There are large differences in health outcomes by socioeconomic status (SES) that cannot be explained fully by traditional arguments, such as access to care or poor health behaviors. We consider a different explanation - better self-management of disease by the more educated. We examine differences by education in treatment adherence among patients with two illnesses, diabetes and HIV, and then assess the subsequent impact of differential adherence on health status. One unique component of this research is that for diabetes we combine two different surveys - one cohort study and one randomized clinical trial - that are usually used exclusively by either biomedical or/and social scientists separately. For both illnesses, we find significant effects of adherence that are much stronger among patients with high SES. After controlling for other factors, more educated HIV+ patients are more likely to adhere to therapy, and this adherence made them experience improvements in their self-reported general health. Similarly, among diabetics, the less educated were much more likely to switch treatment, which led to worsening general health. In the randomized trial setting, intensive treatment regimens that compensated for poor adherence led to better improvements in glycemic control for the less educated. Among two distinct chronic illnesses, the ability to maintain a better health regimen is an important independent determinant of subsequent health outcomes. This finding is robust across clinical trial and population-based settings. Because this ability varies by schooling, self-maintenance is an important reason for the steep SES gradient in health outcomes.

Can Patient Self-Management Help Explain the SES Health Gradient?

Pain sensitization in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

おさえておきたい 糖尿病の海外文献 ●文献●Depression and advanced complications of diabetes: a prospective cohort study. うつと糖尿病進行合併症：前向きコホート研究

SummaryBackground
Staphylococcus aureus is increasingly implicated as a possible causal factor in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD). However, the reported prevalence rates of skin and nasal colonization in the literature vary widely.

Objectives
This study evaluates the prevalence and odds of skin and nasal colonization with S. aureus in patients with AD.

Methods
A systematic literature search was conducted. Odds ratios (ORs) for colonization in patients vs. controls and the prevalence of colonization in patients were pooled using the random-effects model.

Results
Overall, 95 observational studies were included, of which 30 had a control group. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality, with the majority of studies being of fair to poor quality. Patients with AD were more likely to be colonized with S. aureus than healthy controls [OR 19·74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 10·88–35·81]. Differences were smaller in nonlesional skin (OR 7·77, 95% CI 3·82–15·82) and in the nose (OR 4·50, 95% CI 3·00–6·75). The pooled prevalence of S. aureus colonization among patients was 70% for lesional skin, 39% for nonlesional skin and 62% for the nose. In lesional skin, meta-regression showed that the prevalence of colonization increased with disease severity. Study heterogeneity should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

Conclusions
These results demonstrate the importance of colonization with S. aureus in AD. Further evaluation of the mechanisms by which S. aureus influences inflammation is required in addition to the development of targeted strategies to decrease skin and nasal S. aureus load.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bjd.14566

Prevalence and odds of Staphylococcus aureus carriage in atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT\nQuality of care of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has received intense attention. However, it is unknown if a structured initiative for improving care of patients with AMI can be effectively implemented at a wide variety of hospitals.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nTo measure the effects of a quality improvement project on adherence to evidence-based therapies for patients with AMI.\n\n\nDESIGN AND SETTING\nThe Guidelines Applied in Practice (GAP) quality improvement project, which consisted of baseline measurement, implementation of improvement strategies, and remeasurement, in 10 acute-care hospitals in southeast Michigan.\n\n\nPATIENTS\nA random sample of Medicare and non-Medicare patients at baseline (July 1998--June 1999; n = 735) and following intervention (September 1--December 15, 2000; n = 914) admitted at the 10 study centers for treatment of confirmed AMI. A random sample of Medicare patients at baseline (January--December 1998; n = 513) and at remeasurement (March--August 2001; n = 388) admitted to 11 hospitals that volunteered, but were not selected, served as a control group.\n\n\nINTERVENTION\nThe GAP project consisted of a kickoff presentation; creation of customized, guideline-oriented tools designed to facilitate adherence to key quality indicators; identification and assignment of local physician and nurse opinion leaders; grand rounds site visits; and premeasurement and postmeasurement of quality indicators.\n\n\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\nDifferences in adherence to quality indicators (use of aspirin, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors at discharge; time to reperfusion; smoking cessation and diet counseling; and cholesterol assessment and treatment) in ideal patients, compared between baseline and postintervention samples and among Medicare patients in GAP hospitals and the control group.\n\n\nRESULTS\nIncreases in adherence to key treatments were seen in the administration of aspirin (81% vs 87%; P =.02) and beta-blockers (65% vs 74%; P =.04) on admission and use of aspirin (84% vs 92%; P =.002) and smoking cessation counseling (53% vs 65%; P =.02) at discharge. For most of the other indicators, nonsignificant but favorable trends toward improvement in adherence to treatment goals were observed. Compared with the control group, Medicare patients in GAP hospitals showed a significant increase in the use of aspirin at discharge (5% vs 10%; P<.001). Use of aspirin on admission, ACE inhibitors at discharge, and documentation of smoking cessation also showed a trend for greater improvement among GAP hospitals compared with control hospitals, although none of these were statistically significant. Evidence of tool use noted during chart review was associated with a very high level of adherence to most quality indicators.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nImplementation of guideline-based tools for AMI may facilitate quality improvement among a variety of institutions, patients, and caregivers. This initial project provides a foundation for future initiatives aimed at quality improvement.

Improving quality of care for acute myocardial infarction. The Guidelines Applied in Practice (GAP) initiative

Objective This review evaluates the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) strategies in reducing disparities in health and health care. Data sources We identified papers published in English between 1983 and 2011 from the MEDLINE® database, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science Social Science Index, and PsycINFO. Review methods All abstracts and full-text articles were dually reviewed. Studies were eligible if they reported data on effectiveness of QI interventions on processes or health outcomes in the United States such that the impact on a health disparity could be measured. The review focused on the following clinical conditions: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, coronary artery disease, asthma, major depressive disorder, cystic fibrosis, pneumonia, pregnancy, and end-stage renal disease. It assessed health disparities associated with race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, insurance status, sexual orientation, health literacy/numeracy, and language barrier. We evaluated the risk of bias of individual studies and the overall strength of the body of evidence based on risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision. Results Nineteen papers, representing 14 primary research studies, met criteria for inclusion. All but one of the studies incorporated multiple components into their QI approach. Patient education was part of most interventions (12 of 14), although the specific approach differed substantially across the studies. Ten of the studies incorporated self-management; this would include, for example, teaching individuals with diabetes to check their blood sugar regularly. Most (8 of 14) included some sort of provider education, which may have focused on the clinical issue or on raising awareness about disparities affecting the target population. Studies evaluated the effect of these strategies on disparities in the prevention or treatment of breast or colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease, depression, or diabetes. Overall, QI interventions were not shown to reduce disparities. Most studies have focused on racial or ethnic disparities, with some targeted interventions demonstrating greater effect in racial minorities--specifically, supporting individuals in tracking their blood pressure at home to reduce blood pressure and collaborative care to improve depression care. In one study, the effect of a language-concordant breast cancer screening intervention was helpful in promoting mammography in Spanish-speaking women. For some depression care outcomes, the collaborative care model was more effective in less-educated individuals than in those with more education and in women than in men. Conclusions The literature on QI interventions generally and their ability to improve health and health care is large. Whether those interventions are effective at reducing disparities remains unclear. This report should not be construed to assess the general effectiveness of QI in the health care setting; rather, QI has not been shown specifically to reduce known disparities in health care or health outcomes. In a few instances, some increased effect is seen in disadvantaged populations; these studies should be replicated and the interventions studied further as having potential to address disparities.

Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 3: quality improvement interventions to address health disparities).

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), sponsors the development of evidence reports and technology assessments to assist public-and private-sector organizations in their efforts to improve the quality of health care in the United States. The reports and assessments provide organizations with comprehensive, science-based information on common, costly medical conditions and new health care technologies. The EPCs systematically review the relevant scientific literature on topics assigned to them by AHRQ and conduct additional analyses when appropriate prior to developing their reports and assessments. AHRQ expects that the EPC evidence reports and technology assessments will inform individual health plans, providers, and purchasers as well as the health care system as a whole by providing important information to help improve health care quality.

Rachel T Idowu

Papers

Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 3: quality improvement interventions to address health disparities).

Quality improvement interventions to address health disparities: closing the quality gap - revisiting the state of the science

A systematic review of validated methods to capture myopericarditis using administrative or claims data.