Elyse R. Park

Bio: Elyse R. Park is an academic researcher from Harvard University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Smoking cessation & Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 59, co-authored 316 publications receiving 11441 citations. Previous affiliations of Elyse R. Park include University of Pittsburgh & St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.

Identifying Potential Indicators of the Quality of End-of-Life Cancer Care From Administrative Data

Abstract: Purpose: To explore potential indicators of the quality of end-of-life services for cancer patients that could be monitored using existing administrative data. Methods: Quality indicators were identified and assessed by literature review for proposed indicators, focus groups with cancer patients and family members to assess candidate indicators and generate new ideas, and an expert panel ranking the meaningfulness and importance of each potential indicator using a modified Delphi approach. Results: There were three major concepts of poor quality of end-of-life cancer care that could be examined using currently-available administrative data (such as Medicare claims): institution of new anticancer therapies or continuation of ongoing treatments very near death; a high number of emergency room visits, inpatient hospital admissions, or intensive care unit days near the end of life; and a high proportion of patients never enrolled in hospice, only admitted in the last few days of life, or dying in an acute-car...

Effects of Early Integrated Palliative Care in Patients With Lung and GI Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract: Purpose We evaluated the impact of early integrated palliative care (PC) in patients with newly diagnosed lung and GI cancer. Patients and Methods We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed incurable lung or noncolorectal GI cancer to receive either early integrated PC and oncology care (n = 175) or usual care (n = 175) between May 2011 and July 2015. Patients who were assigned to the intervention met with a PC clinician at least once per month until death, whereas those who received usual care consulted a PC clinician upon request. The primary end point was change in quality of life (QOL) from baseline to week 12, per scoring by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scale. Secondary end points included change in QOL from baseline to week 24, change in depression per the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and differences in end-of-life communication. Results Intervention patients ( v usual care) reported greater improvement in QOL from baseline to week 24 (1.59 v -3.40; P = .010) but not week 12 (0.39 v -1.13; P = .339). Intervention patients also reported lower depression at week 24, controlling for baseline scores (adjusted mean difference, -1.17; 95% CI, -2.33 to -0.01; P = .048). Intervention effects varied by cancer type, such that intervention patients with lung cancer reported improvements in QOL and depression at 12 and 24 weeks, whereas usual care patients with lung cancer reported deterioration. Patients with GI cancers in both study groups reported improvements in QOL and mood by week 12. Intervention patients versus usual care patients were more likely to discuss their wishes with their oncologist if they were dying (30.2% v 14.5%; P = .004). Conclusion For patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancers, early integrated PC improved QOL and other salient outcomes, with differential effects by cancer type. Early integrated PC may be most effective if targeted to the specific needs of each patient population.

Cultural Competence And Health Care Disparities: Key Perspectives And Trends

Abstract: Cultural competence has gained attention as a potential strategy to improve quality and eliminate racial/ethnic disparities in health care. In 2002 we conducted interviews with experts in cultural competence from managed care, government, and academe to identify their perspectives on the field. We present our findings here and then identify recent trends in cultural competence focusing on health care policy, practice, and education. Our analysis reveals that many health care stakeholders are developing initiatives in cultural competence. Yet the motivations for advancing cultural competence and approaches taken vary depending on mission, goals, and sphere of influence.

From t he F ield Cultural Competence And Health Care Disparities: Key Perspectives And Trends

Abstract: Cultural competence has gained attention as a potential strategy to improve quality and eliminate racial/ethnic disparities in health care. In 2002 we conducted inter- views with experts in cultural competence from managed care, government, and academe to identify their perspectives on the field. We present our findings here and then identify re- cent trends in cultural competence focusing on health care policy, practice, and education. Our analysis reveals that many health care stakeholders are developing initiatives in cul- tural competence. Yet the motivations for advancing cultural competence and approaches taken vary depending on mission, goals, and sphere of influence.

Resident physicians' preparedness to provide cross-cultural care.

Abstract: ContextTwo recent reports from the Institute of Medicine cited cross-cultural training as a mechanism to address racial and ethnic disparities in health care, but little is known about residents’ educational experience in this area.ObjectiveTo assess residents’ attitudes about cross-cultural care, perceptions of their preparedness to deliver quality care to diverse patient populations, and educational experiences and educational climate regarding cross-cultural training.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA survey was mailed in the winter of 2003 to a stratified random sample of 3435 resident physicians in their final year of training in emergency medicine, family practice, internal medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry, or general surgery at US academic health centers.ResultsResponses were obtained from 2047 (60%) of the sample. Virtually all (96%) of the residents indicated that it was moderately or very important to address cultural issues when providing care. The number of respondents who indicated that they believed they were not prepared to care for diverse cultures in a general sense was only 8%. However, a larger percentage of respondents believed they were not prepared to provide specific components of cross-cultural care, including caring for patients with health beliefs at odds with Western medicine (25%), new immigrants (25%), and patients whose religious beliefs affect treatment (20%). In addition, 24% indicated that they lacked the skills to identify relevant cultural customs that impact medical care. In contrast, only a small percentage of respondents (1%-2%) indicated that they were not prepared to treat clinical conditions or perform procedures common in their specialty. Approximately one third to half of the respondents reported receiving little or no instruction in specific areas of cross-cultural care beyond what was learned in medical school. Forty-one percent (family medicine) to 83% (surgery and obstetrics/gynecology) of respondents reported receiving little or no evaluation in cross-cultural care during their residencies. Barriers to delivering cross-cultural care included lack of time (58%) and lack of role models (31%).ConclusionsResident physicians’ self-reported preparedness to deliver cross-cultural care lags well behind preparedness in other clinical and technical areas. Although cross-cultural care was perceived to be important, there was little clinical time allotted during residency to address cultural issues, and there was little training, formal evaluation, or role modeling. These mixed educational messages indicate the need for significant improvement in cross-cultural education to help eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health care.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.

Abstract: Progress in public health and community-based interventions has been hampered by the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework appropriate to such programs. Multilevel interventions that incorporate policy, environmental, and individual components should be evaluated with measurements suited to their settings, goals, and purpose. In this commentary, the authors propose a model (termed the RE-AIM model) for evaluating public health interventions that assesses 5 dimensions: reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. These dimensions occur at multiple levels (e.g., individual, clinic or organization, community) and interact to determine the public health or population-based impact of a program or policy. The authors discuss issues in evaluating each of these dimensions and combining them to determine overall public health impact. Failure to adequately evaluate programs on all 5 dimensions can lead to a waste of resources, discontinuities between stages of research, and failure to improve ...

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

Abstract: D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

Preexposure Chemoprophylaxis for HIV Prevention in Men Who Have Sex with Men

Abstract: The study subjects were followed for 3324 person-years (median, 1.2 years; maximum, 2.8 years). Of these subjects, 10 were found to have been infected with HIV at en rollment, and 100 became infected during follow-up (36 in the FTC–TDF group and 64 in the placebo group), indicating a 44% reduction in the incidence of HIV (95% confidence interval, 15 to 63; P = 0.005). In the FTC–TDF group, the study drug was detected in 22 of 43 of seronegative subjects (51%) and in 3 of 34 HIV-infected subjects (9%) (P<0.001). Nausea was reported more frequently during the first 4 weeks in the FTC–TDF group than in the placebo group (P<0.001). The two groups had similar rates of serious adverse events (P = 0.57). Conclusions Oral FTC–TDF provided protection against the acquisition of HIV infection among the subjects. Detectable blood levels strongly correlated with the prophylactic effect. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foun dation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00458393.)