Utilitarian Logic in the Resource Mobilization Perspective

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/50928/1/153.pd

Encounters with Unjust Authority

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/50942/1/167.pd

Balancing Score Adjusted Targeted Minimum Loss-based Estimation

Adjusting for a balancing score is sufficient for bias reduction when estimating causal effects including the average treatment effect and effect among the treated. Estimators that adjust for the propensity score in a nonparametric way, such as matching on an estimate of the propensity score, can be consistent when the estimated propensity score is not consistent for the true propensity score but converges to some other balancing score. We call this property the balancing score property, and discuss a class of estimators that have this property. We introduce a targeted minimum loss-based estimator (TMLE) for a treatment specific mean with the balancing score property that is additionally locally efficient and doubly robust. We investigate the new estimator\u27s performance relative to other estimators, including another TMLE, a propensity score matching estimator, an inverse probability of treatment weighted estimator, and a regression based estimator in simulation studies

Catalyzing Rebellion: An Introduction to the Mobilization in Miniature Project

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/50913/1/138.pd

The impact of removing financial incentives from clinical quality indicators: longitudinal analysis of four Kaiser Permanente indicators

Objective To evaluate the effect of financial incentives on four clinical quality indicators common to pay for performance plans in the United Kingdom and at Kaiser Permanente in California

Improving Treatment Intensification to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Background: Blood pressure, lipid, and glycemic control are essential for reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Many health care systems have successfully shifted aspects of chronic disease management, including population-based outreach programs designed to address CVD risk factor control, to non-physicians. The purpose of this study is to evaluate provision of new information to non-physician outreach teams on need for treatment intensification in patients with increased CVD risk. Methods Cluster randomized trial (July 1-December 31, 2008) in Kaiser Permanente Northern California registry of members with diabetes mellitus, prior CVD diagnoses and/or chronic kidney disease who were high-priority for treatment intensification: blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg systolic, LDL-cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl, or hemoglobin A1c ≥ 9%; adherent to current medications; no recent treatment intensification). Randomization units were medical center-based outreach teams (4 intervention; 4 control). For intervention teams, priority flags for intensification were added monthly to the registry database with recommended next pharmacotherapeutic steps for each eligible patient. Control teams used the same database without this information. Outcomes included 3-month rates of treatment intensification and risk factor levels during follow-up. Results: Baseline risk factor control rates were high (82-90%). In eligible patients, the intervention was associated with significantly greater 3-month intensification rates for blood pressure (34.1 vs. 30.6%) and LDL-cholesterol (28.0 vs 22.7%), but not A1c. No effects on risk factors were observed at 3 months or 12 months follow-up. Intervention teams initiated outreach for only 45-47% of high-priority patients, but also for 27-30% of lower-priority patients. Teams reported difficulties adapting prior outreach strategies to incorporate the new information. Conclusions: Information enhancement did not improve risk factor control compared to existing outreach strategies at control centers. Familiarity with prior, relatively successful strategies likely reduced uptake of the innovation and its potential for success at intervention centers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT0051768

Improving treatment intensification to reduce cardiovascular disease risk: a cluster randomized trial

Abstract Background Blood pressure, lipid, and glycemic control are essential for reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Many health care systems have successfully shifted aspects of chronic disease management, including population-based outreach programs designed to address CVD risk factor control, to non-physicians. The purpose of this study is to evaluate provision of new information to non-physician outreach teams on need for treatment intensification in patients with increased CVD risk. Methods Cluster randomized trial (July 1-December 31, 2008) in Kaiser Permanente Northern California registry of members with diabetes mellitus, prior CVD diagnoses and/or chronic kidney disease who were high-priority for treatment intensification: blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg systolic, LDL-cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl, or hemoglobin A1c ≥ 9%; adherent to current medications; no recent treatment intensification). Randomization units were medical center-based outreach teams (4 intervention; 4 control). For intervention teams, priority flags for intensification were added monthly to the registry database with recommended next pharmacotherapeutic steps for each eligible patient. Control teams used the same database without this information. Outcomes included 3-month rates of treatment intensification and risk factor levels during follow-up. Results Baseline risk factor control rates were high (82-90%). In eligible patients, the intervention was associated with significantly greater 3-month intensification rates for blood pressure (34.1 vs. 30.6%) and LDL-cholesterol (28.0 vs 22.7%), but not A1c. No effects on risk factors were observed at 3 months or 12 months follow-up. Intervention teams initiated outreach for only 45-47% of high-priority patients, but also for 27-30% of lower-priority patients. Teams reported difficulties adapting prior outreach strategies to incorporate the new information. Conclusions Information enhancement did not improve risk factor control compared to existing outreach strategies at control centers. Familiarity with prior, relatively successful strategies likely reduced uptake of the innovation and its potential for success at intervention centers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00517686http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112310/1/12913_2012_Article_2076.pd

Guillain-Barré Syndrome, Influenza Vaccination, and Antecedent Respiratory and Gastrointestinal Infections: A Case-Centered Analysis in the Vaccine Safety Datalink, 2009–2011

Background: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) can be triggered by gastrointestinal or respiratory infections, including influenza. During the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the United States, monovalent inactivated influenza vaccine (MIV) availability coincided with high rates of wildtype influenza infections. Several prior studies suggested an elevated GBS risk following MIV, but adjustment for antecedent infection was limited. Methods: We identified patients enrolled in health plans participating in the Vaccine Safety Datalink and diagnosed with GBS from July 2009 through June 2011. Medical records of GBS cases with 2009–10 MIV, 2010–11 trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), and/or a medically-attended respiratory or gastrointestinal infection in the 1 through 141 days prior to GBS diagnosis were reviewed and classified according to Brighton Collaboration criteria for diagnostic certainty. Using a case-centered design, logistic regression models adjusted for patient-level time-varying sources of confounding, including seasonal vaccinations and infections in GBS cases and population-level controls. Results: Eighteen confirmed GBS cases received vaccination in the 6 weeks preceding onset, among 1.27 million 2009–10 MIV recipients and 2.80 million 2010–11 TIV recipients. Forty-four confirmed GBS cases had infection in the 6 weeks preceding onset, among 3.77 million patients diagnosed with medically-attended infection. The observed-versus-expected odds that 2009–10 MIV/2010–11 TIV was received in the 6 weeks preceding GBS onset was odds ratio = 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.59–3.99; risk difference = 0.93 per million doses, 95% CI, −0.71–5.16. The association between GBS and medically-attended infection was: odds ratio = 7.73, 95% CI, 3.60–16.61; risk difference = 11.62 per million infected patients, 95% CI, 4.49–26.94. These findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses using alternative infection definitions and risk intervals for prior vaccination shorter than 6 weeks. Conclusions: After adjusting for antecedent infections, we found no evidence for an elevated GBS risk following 2009–10 MIV/2010–11 TIV influenza vaccines. However, the association between GBS and antecedent infection was strongly elevated

Influenza Vaccination and Mortality: Differentiating Vaccine Effects From Bias

It is widely believed that influenza (flu) vaccination of the elderly reduces all-cause mortality, yet randomized trials for assessing vaccine effectiveness are not feasible and the observational research has been controversial. Efforts to differentiate vaccine effectiveness from selection bias have been problematic. The authors examined mortality before, during, and after 9 flu seasons in relation to time-varying vaccination status in an elderly California population in which 115,823 deaths occurred from 1996 to 2005, including 20,484 deaths during laboratory-defined flu seasons. Vaccine coverage averaged 63%; excess mortality when the flu virus was circulating averaged 7.8%. In analyses that omitted weeks when flu circulated, the odds ratio measuring the vaccination-mortality association increased monotonically from 0.34 early in November to 0.56 in January, 0.67 in April, and 0.76 in August. This reflects the trajectory of selection effects in the absence of flu. In analyses that included weeks with flu and adjustment for selection effects, flu season multiplied the odds ratio by 0.954. The corresponding vaccine effectiveness estimate was 4.6% (95% confidence interval: 0.7, 8.3). To differentiate vaccine effects from selection bias, the authors used logistic regression with a novel case-centered specification that may be useful in other population-based studies when the exposure-outcome association varies markedly over time

Mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination: A self-controlled case series study

Background Although previous studies found no-increased mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination, residual confounding bias might have impacted the findings. Using a modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) design, we assessed the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes after primary series COVID-19 vaccination. Methods We analyzed all deaths between December 14, 2020, and August 11, 2021, among individuals from eight Vaccine Safety Datalink sites. Demographic characteristics of deaths in recipients of COVID-19 vaccines and unvaccinated individuals were reported. We conducted SCCS analyses by vaccine type and death outcomes and reported relative incidences (RI). The observation period for death spanned from the dates of emergency use authorization to the end of the study period (August 11, 2021) without censoring the observation period upon death. We pre-specified a primary risk interval of 28-day and a secondary risk interval of 14-day after each vaccination dose. Adjusting for seasonality in mortality analyses is crucial because death rates vary over time. Deaths among unvaccinated individuals were included in SCCS analyses to account for seasonality by incorporating calendar month in the models. Results For Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), RIs of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes were below 1 and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) excluded 1 across both doses and both risk intervals. For Moderna (mRNA-1273), RI point estimates of all outcomes were below 1, although the 95 % CIs of two RI estimates included 1: cardiac-related (RI = 0.78, 95 % CI, 0.58-1.04) and non-COVID-19 cardiac-related mortality (RI = 0.80, 95 % CI, 0.60-1.08) 14 days after the second dose in individuals without pre-existing cancer and heart disease. For Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S), RIs of four cardiac-related death outcomes ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 for the 14-day risk interval, and 0.68 to 0.72 for the 28-day risk interval and 95 % CIs included 1. Conclusion Using a modified SCCS design and adjusting for temporal trends, no-increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes among recipients of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US