) providers participated. Participants (N = 160) were randomly assigned by the PEP-NG (accessed via a wireless touchscreen tablet computer) to either control (entailing data collection and four routine APRN visits) or tailored intervention (involving PEP-NG intervention and four focused APRN visits) group. Compared to patients in the control group, patients receiving the PEP-NG e-health intervention achieved significant increases in both self-medication knowledge and self-efficacy measures, with large effect sizes. Among patients not at BP targets upon entry to the study, therapy intensification in controls (increased antihypertensive dose and/or an additional antihypertensive) was significant (p = .001) with an odds ratio of 21.27 in the control compared to the intervention group. Among patients not at BP targets on visit 1, there was a significant declining linear trend in proportion of the intervention group taking NSAIDs 21–31 days/month (p = 0.008). Satisfaction with the PEP-NG and the APRN provider relationship was high in both groups. These results suggest that the PEP-NG e-health intervention in primary care practices is effective in increasing knowledge and self-efficacy, as well as improving behavior regarding adverse self-medication practices among older adults with hypertension

Interactive voice response technology for symptom monitoring and as an adjunct to the treatment of chronic pain

Chronic pain is a medical condition that severely decreases the quality of life for those who struggle to cope with it. Interactive voice response (IVR) technology has the ability to track symptoms and disease progression, to investigate the relationships between symptom patterns and clinical outcomes, to assess the efficacy of ongoing treatments, and to directly serve as an adjunct to therapeutic treatment for chronic pain. While many approaches exist toward the management of chronic pain, all have their pitfalls and none work universally. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is one approach that has been shown to be fairly effective, and therapeutic interactive voice response technology provides a convenient and easy-to-use means of extending the therapeutic gains of CBT long after patients have discontinued clinical visitations. This review summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of IVR technology, provides evidence for the efficacy of the method in monitoring and managing chronic pain, and addresses potential future directions that the technology may take as a therapeutic intervention in its own right

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems

Background This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug‐using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co‐occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both. This review addresses the following questions. • Does any treatment for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems reduce drug use? • Does any treatment for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity? • Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)? • Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)? Search methods We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane . Main results We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias. Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate‐certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive‐behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re‐arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug‐related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low‐certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate‐certainty evidence. One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow‐up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self‐report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI ‐0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re‐incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low‐certainty evidence. Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three‐month follow‐up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate‐certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use based on the ASI (MD ‐0.04, 95% CI ‐0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low‐certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD ‐1.05, 95% CI ‐2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI ‐0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re‐arrest (MD ‐0.66, 95% CI ‐1.31 to ‐0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low‐certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD ‐0.7, 95% CI ‐3.5 to 2.1), providing very low‐certainty evidence. Two studies reported on the use of multi‐systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD ‐0.22, 95% CI ‐2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low‐certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re‐arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low‐certainty evidence. One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low‐certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap‐around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low‐certainty evidence. Authors' conclusions Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi‐systemic therapy, legal defence wrap‐around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes

Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions

Background Automated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients using either their telephone’s touch-tone keypad or voice recognition software. ATCS can supplement or replace telephone contact between health professionals and patients. There are four different types of ATCS: unidirectional (one-way, non-interactive voice communication), interactive voice response (IVR) systems, ATCS with additional functions such as access to an expert to request advice (ATCS Plus) and multimodal ATCS, where the calls are delivered as part of a multicomponent intervention. Objectives To assess the effects of ATCS for preventing disease and managing long-term conditions on behavioural change, clinical, process, cognitive, patient-centred and adverse outcomes. Search methods We searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Global Health; WHOLIS; LILACS; Web of Science; and ASSIA); three grey literature sources (Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, Australasian Digital Theses); and two trial registries (www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov) for papers published between 1980 and June 2015. Selection criteria Randomised, cluster- and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies comparing ATCS interventions, with any control or another ATCS type were eligible for inclusion. Studies in all settings, for all consumers/carers, in any preventive healthcare or long term condition management role were eligible. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies. Main results We included 132 trials (N = 4,669,689). Studies spanned across several clinical areas, assessing many comparisons based on evaluation of different ATCS types and variable comparison groups. Forty-one studies evaluated ATCS for delivering preventive healthcare, 84 for managing long-term conditions, and seven studies for appointment reminders. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence primarily because of the risk of bias for many outcomes. We judged the risk of bias arising from allocation processes to be low for just over half the studies and unclear for the remainder. We considered most studies to be at unclear risk of performance or detection bias due to blinding, while only 16% of studies were at low risk. We generally judged the risk of bias due to missing data and selective outcome reporting to be unclear. For preventive healthcare, ATCS (ATCS Plus, IVR, unidirectional) probably increase immunisation uptake in children (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.32; 5 studies, N = 10,454; moderate certainty) and to a lesser extent in adolescents (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 2 studies, N = 5725; moderate certainty). The effects of ATCS in adults are unclear (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.02; 2 studies, N = 1743; very low certainty). For screening, multimodal ATCS increase uptake of screening for breast cancer (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.04; 2 studies, N = 462; high certainty) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.55; 3 studies, N = 1013; high certainty) versus usual care. It may also increase osteoporosis screening. ATCS Plus interventions probably slightly increase cervical cancer screening (moderate certainty), but effects on osteoporosis screening are uncertain. IVR systems probably increase CRC screening at 6 months (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.48; 2 studies, N = 16,915; moderate certainty) but not at 9 to 12 months, with probably little or no effect of IVR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99, 1.11; 2 studies, 2599 participants; moderate certainty) or unidirectional ATCS on breast cancer screening. Appointment reminders delivered through IVR or unidirectional ATCS may improve attendance rates compared with no calls (low certainty). For long-term management, medication or laboratory test adherence provided the most general evidence across conditions (25 studies, data not combined). Multimodal ATCS versus usual care showed conflicting effects (positive and uncertain) on medication adherence. ATCS Plus probably slightly (versus control; moderate certainty) or probably (versus usual care; moderate certainty) improves medication adherence but may have little effect on adherence to tests (versus control). IVR probably slightly improves medication adherence versus control (moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, IVR probably improves test adherence and slightly increases medication adherence up to six months but has little or no effect at longer time points (moderate certainty). Unidirectional ATCS, compared with control, may have little effect or slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty). The evidence suggested little or no consistent effect of any ATCS type on clinical outcomes (blood pressure control, blood lipids, asthma control, therapeutic coverage) related to adherence, but only a small number of studies contributed clinical outcome data. The above results focus on areas with the most general findings across conditions. In condition-specific areas, the effects of ATCS varied, including by the type of ATCS intervention in use. Multimodal ATCS probably decrease both cancer pain and chronic pain as well as depression (moderate certainty), but other ATCS types were less effective. Depending on the type of intervention, ATCS may have small effects on outcomes for physical activity, weight management, alcohol consumption, and diabetes mellitus. ATCS have little or no effect on outcomes related to heart failure, hypertension, mental health or smoking cessation, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects for preventing alcohol/ substance misuse or managing illicit drug addiction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV/AIDS, hypercholesterolaemia, obstructive sleep apnoea, spinal cord dysfunction or psychological stress in carers. Only four trials (3%) reported adverse events, and it was unclear whether these were related to the intervention