Quality of Life and Affective Well-Being in Middle-Aged and Older People with Chronic Medical Illnesses: A Cross-Sectional Population Based Study

Background: There has been considerable research into the impact of chronic illness on health-related quality of life. However, few studies have assessed the impact of different chronic conditions on general quality of life (QOL). The objective of this paper was to compare general (rather than health-related) QOL and affective well-being in middle aged and older people across eight chronic illnesses.Methods and Findings: This population-based, cross-sectional study involved 11,523 individuals aged 50 years and older, taking part in wave 1 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. General QOL was assessed using the CASP-19, happiness was evaluated using two items drawn from the GHQ-12, and depression was measured with the CES-D. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression, adjusting for age, gender and wealth, were performed. General QOL was most impaired in people with stroke (mean 37.56, CI 36.73-38.39), and least in those reporting cancer (mean 41.78, CI 41.12-42.44, respectively), compared with no illness (mean 44.15, CI 43.92-44.39). Stroke (mean 3.65, CI 3.58-3.73) was also associated with the greatest reduction in positive well-being whereas diabetes (mean 3.81, CI 3.76-3.86) and cancer were least affected (3.85, CI 3.79-3.91), compared with no illness (mean 3.97, CI 3.95-4.00). Depression was significantly elevated in all conditions, but was most common in chronic lung disease (OR 3.04, CI 2.56-3.61), with more modest elevations in those with osteoarthritis (OR 2.08, CI 1.84-2.34) or cancer (OR 2.07, CI 1.69-2.54). Multiple co-morbidities were associated with greater decrements in QOL and affective well-being.Conclusion: The presence of chronic illness is associated with impairments in broader aspects of QOL and affective wellbeing, but different conditions vary in their impact. Further longitudinal work is needed to establish the temporal links between chronic illness and impairments in QOL and affective well-being

Genome-wide association for major depression through age at onset stratification:Major Depressive Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium

Background Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a disabling mood disorder and, despite a known heritable component, a large meta-analysis of GWAS revealed no replicable genetic risk variants. Given prior evidence of heterogeneity by age-at-onset (AAO) in MDD, we tested whether genome-wide significant risk variants for MDD could be identified in cases subdivided by AAO. Method Discovery case-control GWASs were performed where cases were stratified using increasing/decreasing AAO-cutoffs; significant SNPs were tested in nine independent replication samples, giving a total sample of 22,158 cases and 133,749 controls for sub-setting. Polygenic score analysis was used to examine if differences in shared genetic risk exists between earlier and adult onset MDD with commonly co-morbid disorders of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, Alzheimer’s disease, and coronary artery disease. Results We identify one replicated genome-wide significant locus associated with adult-onset (>27 years) MDD (rs7647854, OR=1.16, 95%CI=1.11-1.21, p=5.2x10-11). Using polygenic score analyses, we show that earlier-onset MDD is genetically more similar to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder than adult-onset. Conclusions We demonstrate that using additional phenotype data previously collected by genetic studies to tackle phenotypic heterogeneity in MDD can successfully lead to the discovery of genetic risk factor despite reduced sample size. Furthermore, our results suggest that the genetic susceptibility to MDD differs between adult- and earlier-onset MDD, with earlier-onset cases having a greater genetic overlap with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

The case for simulation as part of a comprehensive patient safety program

Simulation in obstetrics allows us to practice in a safe environment. Simulations can improve the performance of individuals and obstetric teams. The evidence is overwhelming that, with simulated practice, obstetricians improve their technical and communication skills. Evidence is emerging that simulation ultimately may improve clinical outcomes. It stands to reason that simulation in obstetrics should be incorporated into comprehensive patient safety programs

Primary care clinicians’ perspectives about quality measurements in safety-net clinics and non-safety-net clinics

Abstract Background Quality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition’s Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers’ (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs’ perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare. Methods Qualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes. Results Three themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota’s current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity. Conclusion Aligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs’ perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them