Predictors of Nonadherence Among HIV-infected Outpatients: Psychosocial and Medical Care Factors Associated With Appointment Attendance.

Nonadherence to medical regimens is a critical behavioral threat to the health of HIV-infected individuals. Patients cannot benefit from increasingly efficacious treatments for HIV/AIDs unless they adhere to them. Consistent medical care plays a central role in prolonging life and enhancing quality of life for these individuals. It is therefore essential to understand why many patients do not return reliably for medical services. However, little research has focused on the development of empirically based models of HIV-related nonadherence. Thus, the primary purpose of the present study was to identify factors predictive of HIV-related nonadherence to medical appointments. Demographic, medical care, and psychosocial factors were identified that prospectively predicted percentage of scheduled HIV clinic appointments no-showed by outpatients. The results of this study indicated that greater nonadherence to outpatient appointments was associated with younger age, minority background, less severe illness, and lower perceived social support. Individuals from minority backgrounds and younger age groups were found to have higher rates of nonadherence to HIV treatment demands. Nonadherence was also demonstrated to be problematic early in the disease course. From the perspective of potential psychosocial interventions, it was particularly interesting that higher levels of perceived social support were associated with less outpatient visit nonadherence. Practical and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed in light of recent medical advances

Relationship between cardiovascular risk and lipid testing in one health care system: a retrospective cohort study.

BackgroundThe US Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) recommends routine lipid screening beginning age 35 for men [1]. For women age 20 and older, as well as men age 20-34, screening is recommended if cardiovascular risk factors are present. Prior research has focused on underutilization but not overuse of lipid testing. The objective is to document over- and under-use of lipid testing in an insured population of persons at low, moderate and high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk for persons not already on statins.MethodsThe study is a retrospective cohort study that included all adults without prior CVD who were continuously enrolled in a large integrated healthcare system from 2005 to 2010. Measures included lipid test frequency extracted from administrative data and Framingham cardiovascular risk equations applied using electronic medical record data. Five year lipid testing patterns were examined by age, sex and CVD risk. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the relative risk for over testing associated with patient characteristics.ResultsAmong males and females for whom testing is not recommended, 35.8 % and 61.5 % received at least one lipid test in the prior 5 years and 8.4 % and 24.4 % had two or more. Over-testing was associated with age, race, comorbidity, primary care use and neighborhood income. Among individuals at moderate and high-risk (not already treated with statins) and for whom screening is recommended, between 21.4 % and 25.1 % of individuals received no screening in the prior 5 years.ConclusionsBased on USPSTF lipid screening recommendations, this study documents substantial over-testing among individuals with low CVD risk and under-testing among individuals with moderate to high-risk not already on statins. Opportunity exists to better focus lipid screening efforts appropriate to CVD risk

Feasibility and acceptability of a multiple risk factor intervention: The Step Up randomized pilot trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Interventions are needed which can successfully modify more than one disease risk factor at a time, but much remains to be learned about the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of multiple risk factor (MRF) interventions. To address these issues and inform future intervention development, we conducted a randomized pilot trial (n = 52). This study was designed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the Step Up program, a MRF cognitive-behavioral program designed to improve participants' mental and physical well-being by reducing depressive symptoms, promoting smoking cessation, and increasing physical activity.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were recruited from a large health care organization and randomized to receive usual care treatment for depression, smoking, and physical activity promotion or the phone-based Step Up counseling program plus usual care. Participants were assessed at baseline, three and six months.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The intervention was acceptable to participants and feasible to offer within a healthcare system. The pilot also offered important insights into the optimal design of a MRF program. While not powered to detect clinically significant outcomes, changes in target behaviors indicated positive trends at six month follow-up and statistically significant improvement was also observed for depression. Significantly more experimental participants reported a clinically significant improvement (50% reduction) in their baseline depression score at four months (54% vs. 26%, OR = 3.35, 95% CI [1.01- 12.10], <it>p </it>= 0.05) and 6 months (52% vs. 13%, OR = 7.27, 95% CI [1.85 - 37.30], <it>p </it>= 0.004)</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Overall, results suggest the Step Up program warrants additional research, although some program enhancements may be beneficial. Key lessons learned from this research are shared to promote the understanding of others working in this field.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (<a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00644995">NCT00644995</a>).</p

Proceedings of the 13th annual conference of INEBRIA

CITATION: Watson, R., et al. 2016. Proceedings of the 13th annual conference of INEBRIA. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 11:13, doi:10.1186/s13722-016-0062-9.The original publication is available at https://ascpjournal.biomedcentral.comENGLISH SUMMARY : Meeting abstracts.https://ascpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13722-016-0062-9Publisher's versio

Patient Preferences for Discussing Childhood Trauma in Primary Care

CONTEXT: Exposure to traumatic events is common in primary care patients, yet health care professionals may be hesitant to assess and address the impact of childhood trauma in their patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient preferences for discussing traumatic experiences and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with clinicians in underserved, predominantly Latino primary care patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We evaluated patients with a questionnaire assessing comfort to discuss trauma exposure and symptoms using the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study questionnaire and the Primary Care-PTSD screen. The questionnaire also assessed patients’ confidence in their clinicians’ ability to help with trauma-related issues. Surveys were collected at an integrated medical and behavioral health care clinic. RESULTS: Of 178 adult patients asked, 152 (83%) agreed to participate. Among participants, 37% screened positive for PTSD, 42% reported 4 or more ACEs, and 26% had elevated scores on both measures. Primary Care-PTSD and ACE scores were strongly positively correlated (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). Most patients agreed they were comfortable being asked about trauma directly or through screening questionnaires and did not oppose the inclusion of trauma-related information in their medical record. In addition, most patients perceived their clinician as comfortable asking questions about childhood trauma and able to address trauma-related problems. CONCLUSION: Screening is acceptable to most primary care patients regardless of trauma exposure or positive PTSD screening. Findings may aid primary care clinicians to consider screening regularly for ACEs and PTSD to better serve the health care needs of trauma-exposed patients

Development of a Mobile Health Intervention with Personal Experiments for Smokers Who Are Ambivalent About Quitting: Formative Design and Testing

BackgroundThe majority of cigarette smokers want to quit someday but are not ready to commit to long-term abstinence. However, available smoking cessation treatments are not well-suited to meet the needs of these ambivalent smokers. Low-cost, high-reach mobile health (mHealth) interventions may be a cost-efficient means of offering assistance to ambivalent smokers, yet there are currently no evidence-based options available for this group.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop and preliminarily evaluate the core content for an mHealth program targeting adult smokers who are ambivalent about quitting. The core content consisted of a series of "personal experiments" similar to those tested as part of a counseling intervention in prior work, including brief cognitive or behavioral tasks designed to boost readiness for changing smoking behavior.MethodsWe conducted individual user interviews (N=3) to refine program content, and then conducted a one-arm pilot study (N=25) to assess user receptivity and the potential impact of the experiments on motivation and self-efficacy to quit or reduce smoking.ResultsIn user interviews, participants liked the concept of the personal experiments. Participants in the pilot study found a medium-fidelity prototype to be highly acceptable. After watching a brief orientation video that explained how the program works, most participants (80%, 20/25) indicated that it sounded interesting, primarily because it did not require any commitment to quit. All participants (100%, 25/25) completed all 7 experiments, including a 24-hour quit attempt, although not all were able to refrain from smoking for a full day based on qualitative feedback on the experiment. The mean rating of usefulness of the overall program was 4.12 (SD 1.09) out of 5, and the average rating of the difficulty of the experiments was 2.16 (SD 1.18) out of 5. At the last assessment point, 92% (23/25) of the participants indicated that they were more interested in either quitting or cutting back than when they began the program, and 72% (18/25) said that if the program had included a free trial of nicotine replacement therapy, they would have used it to try to quit smoking.ConclusionsThis formative work confirmed that ambivalent smokers are willing to use and will remain engaged with an mHealth intervention that employs the novel concept of personal experiments to enhance their motivation for and ability to quit smoking. The addition of action-oriented treatment (self-help and free nicotine replacement therapy, quitline referral) could further support users' efforts to stop smoking and remain quit

Reasons for Never and Intermittent Completion of Colorectal Cancer Screening After Receiving Multiple Rounds of Mailed Fecal Tests

Background: Long-term adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly important for fecal testing. As few as a quarter of patients repeat fecal testing the next year in some U.S. settings. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by patients with suboptimal screening adherence to refine interventions for ongoing adherence to CRC screening. We also explored whether participants, particularly never screeners, would be willing to do a CRC screening blood test. Methods: 41 patients who previously enrolled in the Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) trial were interviewed 4–5 years later. Participants were purposively selected to include men and women with diverse race/ethnicities who had either been inconsistent screeners or had never screened during the first 3 years of SOS, despite receiving at least 2 rounds of mailed fecal tests. Two interviewers conducted an approximately 30-minute telephone interview using a semi-structured interview guide. An iterative thematic analysis approach was used. Results: Barriers were more pervasive among never-screeners: 1) Avoidance; 2) Aversion to stool; 3) Health concerns; and 4) Fear. Facilitators were more often mentioned by repeat-screeners: 1) The simpler 1-sample test; 2) Mailings and testing at home convenience; 3) Prevention; and 4) Social influence. Participants had diverse preferences for types (phone, mail) with some not preferring email links to the electronic health record. A nurse not from their clinic calling was acceptable if the nurse was knowledgeable about their records and could communicate with their physician. Participants, especially never-screeners, were enthusiastic about a screening blood test. Conclusion: Future CRC screening programs should be designed to minimize these barriers and maximize facilitators to improve long-term screening adherence

Reasons for never and intermittent completion of colorectal cancer screening after receiving multiple rounds of mailed fecal tests

Abstract Background Long-term adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly important for fecal testing. Some U.S. studies report that only 25% of individuals repeat fecal testing annually. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by patients with suboptimal screening adherence to refine interventions for starting ongoing adherence to CRC screening. We also explored whether participants, particularly never screeners, would be willing to do a CRC screening blood test. Methods Forty-one patients who previously enrolled in the Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) trial were interviewed 4–5 years later. Participants were purposively selected to include men and women with diverse race/ethnicities who had either been inconsistent screeners or had never screened during the first three years of SOS despite receiving at least two rounds of mailed fecal tests. Two interviewers conducted 30-min telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. An iterative thematic analysis approach was used. Results Themes related to screening barriers were more pervasive among never screeners including: (1) Avoidance (inattention, procrastination) (2) Concerns about handling stool; (3) Health concerns; (4) Fear of a cancer diagnosis or positive test results. Themes related to screening facilitators were more often mentioned by participants who screened at least once including: (1) Use of a simpler 1-sample fecal test; (2) Convenience of mailings and doing the test at home; (3) Salience of prevention, especially as one got older; and (4) Influence of recommendations from providers, family and friends. Participants had diverse preferences for the number (3 on average) and types (phone, mail, text) of screening reminders. Some participants did not prefer e-mail links to the patient shared electronic health record because of difficulties remembering their password. It was acceptable for a nurse or medical assistant not from their clinic to call them as long as that person was knowledgeable about their records and could communicate with their physician. Participants, especially never screeners, were generally very enthusiastic about the potential option of a CRC screening blood test. Conclusion Future CRC screening programs should be designed to minimize these barriers and maximize facilitators to improve long-term screening adherence. Trial registration Primary Funding Agency: The National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01CA121125). Registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00697047