Feasibility of automated pre-screening for lifestyle and behavioral health risk factors in primary care

Background: Screening of primary care patients for unhealthy behaviors and mental health issues is recommended by numerous governing bodies internationally, yet evidence suggests that provider-initiated screening is not routine practice. The objective of this study was to implement systematic pre-screening of primary care patients for common preventive health issues on a large scale. Methods: Patients registered for non-acute visits to one of 40 primary care providers from eight clinics in an Academic Medical Center health care network in the United States from May, 2012 to May, 2014 were contacted one- to three-days prior to their visit. Patients were invited to complete a questionnaire using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. Six items assessed pain, smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, concern about weight, and mood. Results: The acceptance rate among eligible patients reached by phone was 65.6 %, of which 95.5 % completed the IVR-Screen (N = 8,490; mean age 57; 57 % female). Sample demographics were representative of the overall primary care population from which participants were drawn on gender, race, and insurance status, but participants were slightly older and more likely to be married. Eighty-seven percent of patients screened positive on at least one item, and 59 % endorsed multiple problems. The majority of respondents (64.2 %) reported being never or only somewhat physically active. Weight concern was reported by 43.9 % of respondents, 36.4 % met criteria for unhealthy alcohol use, 23.4 % reported current pain, 19.6 % reported low mood, and 9.4 % reported smoking. Conclusions: The percent endorsement for each behavioral health concern was generally consistent with studies of screening using other methods, and contrasts starkly with the reported low rates of screening and intervention for such concerns in typical PC practice. Results support the feasibility of IVR-based, large-scale pre-appointment behavioral health/ lifestyle risk factor screening of primary care patients. Pre-screening in this population facilitated participation in a controlled trial of brief treatment for unhealthy drinking, and also could be valuable clinically because it allows for case identification and management during routine care

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated subacute thyroiditis: insights from a systematic review

8nononePurpose: To perform a systematic review on published cases of subacute thyroiditis (SAT) secondary to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, to highlight main features and increase the awareness of this condition. Methods: Original reports of SAT developed after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (mRNA, viral vector, or inactivated virus vaccines) were retrieved from a search of electronic databases. Individual patient data on demographics, medical history, type of vaccine, workup and therapies were collected. Wilcoxon rank-sum, Kruskal–Wallis and chi-squared tests were employed for comparisons. Results: 30 articles including 48 reports were retrieved, 3 additional cases evaluated by the Authors were described and included for analysis. Of the 51 patients, 38 (74.5%) were women, median age was 39.5 years (IQR 34–47). Patients developed SAT after a median of 10 days (IQR 4–14) after the vaccine shot. Baseline thyroid exams revealed thyrotoxicosis in 88.2% of patients, decreasing at 31.6% at follow-up. Corticosteroids were used in 56.4% of treated patients. Patients undergoing non-mRNA vaccines were most frequently Asian (p = 0.019) and reported more frequently weight loss (p = 0.021). All patients with a previous diagnosis of thyroid disease belonged to the mRNA vaccine group. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated SAT is a novel entity that should be acknowledged by physicians. Previous history of thyroid disease may predispose to develop SAT after mRNA vaccines, but further studies and larger cohorts are needed to verify this suggestion. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated SAT is usually of mild/moderate severity and could be easily treated in most cases, thus it should not raise any concern regarding the need to be vaccinated.openS. Ippolito; D. Gallo; A. Rossini; B. Patera; N. Lanzo; G. F. M. Fazzino; E. Piantanida; M. L. TandaIppolito, S.; Gallo, D.; Rossini, A.; Patera, B.; Lanzo, N.; Fazzino, G. F. M.; Piantanida, E.; Tanda, M. L

The effectiveness of distance-based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors:A meta-analysis

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated. Results: A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P =.007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P <.0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, −0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.31, P =.24). Conclusions: Distance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors