Normalized Healthcare Utilization Among Refugees Resettled in Philadelphia, 2007-2016

Background/Purpose: About 70,000 new refugees are resettled in the United States each year, of which approximately 600 are resettled in Philadelphia. This project seeks to better understand the patterns of healthcare utilization, including primary care, emergency, and hospitalization, among refugees resettled in Philadelphia, PA, between 2007 and 2016. Methods: Demographic and healthcare utilization data for 1,144 refugees seen at Jefferson Family Medical Associates were compiled from the Jefferson Longitudinal Refugee Health Registry. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic characteristics of the refugee population. Negative binomial count regressions were used to test for significant correlations between major demographic variables and healthcare utilization. Results: Refugees had an average of 7.24 (SD = 9.35) and a median of 4 primary care visits. Visits rates were highest during the first eight months post resettlement and declined significantly after expiration of Refugee Medical Assistance. Country of origin and year of arrival were significantly associated with differing rates of healthcare utilization. Discussion: Overall, refugees utilized primary healthcare services at a slightly higher rate than the U.S. average. There are differences in utilization among various sub-populations within the refugee community. Future studies should further explore these differences in healthcare utilization patterns among recently resettled refugees

Risk Factors of Not Reaching MCID after Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Case Control Study

Background The therapeutic effect of spine surgery has been traditionally evaluated by physical examination, radiographic findings, and general perception of patient’s health status. However, these assessments are often insufficient to represent surgical outcomes.Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are tools developed to measures quality outcomes following spinal surgery. Examples include the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Function 4-item Short Form (PROMIS-PF), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), ODI (Oswestry Disability Index), SF-36 (Short Form Health Survey), and EQ-5D (EuroQuol-5D). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is an assessment tool to note the smallest clinical difference in PROs and provides the threshold where patients experience clinical benefit that justifies treatment plans or procedures despite the cost and side effects. MCID results reflect patient-perceived functional improvement, which can be a core metric in lumbar surgery for degenerative disease. Clinical and sociodemographic risk factors may serve to identify high-risk patients via MCID assessment. This study aims to identify risk factors associated with failure of reaching MCID based on PROMIS PF after elective lumbar spine surgery and the data registry from Michigan Spine Surgery Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC). The results of this study can provide opportunities to optimize medical conditions of patients in prior to any elective lumbar surgery. METHODS MSSIC is a state-wide quality-improvement initiative database including 29 hospitals and 200 orthopedic- and neurosurgeons from various settings. Member hospitals are required to perform an annual minimum of 200 spine surgeries. MSSIC reviews elective spine surgeries for degenerative disease but excludes non-degenerative and/or complex pathology (i.e., spinal cord injury, traumatic fractures, pre-existing infection, grade 3 or 4 spondylolisthesis, scoliosis greater than 25◦, congenital anomalies, or ≥ 4-level fusion). Utilizing MSSIC, 10,922 patients who had undergone elective lumbar spine surgery were selected with 90 day follow up, and 7,200 patients with 1-year follow up. Patients with missing data were excluded from the study. Patient demographics, clinical presentation, medical history, surgical procedure, details of hospital stay, postsurgical adverse events within 90 days of surgery, and patient-reported outcome after surgery were reviewed. A patient was considered to have achieved MCID if there was an increase in ≥4.5 points. RESULTS Of 10,922 patients with 90-day follow-up, 4,453 patients (40.8%) did not reach MCID. Of 7,200 patients with 1-year follow up, 2,361 patients (23.8%) did not achieve MCID. There were significant baseline differences in demographic profiles and operative characteristics for those who had follow-up at 90 days and 1 year after their surgery. At 90 days after surgery, significant factors of not reaching MCID and their relative risk included symptom duration more than 1 year (1.34), previous spine surgery (1.25), African American descent (1.25), chronic opiate use (1.23), less than high school education (1.20), morbid obesity (1.15), ASA class \u3e2 (1.15), current smoking (1.14), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (1.13), depression (1.09), history of DVT (1.08), scoliosis (1.06), anxiety (1.06), baseline PROMIS (1.06), and surgery invasiveness (1.02). At 1 year after surgery, significant factors of not reaching MCID and their relative risk included symptom duration more than 1 year (1.41), less than high school education (1.34), previous spine surgery (1.30), morbid obesity (1.30), chronic opiate use (1.25), age (1.21), current smoking (1.21), African American descent (1.20), ASA class \u3e2 (1.18), history of DVT (1.12), depression (1.10), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (1.09), and baseline PROMIS (1.06). Independent ambulatory status (0.83 and 0.88 for 90-day and 1-year follow-up, respectively) and private insurance (0.83 and 0.85 for 90-day and 1-year follow-up, respectively) were associated with higher likelihood of reaching MCID. CONCLUSION This case control study identifies relevant risk factors of not reaching MCID after elective lumbar spine surgery. The results may assist clinicians in identifying high risk patients and optimizing patients’ medical conditions prior to spinal surgery

Barriers and Facilitators To Cervical Cancer Screening Among Iraqi Refugees Resettled in Philadelphia: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient and Provider Perceptions

Oral presentation at the 6th Annual North American Refugee Health Conference, Niagara Falls, New York. Research Questions: 1. What is the prevalence of cervical cancer and cervical cancer screening among recently resettled refugees seen at Jefferson\u27s Center for Refugee Health? 2. Are patient-and provider-identified barriers to cervical cancer screening at CRH consistent with those identified in previous research efforts? 3. What are patient-and provider identified facilitators to cervical cancer screening for Iraqi refugee women

Comprehensive Refugee Health Surveillance in Philadelphia: A Combined Resettlement and Clinical Patient Registry

Oral presentation at the 6th Annual North American Refugee Health Conference, Niagara Falls, New York. Goal: To improve the success of refugee resettlement and health outcomes in Philadelphia by establishing a multi-agency registry with social services and clinical measures

Original Articles National Lipid Association recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia: Part 1 -executive summary

Abstract: Various organizations and agencies have issued recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia. Although many commonalities exist among them, material differences are present as well. The leadership of the National Lipid Association (NLA) convened an Expert Panel to develop a consensus set of recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia in clinical medicine. The current Executive Summary highlights the major conclusions in Part 1 of the recommendations report of the NLA Expert Panel and includes: (1) background and conceptual framework for formulation of the NLA Expert Panel recommendations; (2) screening and classification of lipoprotein lipid levels in adults; (3) targets for intervention in dyslipidemia management; (4) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment and treatment goals based on risk category; (5) atherogenic cholesterol-non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-as the primary targets of therapy; and (6) lifestyle and drug therapies intended to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with dyslipidemia. Ó 2014 National Lipid Association. All rights reserved. Various organizations and agencies have issued recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia. The current Executive Summary highlights the major conclusions in Part 1 of the recommendations report of the NLA Expert Panel. The Executive Summary does not include a comprehensive reference list, but citations have been included for several key publications. The full report will include additional details on the rationale for the recommendations and citations to published research considered in the panel's deliberations. A presentation containing the main elements of these recommendations was made available to the public and other organizations involved with the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to solicit input during an open comment period. Comments and suggestions were received from many members of the NLA as well as other individuals and organizations and were collated for consideration and adjudication by the panel in formulating the final set of recommendations contained herein. Part 1 of the NLA Expert Panel Recommendations for Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, will cover: Background and conceptual framework for formulation of the NLA Expert Panel recommendations; Screening and classification of lipoprotein lipid levels in adults; Targets for intervention in dyslipidemia management; ASCVD risk assessment and treatment goals based on risk category; Atherogenic cholesterol-non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-as the primary targets of therapy; and Lifestyle and drug therapies intended to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with dyslipidemia

Original Articles National Lipid Association recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia: Part 1 -executive summary E M B A R G O E D

Abstract: Various organizations and agencies have issued recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia. Although many commonalities exist among them, material differences are present as well. The leadership of the National Lipid Association (NLA) convened an Expert Panel to develop a consensus set of recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia in clinical medicine. The current Executive Summary highlights the major conclusions in Part 1 of the recommendations report of the NLA Expert Panel and includes: (1) background and conceptual framework for formulation of the NLA Expert Panel recommendations; (2) screening and classification of lipoprotein lipid levels in adults; (3) targets for intervention in dyslipidemia management; (4) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment and treatment goals based on risk category; (5) atherogenic cholesterol-non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-as the primary targets of therapy; and (6) lifestyle and drug therapies intended to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with dyslipidemia. Ó 2014 National Lipid Association. All rights reserved. Various organizations and agencies have issued recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia. The current Executive Summary highlights the major conclusions in Part 1 of the recommendations report of the NLA Expert Panel. The Executive Summary does not include a comprehensive reference list, but citations have been included for several key publications. The full report will include additional details on the rationale for the recommendations and citations to published research considered in the panel's deliberations. A presentation containing the main elements of these recommendations was made available to the public and other organizations involved with the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to solicit input during an open comment period. Comments and suggestions were received from many members of the NLA as well as other individuals and organizations and were collated for consideration and adjudication by the panel in formulating the final set of recommendations contained herein. Part 1 of the NLA Expert Panel Recommendations for Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, will cover: Background and conceptual framework for formulation of the NLA Expert Panel recommendations; Screening and classification of lipoprotein lipid levels in adults; Targets for intervention in dyslipidemia management; ASCVD risk assessment and treatment goals based on risk category; Atherogenic cholesterol-non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-as the primary targets of therapy; and Lifestyle and drug therapies intended to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with dyslipidemia

Original Articles National Lipid Association recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia: Part 1 -executive summary

Abstract: Various organizations and agencies have issued recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia. Although many commonalities exist among them, material differences are present as well. The leadership of the National Lipid Association (NLA) convened an Expert Panel to develop a consensus set of recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia in clinical medicine. The current Executive Summary highlights the major conclusions in Part 1 of the recommendations report of the NLA Expert Panel and includes: (1) background and conceptual framework for formulation of the NLA Expert Panel recommendations; (2) screening and classification of lipoprotein lipid levels in adults; (3) targets for intervention in dyslipidemia management; (4) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment and treatment goals based on risk category; (5) atherogenic cholesterol-non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-as the primary targets of therapy; and (6) lifestyle and drug therapies intended to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with dyslipidemia. Ó 2014 National Lipid Association. All rights reserved. Various organizations and agencies have issued recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia. The current Executive Summary highlights the major conclusions in Part 1 of the recommendations report of the NLA Expert Panel. The Executive Summary does not include a comprehensive reference list, but citations have been included for several key publications. The full report will include additional details on the rationale for the recommendations and citations to published research considered in the panel's deliberations. A presentation containing the main elements of these recommendations was made available to the public and other organizations involved with the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to solicit input during an open comment period. Comments and suggestions were received from many members of the NLA as well as other individuals and organizations and were collated for consideration and adjudication by the panel in formulating the final set of recommendations contained herein. Part 1 of the NLA Expert Panel Recommendations for Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, will cover: Background and conceptual framework for formulation of the NLA Expert Panel recommendations; Screening and classification of lipoprotein lipid levels in adults; Targets for intervention in dyslipidemia management; ASCVD risk assessment and treatment goals based on risk category; Atherogenic cholesterol-non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-as the primary targets of therapy; and Lifestyle and drug therapies intended to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with dyslipidemia

Appetite, gut hormone and energy intake responses to low volume sprint interval and traditional endurance exercise.

Sprint interval exercise improves several health markers but the appetite and energy balance response is unknown. This study compared the effects of sprint interval and endurance exercise on appetite, energy intake and gut hormone responses. Twelve healthy males [mean (SD): age 23 (3) years, body mass index 24.2 (2.9) kg m(-2), maximum oxygen uptake 46.3 (10.2) mL kg(-1) min(-1)] completed three 8 h trials [control (CON), endurance exercise (END), sprint interval exercise (SIE)] separated by 1 week. Trials commenced upon completion of a standardised breakfast. Sixty minutes of cycling at 68.1 (4.3) % of maximum oxygen uptake was performed from 1.75-2.75 h in END. Six 30-s Wingate tests were performed from 2.25-2.75 h in SIE. Appetite ratings, acylated ghrelin and peptide YY (PYY) concentrations were measured throughout each trial. Food intake was monitored from buffet meals at 3.5 and 7 h and an overnight food bag. Appetite (P 0.05). Therefore, relative energy intake (energy intake minus the net energy expenditure of exercise) was lower in END than that in CON (15.7 %; P = 0.006) and SIE (11.5 %; P = 0.082). An acute bout of endurance exercise resulted in lower appetite perceptions in the hours after exercise than sprint interval exercise and induced a greater 24 h energy deficit due to higher energy expenditure during exercise