The Dysfunctional Attitude Scale: A Validation Study

Abstract not availabl

Primary care physicians are under-testing for celiac disease in patients with iron deficiency anemia: Results of a national survey

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a common extra-intestinal manifestation of celiac disease (CD). Little is known about the frequency with which primary care physicians (PCPs) test for CD in patients with IDA. We aimed to describe how PCPs approach testing for CD in asymptomatic patients with IDA. METHODS: We electronically distributed a survey to PCPs who are members of the American College of Physicians. Respondents were asked whether they would test for CD (serologic testing, refer for esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD], or refer to GI) in hypothetical patients with new IDA, including: (1) a young Caucasian man, (2) a premenopausal Caucasian woman, (3) an elderly Caucasian man, and (4) a young African American man. These scenarios were chosen to assess for differences in testing for CD based on age, gender, and race. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of testing. RESULTS: Testing for CD varied significantly according to patient characteristics, with young Caucasian men being the most frequently tested (61% of respondents reporting they would perform serologic testing in this subgroup (p CONCLUSIONS: PCPs are under-testing for CD in patients with IDA, regardless of age, gender, race, or post-menopausal status. The majority of PCPs surveyed reported they do not strictly adhere to established guidelines regarding a confirmatory duodenal biopsy in a patient with positive serology for CD

Randomized trial of achieving healthy lifestyles in psychiatric rehabilitation: the ACHIEVE trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Overweight and obesity are highly prevalent among persons with serious mental illness. These conditions likely contribute to premature cardiovascular disease and a 20 to 30 percent shortened life expectancy in this vulnerable population. Persons with serious mental illness need effective, appropriately tailored behavioral interventions to achieve and maintain weight loss. Psychiatric rehabilitation day programs provide logical intervention settings because mental health consumers often attend regularly and exercise can take place on-site. This paper describes the Randomized Trial of Achieving Healthy Lifestyles in Psychiatric Rehabilitation (ACHIEVE). The goal of the study is to determine the effectiveness of a behavioral weight loss intervention among persons with serious mental illness that attend psychiatric rehabilitation programs. Participants randomized to the intervention arm of the study are hypothesized to have greater weight loss than the control group.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A targeted 320 men and women with serious mental illness and overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 25.0 kg/m²) will be recruited from 10 psychiatric rehabilitation programs across Maryland. The core design is a randomized, two-arm, parallel, multi-site clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of an 18-month behavioral weight loss intervention to usual care. Active intervention participants receive weight management sessions and physical activity classes on-site led by study interventionists. The intervention incorporates cognitive adaptations for persons with serious mental illness attending psychiatric rehabilitation programs. The initial intensive intervention period is six months, followed by a twelve-month maintenance period in which trained rehabilitation program staff assume responsibility for delivering parts of the intervention. Primary outcomes are weight loss at six and 18 months.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Evidence-based approaches to the high burden of obesity and cardiovascular disease risk in person with serious mental illness are urgently needed. The ACHIEVE Trial is tailored to persons with serious mental illness in community settings. This multi-site randomized clinical trial will provide a rigorous evaluation of a practical behavioral intervention designed to accomplish and sustain weight loss in persons with serious mental illness.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Clinical Trials.gov NCT00902694</p

Association of trauma center designation with postdischarge survival among older adults with injuries

Importance: Trauma centers improve outcomes for young patients with serious injuries. However, most injury-related hospital admissions and deaths occur in older adults, and it is not clear whether trauma center care provides the same benefit in this population. Objective: To examine whether 30- and 365-day mortality of injured older adults is associated with the treating hospital\u27s trauma center level. Design, setting, and participants: This prospective, population-based cohort study used Medicare claims data from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, for all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 66 years or older with inpatient admission for traumatic injury in 2014 to 2015. Data analysis was performed from January 1 to June 31, 2021. Preinjury health was measured using 2013 claims, and outcomes were measured through 2016. The population was stratified by anatomical injury pattern. Propensity scores for level I trauma center treatment were estimated using the Abbreviated Injury Scale, age, and residential proximity to trauma center and then used to match beneficiaries from each trauma level (I, II, III, and IV/non-trauma centers) by injury type. Exposure: Admitting hospital\u27s trauma center level. Main outcomes and measures: Case fatality rates (CFRs) at 30 and 365 days after injury, estimated in the matched sample using multivariable, hierarchical logistic regression models. Results: A total of 433 169 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 82.9 [8.3] years; 68.4% female; 91.5% White) were included in the analysis. A total of 206 275 (47.6%) were admitted to non-trauma centers and 161 492 (37.3%) to level I or II trauma centers. Patients with isolated extremity fracture had the fewest deaths (365-day CFR ranged from 16.1% [95% CI, 11.2%-22.4%] to 17.4% [95% CI, 11.8%-24.6%] by trauma center status). Patients with both hip fracture and traumatic brain injury had the most deaths (365-day CFRs ranged from 33.4% [95% CI, 25.8%-42.1%] to 35.8% [95% CI, 28.9%-43.5%]). Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that older adults do not benefit from existing trauma center care, which is designed with younger patients in mind. There is a critical need to improve trauma care practices to address common injury mechanisms and types of injury in older adults

Physician Perspectives on Deprescribing Cardiovascular Medications for Older Adults

Background/objectivesGuideline-based management of cardiovascular disease often involves prescribing multiple medications, which contributes to polypharmacy and risk for adverse drug events in older adults. Deprescribing is a potential strategy to mitigate these risks. We sought to characterize and compare clinician perspectives regarding deprescribing cardiovascular medications across three specialties.DesignNational cross-sectional survey.SettingAmbulatory.ParticipantsRandom sample of geriatricians, general internists, and cardiologists from the American College of Physicians.MeasurementsElectronic survey assessing clinical practice of deprescribing cardiovascular medications, reasons and barriers to deprescribing, and choice of medications to deprescribe in hypothetical clinical cases.ResultsIn each specialty, 750 physicians were surveyed, with a response rate of 26% for geriatricians, 26% for general internists, and 12% for cardiologists. Over 80% of respondents within each specialty reported that they had recently considered deprescribing a cardiovascular medication. Adverse drug reactions were the most common reason for deprescribing for all specialties. Geriatricians also commonly reported deprescribing in the setting of limited life expectancy. Barriers to deprescribing were shared across specialties and included concerns about interfering with other physicians' treatment plans and patient reluctance. In hypothetical cases, over 90% of physicians in each specialty chose to deprescribe when patients experienced adverse drug reactions. Geriatricians were most likely and cardiologists were least likely to consider deprescribing cardiovascular medications in cases of limited life expectancy (all P &lt; .001), such as recurrent metastatic cancer (84% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists), Alzheimer dementia (92% of geriatricians, 81% of general internists, and 59% of cardiologists), or significant functional impairment (83% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists).ConclusionsWhile barriers to deprescribing cardiovascular medications are shared across specialties, reasons for deprescribing, especially in the setting of limited life expectancy, varied. Implementing deprescribing will require improved processes for both physician-physician and physician-patient communication. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:78-86, 2019

Physician Perspectives on Deprescribing Cardiovascular Medications for Older Adults

Background/objectivesGuideline-based management of cardiovascular disease often involves prescribing multiple medications, which contributes to polypharmacy and risk for adverse drug events in older adults. Deprescribing is a potential strategy to mitigate these risks. We sought to characterize and compare clinician perspectives regarding deprescribing cardiovascular medications across three specialties.DesignNational cross-sectional survey.SettingAmbulatory.ParticipantsRandom sample of geriatricians, general internists, and cardiologists from the American College of Physicians.MeasurementsElectronic survey assessing clinical practice of deprescribing cardiovascular medications, reasons and barriers to deprescribing, and choice of medications to deprescribe in hypothetical clinical cases.ResultsIn each specialty, 750 physicians were surveyed, with a response rate of 26% for geriatricians, 26% for general internists, and 12% for cardiologists. Over 80% of respondents within each specialty reported that they had recently considered deprescribing a cardiovascular medication. Adverse drug reactions were the most common reason for deprescribing for all specialties. Geriatricians also commonly reported deprescribing in the setting of limited life expectancy. Barriers to deprescribing were shared across specialties and included concerns about interfering with other physicians' treatment plans and patient reluctance. In hypothetical cases, over 90% of physicians in each specialty chose to deprescribe when patients experienced adverse drug reactions. Geriatricians were most likely and cardiologists were least likely to consider deprescribing cardiovascular medications in cases of limited life expectancy (all P &lt; .001), such as recurrent metastatic cancer (84% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists), Alzheimer dementia (92% of geriatricians, 81% of general internists, and 59% of cardiologists), or significant functional impairment (83% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists).ConclusionsWhile barriers to deprescribing cardiovascular medications are shared across specialties, reasons for deprescribing, especially in the setting of limited life expectancy, varied. Implementing deprescribing will require improved processes for both physician-physician and physician-patient communication. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:78-86, 2019

What factors predict “any” testing for CD (serology +/- referral for EGD +/- referral to GI) in a young, Caucasian male?

<p>What factors predict “any” testing for CD (serology +/- referral for EGD +/- referral to GI) in a young, Caucasian male?</p