Use of folic acid and vitamin supplementation among adults with depression and anxiety: a cross-sectional, population-based survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence suggests that folate deficiency may be causatively linked to depressive symptoms. However, little is known on the status of use of folic acid and vitamin supplements among people with mental disorders. This study examined the prevalence and the likelihood of use of folic acid or vitamin supplements among adults with depression and anxiety in comparison to those without these conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using data from 46, 119 participants (aged ≥ 18 years) in the 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey, we estimated the adjusted prevalence and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for taking folic acid and vitamin supplements among those with ever diagnosed depression (n = 8, 019), ever diagnosed anxiety (n = 5, 546) or elevated depressive symptoms (n = 3, 978, defined as having a depression severity score of ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 diagnostic algorithm).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, women were more likely than men to take folic acid supplements 1-4 times/day (50.2% versus 38.7%, P < 0.001) and vitamin supplements (62.5% versus 49.8%, P < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, men with ever diagnosed depression or anxiety were 42% and 83%, respectively, more likely to take folic acid supplements < 1 time/day; 44% and 39%, respectively, more likely to take folic acid supplements 1-4 times/day; and 40% and 46%, respectively, more likely to take vitamin supplements compared to men without these conditions (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). Women with ever diagnosed depression were 13% more likely to take folic acid supplements 1-4 times/day and 15% more likely to take vitamin supplements than women without this condition (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). Use of folic acid and vitamin supplements did not differ significantly by elevated depressive symptoms in either sex.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The prevalence and the likelihood of taking folic acid and vitamin supplements varied substantially by a history of diagnosed depression among both men and women and by a history of diagnosed anxiety among men, but not by presence of elevated depressive symptoms in either sex.</p

Association of education with dietary intake among young adults in the bi-ethnic Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) cohort

OBJECTIVE: To examine associations of changes in dietary intake with education in young black and white men and women. DESIGN: The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, a multi-centre population-based prospective study. Dietary intake data at baseline and year 7 were obtained from an extensive nutritionist-administered diet history questionnaire with 700 items developed for CARDIA. SETTING: Participants were recruited in 1985-1986 from four sites: Birmingham, Alabama; Chicago, Illinois; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Oakland, California. SUBJECTS: Participants were from a general community sample of 703 black men (BM), 1006 black women (BW), 963 white men (WM) and 1054 white women (WW) who were aged 18-30 years at baseline. Analyses here include data for baseline (1985-1986) and year 7 (1992-1993). RESULTS: Most changes in dietary intake were observed among those with high education (\u3eor=12 years) at both examinations. There was a significant decrease in intake of energy from saturated fat and cholesterol and a significant increase in energy from starch for each race-gender group (P\u3c0.001). Regardless of education, taste was considered an important influence on food choice. CONCLUSION: The inverse relationship of education with changes in saturated fat and cholesterol intakes suggests that national public health campaigns may have a greater impact among those with more education

Economic insecurities and patient-reported outcomes in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in the USA: a cross-sectional analysis of data from the California Lupus Epidemiology Study

Background Social determinants of health are consistently associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) outcomes. However, social determinants of health are typically measured with conventional socioeconomic status factors such as income or education. We assessed the association of economic insecurities (ie, food, housing, health care, and financial insecurity) with patient-reported outcomes in a cohort of patients with SLE.Methods In this cross-sectional analysis, data were derived from the California Lupus Epidemiology Study based in the San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA. Participants were recruited between Feb 25, 2015, and Jan 10, 2018, from rheumatology clinics. Inclusion criteria were Bay Area residency; oral fluency in English, Spanish, Cantonese, or Mandarin; 18 years or older; ability to provide informed consent; and a physician confirmed SLE diagnosis. Food, housing, health care, and financial economic insecurities were assessed by validated screening tools. Patient-reported outcomes were obtained using PROMIS, Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (known as Neuro-QoL) Cognitive Function short form, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-8, and General Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7 instruments. Poverty was defined as household income of 125% or less of the federal poverty limit. Lower education was defined as less than college-graduate education. The association of economic insecurities with patient-reported outcomes was assessed by multivariable linear regression models adjusting for demographics, SLE disease characteristics, and comorbidities. We tested for interactions of insecurities with poverty and education.Findings The final cohort included 252 participants. Mean age was 49·7 (SD 13·4) years, 228 (90%) of 252 were women and 24 (10%) were men. 80 (32%) individuals self-identified as Asian, 26 (10%) as Black, 101 (40%) as White, eight (3%) as mixed race, and 37 (15%) as other race; 59 (23%) self-identified as Hispanic. 135 (54%) individuals had at least one insecurity. Insecurities were highly prevalent, and more common in those with poverty and lower education. Adjusted multivariate analyses revealed that participants with any insecurity had significantly worse scores across all measured patient-reported outcomes. For physical function, no insecurity had an adjusted mean score of 48·9 (95% CI 47·5–50·3) and any insecurity had 45·7 (44·3–47·0; p=0·0017). For pain interference, no insecurity was 52·0 (50·5–53·5) and any insecurity was 54·4 (53·0–55·8; p=0·031). For fatigue, no insecurity was 50·5 (48·8–52·3) and any insecurity was 54·9 (53·3–56·5; p=0·0005). For sleep disturbance, no insecurity was 49·9 (48·3–51·6) and any insecurity was 52·9 (51·4–54·5; p=0·012). For cognitive function, no insecurity was 49·3 (47·7–50·9) and any insecurity was 45·6 (44·1–47·0; p=0·0011). For PHQ-8, no insecurity was 4·4 (3·6–5·1) and any insecurity was 6·1 (5·4–6·8; p=0·0013). For GAD-7, no insecurity was 3·3 (2·6–4·1) and any insecurity was 5·2 (4·5–5·9; p=0·0008). Individuals with more insecurities had worse patientreported outcomes. There were no statistically significant interactions between insecurities and poverty or education. Interpretation Having any economic insecurity was associated with worse outcomes for people with SLE regardless of poverty or education. The findings of this study provide insight into the relationship between economic insecurities and SLE outcomes and underscore the need to assess whether interventions that directly address these insecurities can reduce health disparities in SL

Positive psychosocial factors may protect against perceived stress in people with systemic lupus erythematosus with and without trauma history

Objective: Trauma history is associated with SLE onset and worse patient-reported outcomes; perceived stress is associated with greater SLE disease activity. Stress perceptions vary in response to life events and may be influenced by psychosocial factors. In an SLE cohort, we examined whether stressful events associated with perceived stress, whether psychosocial factors affected perceived stress, and whether these relationships varied by prior trauma exposure. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of data from the California Lupus Epidemiology Study, an adult SLE cohort. Multivariable linear regression analyses controlling for age, gender, educational attainment, income, SLE damage, comorbid conditions, glucocorticoids ≥7.5 mg/day and depression examined associations of recent stressful events (Life Events Inventory) and positive (resilience, self-efficacy, emotional support) and negative (social isolation) psychosocial factors with perceived stress. Analyses were stratified by lifetime trauma history (Brief Trauma Questionnaire (BTQ)) and by adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in a subset. Results: Among 242 individuals with SLE, a greater number of recent stressful events was associated with greater perceived stress (beta (95% CI)=0.20 (0.07 to 0.33), p=0.003). Positive psychosocial factor score representing resilience, self-efficacy and emotional support was associated with lower perceived stress when accounting for number of stressful events (−0.67 (−0.94 to –0.40), p&lt;0.0001); social isolation was associated with higher stress (0.20 (0.14 to 0.25), p&lt;0.0001). In analyses stratified by BTQ trauma and ACEs, associations of psychosocial factors and perceived stress were similar between groups. However, the number of recent stressful events was significantly associated with perceived stress only for people with BTQ trauma (0.17 (0.05 to 0.29), p=0.0077) and ACEs (0.37 (0.15 to 0.58), p=0.0011).Conclusion: Enhancing positive and lessening negative psychosocial factors may mitigate deleterious perceived stress, which may improve outcomes in SLE, even among individuals with a history of prior trauma who may be more vulnerable to recent stressful events

S1 Checklist -

BackgroundPreventive care is important for managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), yet primary care providers (PCPs) often face challenges in delivering such care due to discomfort and unfamiliarity with IBD-specific guidelines. This study aims to assess PCPs’ attitudes towards, and practices in, providing preventive screenings for IBD patients, highlighting areas for improvement in guideline dissemination and education.MethodsUsing a web-based opt-in panel of PCPs (DocStyles survey, spring 2022), we assessed PCPs’ comfort level with providing/recommending screenings and the reasons PCPs felt uncomfortable (n = 1,503). Being likely to provide/recommend screenings for depression/anxiety, skin cancer, osteoporosis, and cervical cancer were compared by PCPs’ comfort level and frequency of seeing patients with IBD. We estimated adjusted odd ratios (AORs) of being likely to recommend screenings and selecting responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines by use of clinical practice methods.ResultsAbout 72% of PCPs reported being comfortable recommending screenings to patients with IBD. The top reason identified for not feeling comfortable was unfamiliarity with IBD-specific screening guidelines (55%). Being comfortable was significantly associated with being likely to provide/recommend depression/anxiety (AOR = 3.99) and skin cancer screenings (AOR = 3.19) compared to being uncomfortable or unsure. Percentages of responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines were lower than those aligned with general population guidelines for osteoporosis (21.7% vs. 27.8%) and cervical cancer screenings (34.9% vs. 43.9%), and responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines did not differ by comfort level for both screenings. Timely review of guidelines specific to immunosuppressed patients was associated with being likely to provide/recommend screenings and selecting responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines.ConclusionsDespite a general comfort among PCPs in recommending preventive screenings for IBD patients, gaps in knowledge regarding IBD-specific screening guidelines persist. Enhancing awareness and understanding of these guidelines through targeted education and resource provision may bridge this gap.</div

National weighting of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)

Abstract Background The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a network of health-related telephone surveys--conducted by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and participating US territories—that receive technical assistance from CDC. Data users often aggregate BRFSS state samples for national estimates without accounting for state-level sampling, a practice that could introduce bias because the weighted distributions of the state samples do not always adhere to national demographic distributions. Methods This article examines six methods of reweighting, which are then compared with key health indicator estimates from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) based on 2013 data. Results Compared to the usual stacking approach, all of the six new methods reduce the variance of weights and design effect at the national level, and some also reduce the estimated bias. This article also provides a comparison of the methods based on the variances induced by unequal weighting as well as the bias reduction induced by raking at the national level, and recommends a preferred method. Conclusions The new method leads to weighted distributions that more accurately reproduce national demographic characteristics. While the empirical results for key estimates were limited to a few health indicators, they also suggest reduction in potential bias and mean squared error. To the extent that survey outcomes are associated with these demographic characteristics, matching the national distributions will reduce bias in estimates of these outcomes at the national level

Reasons identified by PCPs who are uncomfortable or unsure of recommending or providing preventive screenings to patients with IBD, DocStyles spring 2022 (<i>n</i> = 422)^a.

Abbreviations: IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; PCP, primary care provider. aThe multiple-choice question, “What are the reasons that you are unsure or uncomfortable?” applied only to respondents who answered “uncomfortable” or “unsure” to the question, “Are you comfortable or uncomfortable recommending or providing preventive screenings to patients with IBD?”.</p