In this study, we aimed to characterize the impact of long COVID on quality of life and approaches to symptom management among Black American adults.
As a novel condition, qualitative evidence concerning long COVID symptoms and their impact on quality of life can inform the refinement of diagnostic criteria and care plans. However, the underrepresentation of Black Americans in long COVID research is a barrier to achieving equitable care for all long COVID patients.
We employed an interpretive description study design.
We recruited a convenience sample of 15 Black American adults with long COVID. We analysed the anonymized transcripts from race-concordant, semi-structured interviews using an inductive, thematic analysis approach. We followed the SRQR reporting guidelines.
We identified four themes: (1) The impact of long COVID symptoms on personal identity and pre-existing conditions; (2) Self-management strategies for long COVID symptoms; (3) Social determinants of health and symptom management; and (4) Effects on interpersonal relationships.
Findings demonstrate the comprehensive ramifications of long COVID on the lives of Black American adults. Results also articulate how pre-existing conditions, social risk factors, distrust due to systemic racism, and the nature of interpersonal relationships can complicate symptom management.
Care approaches that support access to and implementation of integrative therapies may be best suited to meet the needs of long COVID patients. Clinicians should also prioritize eliminating patient exposure to discrimination, implicit bias, and microaggressions. This is of particular concern for long COVID patients who have symptoms that are difficult to objectively quantify, such as pain and fatigue.
While patient perspectives and experiences were the focus of this study, patients were not involved with the design or conduct of the study, data analysis or interpretation, or writing the manuscript.
Chronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM.
Secondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.
Five integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions.
Staff and high-risk PC patients in the VA.
A multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.
(a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain.
Most (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned.
Pain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams.
Rapid population ageing and associated health issues such as frailty are a growing public health concern. While early identification and management of frailty may limit adverse health outcomes, the complex presentations of frailty pose challenges for clinicians. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential solution to support the early identification and management of frailty. In order to provide a comprehensive overview of current evidence regarding the development and use of AI technologies including machine learning and deep learning for the identification and management of frailty, this protocol outlines a scoping review aiming to identify and present available information in this area. Specifically, this protocol describes a review that will focus on the clinical tools and frameworks used to assess frailty, the outcomes that have been evaluated and the involvement of knowledge users in the development, implementation and evaluation of AI methods and tools for frailty care in clinical settings.
This scoping review protocol details a systematic search of eight major academic databases, including Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Ageline, Web of Science, Scopus and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore using the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley and enhanced by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The search strategy has been designed in consultation with a librarian. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, followed by full texts, for eligibility and then chart the data using a piloted data charting form. Results will be collated and presented through a narrative summary, tables and figures.
Since this study is based on publicly available information, ethics approval is not required. Findings will be communicated with healthcare providers, caregivers, patients and research and health programme funders through peer-reviewed publications, presentations and an infographic.
OSF Registries (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/T54G8).
by Douglas C. Smith, Crystal A. Reinhart, Shahana Begum, Janaka Kosgolla, John F. Kelly, Brandon B. Bergman, Marni Basic
Background and aimsTo date, no epidemiological survey has estimated the prevalence of adolescents identifying as being in recovery. This is necessary for planning and identifying the needs of youth with current and remitted substance use disorders. This study estimated the prevalence of recovery status in a large statewide epidemiological survey administered between January and March 2020.
ParticipantsParticipants were high school students in 9th through 12th grades throughout Illinois.
MeasurementsYouth were asked if they were in recovery and if they had resolved problems with substances. Youth who reported recovery and problem resolving dual status (DS), recovery only (RO), and problem resolution only (PRO) were compared to propensity score matched control groups who reported neither status (neither/nor; NN). Outcomes included alcohol use, binge alcohol use, cannabis use, and prescription drug use in the past 30 days.
FindingsPrevalence estimates were 884 (1.4%) for DS, 1546 (2.5%) for PRO, and 1,811 (2.9%) for RO. Relative to propensity matched control samples, all three groups had significantly lower odds of prescription drug use. The PRO group had lower odds of past month cannabis use. There were no significant differences for either alcohol outcome.
ConclusionsPrevalence estimates of youth in recovery are slightly lower than those of adults in recovery, and estimates should be replicated. Youth in recovery and those resolving problems have numerous behavioral health needs, and relative to matched controls, have even odds for past 30-day alcohol use. These findings compel us to further define recovery for adolescents and emerging adults to allow for improving treatments and epidemiological research.
The aim included investigation of the associations between sedentary (SED), low-intensity physical activity (LIPA), moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA) and the prevalence of subclinical atherosclerosis in both coronaries and carotids and the estimated difference in prevalence by theoretical reallocation of time in different PA behaviours.
Cross-sectional.
Multisite study at university hospitals.
A total of 22 670 participants without cardiovascular disease (51% women, 57.4 years, SD 4.3) from the population-based Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage study were included. SED, LIPA and MVPA were assessed by hip-worn accelerometer.
Any and significant subclinical coronary atherosclerosis (CA), Coronary Artery Calcium Score (CACS) and carotid atherosclerosis (CarA) were derived from imaging data from coronary CT angiography and carotid ultrasound.
High daily SED (>70% 10.5 hours/day) associated with a higher OR 1.44 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.91), for significant CA, and with lower OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.95), for significant CarA. High LIPA (>55% 8 hours/day) associated with lower OR for significant CA 0.70 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.96), and CACS, 0.71 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.97), but with higher OR for CarA 1.41 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.76). MVPA above reference level, >2% 20 min/day, associated with lower OR for significant CA (OR range 0.61–0.67), CACS (OR range 0.71–0.75) and CarA (OR range 0.72–0.79). Theoretical replacement of 30 min of SED into an equal amount of MVPA associated with lower OR for significant CA, especially in participants with high SED 0.84 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.96) or low MVPA 0.51 (0.36 to 0.73).
MVPA was associated with a lower risk for significant atherosclerosis in both coronaries and carotids, while the association varied in strength and direction for SED and LIPA, respectively. If causal, clinical implications include avoiding high levels of daily SED and low levels of MVPA to reduce the risk of developing significant subclinical atherosclerosis.
by Bhagvat J. Maheta, Nainwant K. Singh, Karl A. Lorenz, Sarina Fereydooni, Sydney M. Dy, Hong-nei Wong, Jonathan Bergman, John T. Leppert, Karleen F. Giannitrapani
IntroductionInterdisciplinary teams are often leveraged to improve quality of cancer care in the perioperative period. We aimed to identify the team structures and processes in interdisciplinary interventions that improve perioperative patient-reported outcomes for patients with cancer.
MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized control trials published at any time and screened 7,195 articles. To be included in our review, studies needed to report patient-reported outcomes, have interventions that occur in the perioperative period, include surgical cancer treatment, and include at least one non physician intervention clinical team member: advanced practice providers, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and registered nurses. We narratively synthesized intervention components, specifically roles assumed by intervention clinical team members and interdisciplinary team processes, to compare interventions that improved patient-reported outcomes, based on minimal clinically important difference and statistical significance.
ResultsWe included 34 studies with a total of 4,722 participants, of which 31 reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. The common clinical team member roles featured patient education regarding diagnosis, treatment, coping, and pain/symptom management as well as postoperative follow up regarding problems after surgery, resource dissemination, and care planning. Other intervention components included six or more months of continuous clinical team member contact with the patient and involvement of the patient’s caregiver.
ConclusionsFuture interventions might prioritize supporting clinical team members roles to include patient education, caregiver engagement, and clinical follow-up.