Associations between Living Alone, Depression, and Falls among Community-Dwelling Older Adults in the US

Social isolation is closely linked to depression and falls in late life and are common among seniors. Although the literature has highlighted age-related variations in these three geriatric conditions, evidence on heterogeneities across older adult age categories is lacking. To address this gap, we present cross-sectional analyses using indicators of social isolation, depression, and falls of older adults constructed from the most recent Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data. An age-based understanding is critical to improve health interventions since health changes occur at a faster rate among seniors than in any other population subgroup. We included all adults 60 years and older (n = 113,233) in the 2018 BRFSS landline dataset and used the status of living alone, depressive disorder diagnosis, and fall incidences reported by these seniors to respectively create the social isolation, depression, and fall indicators. We conducted multivariable logistic regressions to compare findings on these indicators across the three age categories of 60–69, 70–79, and 80 and above after adjusting for a common set of covariates. Results indicate that the likelihood of seniors living alone and reporting depression is the highest among those 80 years and above. Conversely, the odds of depressed seniors reporting falls is the greatest among the 60–69 year olds. Accordingly, we highlight key implications for targeted health promotion and care delivery to seniors

Recommendations for Exploring the Impact of the Opioid Epidemic: A Proposed Management Framework

It is imperative to prepare Business School Health Services Administration (HSAD) graduates with management tools to assess patient need and reduce barriers to care alongside clinicians. HSAD programs require interprofessional learning activities to shape competency and skill in community needs assessment. This HSAD program works collaboratively across the University community and with external partners to offer such an experience. Integrating this concept into the curriculum encourages graduates as early careerists to implement services and resources for patient need. Understanding that problems exists is a precursor to an economic valuation of such prevalent conditions as the dynamic opioid epidemic

Risk Factors of Fall-Related Emergency Department Visits by Fall Location of Older Adults in the US

Introduction: Prior evidence indicates that predictors of older adult falls vary by indoor-outdoor location of the falls. While a subset of United States’ studies reports this finding using primary data from a single geographic area, other secondary analyses of falls across the country do not distinguish between the two fall locations. Consequently, evidence at the national level on risk factors specific to indoor vs outdoor falls is lacking. Methods: Using the 2017 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) data, we conducted a multivariable analysis of fall-related emergency department (ED) visits disaggregated by indoor vs outdoor fall locations of adults 65 years and older (N = 6,720,937) in the US. Results: Results are compatible with findings from previous primary studies. While women (relative risk [RR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-1.44) were more likely to report indoor falls, men were more likely to present with an outdoor fall. Visits for indoor falls were highest among those 85 years and older (RR = 2.35, 95% CI, 2.33-2.37) with outdoor fall visits highest among those 84 years and younger. Additionally, the probabilities associated with an indoor fall in the presence of chronic conditions were consistently much higher when compared to an outdoor fall. We also found that residence in metropolitan areas increased the likelihood of an indoor elderly fall compared to higher outdoor fall visits from seniors in non-core rural areas, but both indoor and outdoor fall visits were higher among older adults in higher income ZIP codes. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the contrasting risk profile for elderly ED patients who report indoor vs outdoor falls when compared to the elderly reporting no falls. In conjunction, we highlight implications from three perspectives: a population health standpoint for EDs working with their primary care and community care colleagues; an ED administrative vantage point; and from an individual emergency clinician’s point of view

Interpreting COVID-19 Deaths among Nursing Home Residents in the US: The Changing Role of Facility Quality over Time

A report published last year by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) highlighted that COVID-19 case counts are more likely to be high in lower quality nursing homes than in higher quality ones. Since then, multiple studies have examined this association with a handful also exploring the role of facility quality in explaining resident deaths from the virus. Despite this wide interest, no previous study has investigated how the relation between quality and COVID-19 mortality among nursing home residents may have changed, if at all, over the progression of the pandemic. This understanding is indeed lacking given that prior studies are either cross-sectional or are analyses limited to one specific state or region of the country. To address this gap, we analyzed changes in nursing home resident deaths across the US between June 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021 (n = 12,415 nursing homes X 8 months) using both descriptive and multivariable statistics. We merged publicly available data from multiple federal agencies with mortality rate (per 100,000 residents) as the outcome and CMS 5-star quality rating as the primary explanatory variable of interest. Covariates, based on the prior literature, consisted of both facility- and community-level characteristics. Findings from our secondary analysis provide robust evidence of the association between nursing home quality and resident deaths due to the virus diminishing over time. In connection, we discuss plausible reasons, especially duration of staff shortages, that over time might have played a critical role in driving the quality-mortality convergence across nursing homes in the US

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field