Before and after study of bar workers' perceptions of the impact of smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p><it>Objectives</it>: To compare support for, and perceptions of, the impacts of smoke-free workplace legislation among bar workers in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) pre- and post-implementation, and to identify predictors of support for the legislation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p><it>Setting</it>: Public houses (pubs) in three areas of the ROI.</p> <p><it>Design</it>: Comparisons pre- and post-implementation of smoke-free workplace legislation.</p> <p><it>Participants</it>: From a largely non-random selection, 288 bar workers volunteered for the baseline survey; 220 were followed up one year later (76.4%).</p> <p><it>Outcome measures: </it>Level of support for the legislation, attitude statements concerning potential impacts of the law and modelled predictors of support for the legislation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Pre-implementation 59.5% of participants supported the legislation, increasing to 76.8% post-implementation. Support increased among smokers by 27.3 percentage points from 39.4% to 66.7% (p < 0.001) and among non-smokers by 12.4% percentage points from 68.8% to 81.2% (p = 0.003).</p> <p>Pre-legislation three-quarters of participants agreed that the legislation would make bars more comfortable and was needed to protect workers' health. Post-legislation these proportions increased to over 90% (p < 0.001). However, negative perceptions also increased, particularly for perceptions that the legislation has a negative impact on business (from 50.9% to 62.7%, p = 0.008) and that fewer people would visit pubs (41.8% to 62.7%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for relevant covariates, including responses to the attitude statements, support for the ban increased two to three-fold post-implementation. Regardless of their views on the economic impact, most participants agreed, both pre- and post-implementation, that the legislation was needed to protect bar workers' health.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Smoke-free legislation had the support of three-quarters of a large sample of bar workers in the ROI. However, this group holds complex sets of both positive and negative perspectives on the legislation. Of particular importance is that negative economic perceptions did not diminish the widely held perception that the ban is needed to protect workers' health.</p

Healthcare Resource Utilization, Cost and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Diagnosed with COPD Initiating Tiotropium Bromide/Olodaterol versus Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Based on Exacerbation History

Sanjay Sethi,1 Brendan Clark,2 Lindsay GS Bengtson,3 Erin K Buysman,3 Swetha Palli,2 Andrew Sargent,3 Asif Shaikh,2 Gary T Ferguson4 1Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA; 2Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ridgefield, CT, USA; 3Optum Life Sciences, Eden Prairie, MN, USA; 4Department of Medicine, Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan, Farmington Hills, MI, USACorrespondence: Brendan Clark, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, CT, 06877, USA, Email [email protected]: ATS and GOLD guidelines recommend treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual (LAMA/LABA) agents and reserving triple therapy (TT; LAMA/LABA and inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]) for severe cases with higher-exacerbation risk. However, TT often is prescribed across the COPD spectrum. This study compared COPD exacerbations, pneumonia diagnosis, healthcare resource utilization, and costs for patients initiating tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) and a TT, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI), stratified by exacerbation history.Methods: COPD patients who initiated TIO/OLO or FF/UMEC/VI between 06/01/2015— 11/30/2019 (index date=first pharmacy fill-date with ≥ 30 consecutive treatment days) were identified from the Optum Research Database. Patients were ≥ 40 years old and continuously enrolled for 12 months during the baseline period and ≥ 30 days during follow-up. Patients were stratified into GOLD A/B (0– 1 baseline non-hospitalized exacerbation), No exacerbation (subset of GOLD A/B), and GOLD C/D (≥ 2 non-hospitalized and/or ≥ 1 hospitalized baseline exacerbation). Baseline characteristics were balanced with propensity score matching (1:1). Adjusted risks of exacerbation, pneumonia diagnosis, and COPD and/or pneumonia-related utilization and costs were evaluated.Results: Adjusted exacerbation risk was similar in GOLD A/B and No exacerbation subgroups, and lower in GOLD C/D for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.98, p=0.020). Adjusted pneumonia risk was similar between cohorts across the GOLD subgroups. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized pharmacy costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators across subgroups, p< 0.001. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized total healthcare costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators in the GOLD A/B and No exacerbation, subgroups, p< 0.001 (cost ratio [95% CI]: 1.25 [1.13, 1.38] and 1.21 [1.09, 1.36], respectively), but similar in the GOLD C/D subgroup.Conclusion: These real-world results support ATS and GOLD recommendations for treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual bronchodilators and TT for more severe, higher-exacerbation risk COPD patients.Keywords: COPD, tiotropium bromide/olodaterol, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol, exacerbation history, healthcare resource utilization, cost, clinical outcome

Comparing Ambulatory Preceptors’ and Students’ Perceptions of Educational Planning

To compare ambulatory preceptors’ and students’ perceptions of the use of educational planning (setting goals, assessing needs, formulating objectives, choosing methods, and providing feedback and evaluation) in the office setting, we mailed a survey, which was returned by 127 longitudinal ambulatory preceptors and 168 first-year and second-year medical students. Faculty perceptions did not match student perceptions of what occurred in the longitudinal preceptor program teaching sessions in educational planning areas. Students perceived these activities were occurring with much less frequency than faculty perceived. Medical education needs to move beyond the usual faculty development workshop paradigm to a more comprehensive educational development model that includes training both faculty and students in core educational skills. This will enable the ambulatory setting to reach its full educational potential in training future physicians