Engagement intervention versus treatment as usual for young adults with serious mental illness: a randomized pilot trial

Background: Young adults have elevated rates of mental health disorders, yet they often do not receive consistent care. The challenge of continuing to engage young adults has been pervasive worldwide. Few engagement interventions have been designed for young adults with serious mental illness. Just Do You is a theoretically guided engagement intervention. It uses innovative modalities (i.e., technology, expressive arts activities, narrative expression, mentoring) to engage participants in conversations about services and how they work, while simultaneously orienting them to treatment. Methods/design: This pilot and feasibility study utilizes a hybrid research design, examining feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact, alongside implementation. The study combines qualitative methods, a small pilot randomized trial, and a small cost-benefit analysis. Respondents are clinic staff and young adults who have made initial contact with the Personalized Recovery Oriented Services (PROS) program. Quantitative survey data are collected at baseline, 2 weeks (post-intervention), 1 month, and 3 months. The assessments focus on measuring feasibility, acceptability, engagement, and mental health outcomes. Medical record extraction will be used to triangulate self-report data. We will conduct single degree of freedom contrasts to examine whether Just Do You leads to improved outcomes relative to Treatment-As-Usual using robust regression for each outcome measure. We will examine whether changes in the proposed mediating variables occur across groups using a similar contrast strategy. In addition, we will use structural equation modeling to examine the contribution of mediators to ultimate outcomes. Finally, we will use constant comparison coding techniques for qualitative analyses. Discussion: The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility of a young adult engagement meta-intervention through an intensive preliminary pilot trial, learning through collaboration with stakeholders. Just Do You has the potential to fill a gap in the service system for young adults with serious mental illnesses, improving the seemingly intractable problem of disengagement. The program uses culturally responsive strategies, is recovery-oriented, and builds upon the best evidence to date. Our efforts align with local and national health care reform efforts embedding people with lived experience. Trial registration: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03423212) on April 18, 2018, as Protocol Record R34 MH111861-01, New York University, as the Just Do You Program for Young Adults with Serious Mental Illness

How risky is caring for emergency patients at risk of malpractice litigation: a population based epidemiological study of Taiwan's experiences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Emergency medicine has generally been considered a high risk specialty. The purpose of this study is to assess the risk of being sued in the district courts for caring emergency room (ER) patients from the perspective of epidemiology.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This research was designed to be a retrospective population based cohort study. We intended to find out the incidence of litigations arising from ER patients and that of birth inpatients in Taiwan, and computed their relative risks. The inclusion criterion was set to be incidents transpired in the time period of 1998 to 2002. The study materials included the reimbursement claim dataset of the National Health Insurance from 1998 to 2002, and the district court decision database of the Judicial Yuan from 1999 to 2006.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The average annual incidence rate of becoming a plaintiff for ER patients is 0.86 per million, and for birth patients is 33.5 per million. There is a statistically significant difference between birth patients and ER patients. The relative risk comparing ER patients against birth inpatients is 0.03.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The findings of this population based study indicate that the patient population emergency physicians are facing in Taiwan have relatively lower risks of developing litigation in comparison with the patients that come to give birth. Due to the large volume of ER patients, malpractice still pose a major threat in the emergency department, and misdiagnosis remains the major complaint of plaintiffs in subsequent litigations.</p

Physicians and Drug Representatives: Exploring the Dynamics of the Relationship

BACKGROUND: Interactions between physicians and drug representatives are common, even though research shows that physicians understand the conflict of interest between marketing and patient care. Little is known about how physicians resolve this contradiction. OBJECTIVE: To determine physicians’ techniques for managing cognitive inconsistencies within their relationships with drug representatives. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Six focus groups were conducted with 32 academic and community physicians in San Diego, Atlanta, and Chicago. MEASUREMENTS: Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to determine physicians’ attitudes towards conflict of interest and detailing, their beliefs about the quality of information conveyed and the impact on prescribing, and their resolution of the conflict between detailers’ desire to sell product and patient care. RESULTS: Physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest and applied it to relationships with detailers. However, they maintained favorable views of physician–detailer exchanges. Holding these mutually contradictory attitudes, physicians were in a position of cognitive dissonance. To resolve the dissonance, they used a variety of denials and rationalizations: They avoided thinking about the conflict of interest, they disagreed that industry relationships affected physician behavior, they denied responsibility for the problem, they enumerated techniques for remaining impartial, and they reasoned that meetings with detailers were educational and benefited patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest, relationships with detailers set up psychological dynamics that influenced their reasoning. Our findings suggest that voluntary guidelines, like those proposed by most major medical societies, are inadequate. It may be that only the prohibition of physician–detailer interactions will be effective

Unwanted pregnancy, mental health and abortion: untangling the evidence

Abortion policy is still contentious in many parts of the world, and periodically it emerges to dominate health policy debates. This paper examines one such debate in Australia centering on research findings by a New Zealand research group, Fergusson, Horwood & Ridder, published in early 2006. The debate highlighted the difficulty for researchers when their work is released in a heightened political context. We argue that the authors made a logical error in constructing their analysis and interpreting their data, and are therefore not justified in making policy claims for their work. The paper received significant public attention, and may have influenced the public policy position of a major professional body. Deeply held views on all sides of the abortion debate are unlikely to be reconciled, but if policy is to be informed by research, findings must be based on sound science

Parental use of the Internet to seek health information and primary care utilisation for their child: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Using the Internet to seek health information is becoming more common. Its consequences on health care utilisation are hardly known in the general population, in particular among children whose parents seek health information on the Internet. Our objective was to investigate the relationship between parental use of the Internet to seek health information and primary care utilisation for their child.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This cross-sectional survey has been carried out in a population of parents of pre-school children in France. The main outcome measure was the self-reported number of primary care consultations for the child, according to parental use of the Internet to seek health information, adjusted for the characteristics of the parents and their child respectively, and parental use of other health information sources.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 1 068 out of 2 197 questionnaires were returned (response rate of 49%). No association was found between parental use of the Internet to seek health information and the number of consultations within the last 12 months for their child. Variables related to the number of primary care consultations were characteristics of the child (age, medical conditions, homeopathic treatment), parental characteristics (occupation, income, stress level) and consultation of other health information sources (advice from pharmacist, relatives).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We did not find any relationship between parental use of the Internet to seek health information and primary care utilisation for children. The Internet seems to be used as a supplement to health services rather than as a replacement.</p

United States regional economic transformation in the context of international competition

The full-text of this book chapter is not available in ORA. Citation: Clark, G. L. (1989). United States regional economic transformation in the context of international competition. In: Rodwin, L. & Sazanami, H. (eds.), Deindustrialization and Regional Economic Transformation, Unwin Hyman: London, pp. 199-220 and 296-302