Showing papers on "Health care published in 2014"

Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections.

Abstract: Background Currently, no single U.S. surveillance system can provide estimates of the burden of all types of health care–associated infections across acute care patient populations. We conducted a prevalence survey in 10 geographically diverse states to determine the prevalence of health care–associated infections in acute care hospitals and generate updated estimates of the national burden of such infections. Methods We defined health care–associated infections with the use of National Healthcare Safety Network criteria. One-day surveys of randomly selected inpatients were performed in participating hospitals. Hospital personnel collected demographic and limited clinical data. Trained data collectors reviewed medical records retrospectively to identify health care–associated infections active at the time of the survey. Survey data and 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample data, stratified according to patient age and length of hospital stay, were used to estimate the total numbers of health care–associated in...

From Triple to Quadruple Aim: Care of the Patient Requires Care of the Provider

Abstract: The Triple Aim—enhancing patient experience, improving population health, and reducing costs—is widely accepted as a compass to optimize health system per- formance. Yet physicians and other members of the health care workforce report widespread burnout and dissatisfaction. Burnout is associated with lower patient satisfaction, reduced health outcomes, and it may increase costs. Burnout thus imperils the Triple Aim. This article recommends that the Triple Aim be expanded to a Quadruple Aim, adding the goal of improving the work life of health care providers, including clinicians and staff.

The Social Determinants of Health: It's Time to Consider the Causes of the Causes:

Abstract: During the past two decades, the public health community’s attention has been drawn increasingly to the social determinants of health (SDH)—the factors apart from medical care that can be influenced by social policies and shape health in powerful ways. We use “medical care” rather than “health care” to refer to clinical services, to avoid potential confusion between “health” and “health care.” The World Health Organization’s Commission on the Social Determinants of Health has defined SDH as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age” and “the fundamental drivers of these conditions.” The term “social determinants” often evokes factors such as health-related features of neighborhoods (e.g., walkability, recreational areas, and accessibility of healthful foods), which can influence health-related behaviors. Evidence has accumulated, however, pointing to socioeconomic factors such as income, wealth, and education as the fundamental causes of a wide range of health outcomes. This article broadly reviews some of the knowledge accumulated to date that highlights the importance of social—and particularly socioeconomic— factors in shaping health, and plausible pathways and biological mechanisms that may explain their effects. We also discuss challenges to advancing this knowledge and how they might be overcome.

Updating Cost-Effectiveness — The Curious Resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY Threshold

Abstract: The ratio of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by using a given health care intervention has long served as a benchmark for the value of U.S. health care. But evidence suggests that it is too low and might best be thought of as an implied lower boundary.

What can "thematic analysis" offer health and wellbeing researchers?

Abstract: The field of health and wellbeing scholarship has a strong tradition of qualitative research*and rightly so. Qualitative research offers rich and compelling insights into the real worlds, experiences, and perspectives of patients and health care professionals in ways that are completely different to, but also sometimes complimentary to, the knowledge we can obtain through quantitative methods. (Published: 16 October 2014) Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2014, 9 : 26152 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.26152

Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: national health interview survey, 2012.

Abstract: Objectives This report presents detailed tables from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for the civilian noninstitutionalized adult population, classified by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, education, current employment status, family income, poverty status, health insurance coverage, marital status, and place and region of residence. Estimates (frequencies and percentages) are presented for selected chronic conditions and mental health characteristics, functional limitations, health status, health behaviors, health care access and utilization, and human immunodeficiency virus testing. Percentages and percent distributions are presented in both age-adjusted and unadjusted versions. Data source NHIS is a household, multistage probability sample survey conducted annually by interviewers of the U.S. Census Bureau for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics. In 2012, data were collected on 34,525 adults in the Sample Adult questionnaire. The conditional response rate was 79.7%, and the final response rate was 61.2%. The health information for adults in this report was obtained from one randomly selected adult per family. Highlights In 2012, 61% of adults aged 18 and over had excellent or very good health. Eleven percent of adults had been told by a doctor or other health professional that they had heart disease, 24% had been told on two or more visits that they had hypertension, 9% had been told that they had diabetes, and 21% had been told that they had some for of arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, or fibromyalgia. Eighteen percent of adults were current smokers and 21% were former smokers. Based on estimates of body mass index, 35% of adults were overweight and 28% were obese.

Sleep health: can we define it? Does it matter?

Abstract: Good sleep is essential to good health. Yet for most of its history, sleep medicine has focused on the definition, identification, and treatment of sleep problems. Sleep health is a term that is infrequently used and even less frequently defined. It is time for us to change this. Indeed, pressures in the research, clinical, and regulatory environments require that we do so. The health of populations is increasingly defined by positive attributes such as wellness, performance, and adaptation, and not merely by the absence of disease. Sleep health can be defined in such terms. Empirical data demonstrate several dimensions of sleep that are related to health outcomes, and that can be measured with self-report and objective methods. One suggested definition of sleep health and a description of self-report items for measuring it are provided as examples. The concept of sleep health synergizes with other health care agendas, such as empowering individuals and communities, improving population health, and reducing health care costs. Promoting sleep health also offers the field of sleep medicine new research and clinical opportunities. In this sense, defining sleep health is vital not only to the health of populations and individuals, but also to the health of sleep medicine itself.

Cohort Profile: the Health and Retirement Study (HRS).

Abstract: The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) is a nationally representative longitudinal survey of more than 37 000 individuals over age 50 in 23 000 households in the USA. The survey, which has been fielded every 2 years since 1992, was established to provide a national resource for data on the changing health and economic circumstances associated with ageing at both individual and population levels. Its multidisciplinary approach is focused on four broad topics—income and wealth; health, cognition and use of healthcare services; work and retirement; and family connections. HRS data are also linked at the individual level to administrative records from Social Security and Medicare, Veteran’s Administration, the National Death Index and employer-provided pension plan information. Since 2006, data collection has expanded to include biomarkers and genetics as well as much greater depth in psychology and social context. This blend of economic, health and psychosocial information provides unprecedented potential to study increasingly complex questions about ageing and retirement. The HRS has been a leading force for rapid release of data while simultaneously protecting the confidentiality of respondents. Three categories of data—public, sensitive and restricted—can be accessed through procedures described on the HRS website (hrsonline.isr.umich.edu).

National Athletic Trainers' Association Position Statement: Management of Sport Concussion

Abstract: Objective: To provide athletic trainers, physicians, and other health care professionals with best-practice guidelines for the management of sport-related concussions. Background: An estimated 3.8 ...

Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis

Abstract: In the United States, approximately 14 million people have had cancer and more than 1.6 million new cases are diagnosed each year. However, more than a decade after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) first studied the quality of cancer care, the barriers to achieving excellent care for all cancer patients remain daunting. Care often is not patient-centered, many patients do not receive palliative care to manage their symptoms and side effects from treatment, and decisions about care often are not based on the latest scientific evidence. The cost of cancer care also is rising faster than many sectors of medicine--having increased to $125 billion in 2010 from $72 billion in 2004--and is projected to reach $173 billion by 2020. Rising costs are making cancer care less affordable for patients and their families and are creating disparities in patients' access to high-quality cancer care. There also are growing shortages of health professionals skilled in providing cancer care, and the number of adults age 65 and older--the group most susceptible to cancer--is expected to double by 2030, contributing to a 45 percent increase in the number of people developing cancer. The current care delivery system is poorly prepared to address the care needs of this population, which are complex due to altered physiology, functional and cognitive impairment, multiple coexisting diseases, increased side effects from treatment, and greater need for social support. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis presents a conceptual framework for improving the quality of cancer care. This study proposes improvements to six interconnected components of care: (1) engaged patients; (2) an adequately staffed, trained, and coordinated workforce; (3) evidence-based care; (4) learning health care information technology (IT); (5) translation of evidence into clinical practice, quality measurement and performance improvement; and (6) accessible and affordable care. This report recommends changes across the board in these areas to improve the quality of care. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis provides information for cancer care teams, patients and their families, researchers, quality metrics developers, and payers, as well as HHS, other federal agencies, and industry to reevaluate their current roles and responsibilities in cancer care and work together to develop a higher quality care delivery system. By working toward this shared goal, the cancer care community can improve the quality of life and outcomes for people facing a cancer diagnosis.

Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review

Abstract: Background There is an increasing international interest in patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, yet relatively little robust evidence exists about its impact on health and social care research. Objective To identify the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research. Design A systematic search of electronic databases and health libraries was undertaken from 1995 to 2009. Data were extracted and quality assessed utilizing the guidelines of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009 and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Grey literature was assessed using the Dixon-Woods et al. (2005) checklist. Inclusion criteria All study types that reported the impact PPI had on the health and/or social care research study. Main results A total of 66 studies reporting the impact of PPI on health and social care research were included. The positive impacts identified enhanced the quality and appropriateness of research. Impacts were reported for all stages of research, including the development of user-focused research objectives, development of user-relevant research questions, development of user-friendly information, questionnaires and interview schedules, more appropriate recruitment strategies for studies, consumer-focused interpretation of data and enhanced implementation and dissemination of study results. Some challenging impacts were also identified. Conclusion This study provides the first international evidence of PPI impact that has emerged at all key stages of the research process. However, much of the evidence base concerning impact remains weak and needs significant enhancement in the next decade.

Communication About Serious Illness Care Goals: A Review and Synthesis of Best Practices

Abstract: An understanding of patients’ care goals in the context of a serious illness is an essential element of high-quality care, allowing clinicians to align the care provided with what is most important to the patient. Early discussions about goals of care are associated with better quality of life, reduced use of nonbeneficial medical care near death, enhanced goal-consistent care, positive family outcomes, and reduced costs. Existing evidence does not support the commonly held belief that communication about end-of-life issues increases patient distress. However, conversations about care goals are often conducted by physicians who do not know the patient, do not routinely address patients’ nonmedical goals, and often fail to provide patients with sufficient information about prognosis to allow appropriate decisions; in addition, they tend to occur so late in the patient’s illness that their impact on care processes is reduced. This article (1) reviews the evidence and describes best practices in conversations about serious illness care goals and (2) offers practical advice for clinicians and health care systems about developing a systematic approach to quality and timing of such communication to assure that each patient has a personalized serious illness care plan. Best practices in discussing goals of care include the following: sharing prognostic information, eliciting decision-making preferences, understanding fears and goals, exploring views on trade-offs and impaired function, and wishes for family involvement. Several interventions hold promise in systematizing conversations with patients about serious illness care goals: better education of physicians; systems to identify and trigger early discussions for appropriate patients; patient and family education; structured formats to guide discussions; dedicated, structured sections in the electronic health record for recording information; and continuous measurement. We conclude that communication about serious illness care goals is an intervention that should be systematically integrated into our clinical care structures and processes.

Heart failure: preventing disease and death worldwide.

Abstract: Heart failure is a life-threatening disease and addressing it should be considered a global health priority. At present, approximately 26 million people worldwide are living with heart failure. The outlook for such patients is poor, with survival rates worse than those for bowel, breast or prostate cancer. Furthermore, heart failure places great stresses on patients, caregivers and healthcare systems. Demands on healthcare services, in particular, are predicted to increase dramatically over the next decade as patient numbers rise owing to ageing populations, detrimental lifestyle changes and improved survival of those who go on to develop heart failure as the final stage of another disease. It is time to ease the strain on healthcare systems through clear policy initiatives that prioritize heart failure prevention and champion equity of care for all. Despite the burdens that heart failure imposes on society, awareness of the disease is poor. As a result, many premature deaths occur. This is in spite of the fact that most types of heart failure are preventable and that a healthy lifestyle can reduce risk. Even after heart failure has developed, premature deaths could be prevented if people were taught to recognize the symptoms and seek immediate medical attention. Public awareness campaigns focusing on these messages have great potential to improve outcomes for patients with heart failure and ultimately to save lives. Compliance with clinical practice guidelines is also associated with improved outcomes for patients with heart failure. However, in many countries, there is considerable variation in how closely physicians follow guideline recommendations. To promote equity of care, improvements should be encouraged through the use of hospital performance measures and incentives appropriate to the locality. To this end, policies should promote the research required to establish an evidence base for performance measures that reflect improved outcomes for patients. Continuing research is essential if we are to address unmet needs in caring for patients with heart failure. New therapies are required for patients with types of heart failure for which current treatments relieve symptoms but do not address the disease. More affordable therapies are desperately needed in the economically developing world. International collaborative research focusing on the causes and treatment of heart failure worldwide has the potential to benefit tens of millions of people. Change at the policy level has the power to drive improvements in prevention and care that will save lives. It is time to make a difference across the globe by confronting the problem of heart failure. A call to action: policy recommendations We urge policymakers at local, national and international levels to collaborate and act on the following recommendations. Promote heart failure prevention Support the development and implementation of public awareness programmes about heart failure. These should define heart failure in simple and accessible language, explain how to recognize the symptoms and emphasize that most types of heart failure are preventable. Highlight the need for healthcare professionals across all clinical disciplines to identify patients with illnesses that increase the risk of heart failure and to prescribe preventive medications. Prioritize the elimination of infectious diseases in parts of the world where they still cause heart failure. Improve heart failure awareness amongst healthcare professionals Encourage the development and use of heart failure education programmes for all appropriate healthcare professionals. These should aim to improve the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and long-term management of heart failure and raise awareness of clinical practice guidelines. Ensure equity of care for all patients with heart failure Provide a healthcare system that delivers timely access to diagnostic services and treatment of heart failure, as well as a seamless transition to long-term management. Ensure that the best available and most appropriate care is consistently provided to all patients with heart failure through efficient use of resources. Support and empower patients and their caregivers Provide resources for the education and practical support of patients with heart failure and their families or other caregivers, empowering them to engage proactively in long-term care. Promote heart failure research Fund and encourage international collaborative research to improve understanding of the patterns, causes and effects of modern day heart failure and how the disease can be prevented across the globe. Fund and encourage research into new and more affordable therapies and medical devices for all types of heart failure. Fund and encourage research into evidence-based healthcare performance measures that reflect improved clinical outcomes for patients with heart failure.

Nutrition Therapy Recommendations for the Management of Adults With Diabetes

Abstract: A healthful eating pattern, regular physical activity, and often pharmacotherapy are key components of diabetes management. For many individuals with diabetes, the most challenging part of the treatment plan is determining what to eat. It is the position of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) that there is not a “one-size-fits-all” eating pattern for individuals with diabetes. The ADA also recognizes the integral role of nutrition therapy in overall diabetes management and has historically recommended that each person with diabetes be actively engaged in self-management, education, and treatment planning with his or her health care provider, which includes the collaborative development of an individualized eating plan (1,2). Therefore, it is important that all members of the health care team be knowledgeable about diabetes nutrition therapy and support its implementation. This position statement on nutrition therapy for individuals living with diabetes replaces previous position statements, the last of which was published in 2008 (3). Unless otherwise noted, research reviewed was limited to those studies conducted in adults diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Nutrition therapy for the prevention of type 2 diabetes and for the management of diabetes complications and gestational diabetes mellitus is not addressed in this review. A grading system, developed by the ADA and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations (1) (Table 1). The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after the recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. A table linking recommendations to evidence can be reviewed at http://professional.diabetes.org/nutrition. Members of the Nutrition Recommendations Writing Group Committee disclosed all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the position statement development process. Members of this committee, their employers, …

Strategies to Prevent Surgical Site Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Update

Abstract: Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their surgical site infection (SSI) prevention efforts. This document updates “Strategies to Prevent Surgical Site Infections in Acute Care Hospitals,” published in 2008. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: the difference-in-differences approach.

Abstract: Observational studies are commonly used to evaluate the changes in outcomes associated with health care policy implementation. An important limitation in using observational studies in this context is the need to control for background changes in outcomes that occur with time (eg, secular trends affecting outcomes). The difference-in-differences approach is increasingly applied to address this problem.1 In this issue of JAMA, studies by Rajaram and colleagues2 and Patel and colleagues3 used the difference-in-differences approach to evaluate the changes that occurred following the 2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty hour reforms. The 2 studies were conducted with different data sources and study populations but used similar methods.

Mobile devices and apps for health care professionals: uses and benefits.

Abstract: Health care professionals' use of mobile devices is transforming clinical practice. Numerous medical software applications can now help with tasks ranging from information and time management to clinical decision-making at the point of care.

Big Data In Health Care: Using Analytics To Identify And Manage High-Risk And High-Cost Patients

Abstract: The US health care system is rapidly adopting electronic health records, which will dramatically increase the quantity of clinical data that are available electronically. Simultaneously, rapid progress has been made in clinical analytics—techniques for analyzing large quantities of data and gleaning new insights from that analysis—which is part of what is known as big data . As a result, there are unprecedented opportunities to use big data to reduce the costs of health care in the United States. We present six use cases—that is, key examples—where some of the clearest opportunities exist to reduce costs through the use of big data: high-cost patients, readmissions, triage, decompensation (when a patient’s condition worsens), adverse events, and treatment optimization for diseases affecting multiple organ systems. We discuss the types of insights that are likely to emerge from clinical analytics, the types of data needed to obtain such insights, and the infrastructure—analytics, algorithms, registries, as...

Barriers to Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Among US Adolescents: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Abstract: Importance Since licensure of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in 2006, HPV vaccine coverage among US adolescents has increased but remains low compared with other recommended vaccines. Objective To systematically review the literature on barriers to HPV vaccination among US adolescents to inform future efforts to increase HPV vaccine coverage. Evidence Review We searched PubMed and previous review articles to identify original research articles describing barriers to HPV vaccine initiation and completion among US adolescents. Only articles reporting data collected in 2009 or later were included. Findings from 55 relevant articles were summarized by target populations: health care professionals, parents, underserved and disadvantaged populations, and males. Findings Health care professionals cited financial concerns and parental attitudes and concerns as barriers to providing the HPV vaccine to patients. Parents often reported needing more information before vaccinating their children. Concerns about the vaccine’s effect on sexual behavior, low perceived risk of HPV infection, social influences, irregular preventive care, and vaccine cost were also identified as potential barriers among parents. Some parents of sons reported not vaccinating their sons because of the perceived lack of direct benefit. Parents consistently cited health care professional recommendations as one of the most important factors in their decision to vaccinate their children. Conclusions and Relevance Continued efforts are needed to ensure that health care professionals and parents understand the importance of vaccinating adolescents before they become sexually active. Health care professionals may benefit from guidance on communicating HPV recommendations to patients and parents. Further efforts are also needed to reduce missed opportunities for HPV vaccination when adolescents interface with the health care system. Efforts to increase uptake should take into account the specific needs of subgroups within the population. Efforts that address system-level barriers to vaccination may help to increase overall HPV vaccine uptake.

National Healthcare Disparities Report

Abstract: The National Healthcare Disparities Report summarizes health care quality and access among various racial, ethnic, and income groups and other priority populations, such as residents of rural areas and people with disabilities.

The use of google trends in health care research: a systematic review

Abstract: Google Trends is a novel, freely accessible tool that allows users to interact with Internet search data, which may provide deep insights into population behavior and health-related phenomena. However, there is limited knowledge about its potential uses and limitations. We therefore systematically reviewed health care literature using Google Trends to classify articles by topic and study aim; evaluate the methodology and validation of the tool; and address limitations for its use in research. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers systematically identified studies utilizing Google Trends for health care research from MEDLINE and PubMed. Seventy studies met our inclusion criteria. Google Trends publications increased seven-fold from 2009 to 2013. Studies were classified into four topic domains: infectious disease (27% of articles), mental health and substance use (24%), other non-communicable diseases (16%), and general population behavior (33%). By use, 27% of articles utilized Google Trends for casual inference, 39% for description, and 34% for surveillance. Among surveillance studies, 92% were validated against a reference standard data source, and 80% of studies using correlation had a correlation statistic ≥0.70. Overall, 67% of articles provided a rationale for their search input. However, only 7% of articles were reproducible based on complete documentation of search strategy. We present a checklist to facilitate appropriate methodological documentation for future studies. A limitation of the study is the challenge of classifying heterogeneous studies utilizing a novel data source. Google Trends is being used to study health phenomena in a variety of topic domains in myriad ways. However, poor documentation of methods precludes the reproducibility of the findings. Such documentation would enable other researchers to determine the consistency of results provided by Google Trends for a well-specified query over time. Furthermore, greater transparency can improve its reliability as a research tool.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

Abstract: Background Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the practitioner and the patient and is said to be the crux of patient-centred care. Policy makers perceive SDM as desirable because of its potential to a) reduce overuse of options not clearly associated with benefits for all (e.g., prostate cancer screening); b) enhance the use of options clearly associated with benefits for the vast majority (e.g., cardiovascular risk factor management); c) reduce unwarranted healthcare practice variations; d) foster the sustainability of the healthcare system; and e) promote the right of patients to be involved in decisions concerning their health. Despite this potential, SDM has not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals’ adoption of SDM. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 March 2009: Cochrane Library (1970-), MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1976-), CINAHL (1982-) and PsycINFO (1965-). We found additional studies by reviewing a) the bibliographies of studies and reviews found in the electronic databases; b) the clinicaltrials.gov registry; and c) proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference and the conferences of the Society for Medical Decision Making. We included all languages of publication. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well-designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses) that evaluated any type of intervention that aimed to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of shared decision making. We defined adoption as the extent to which healthcare professionals intended to or actually engaged in SDM in clinical practice or/and used interventions known to facilitate SDM. We deemed studies eligible if the primary outcomes were evaluated with an objective measure of the adoption of SDM by healthcare professionals (e.g., a third-observer instrument). Data collection and analysis At least two reviewers independently screened each abstract for inclusion and abstracted data independently using a modified version of the EPOC data collection checklist. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes. We computed the standard effect size for each outcome separately with a 95% confidence interval. We evaluated global effects by calculating the median effect size and the range of effect sizes across studies. Main results The reviewers identified 6764 potentially relevant documents, of which we excluded 6582 by reviewing titles and abstracts. Of the remainder, we retrieved 182 full publications for more detailed screening. From these, we excluded 176 publications based on our inclusion criteria. This left in five studies, all RCTs. All five were conducted in ambulatory care: three in primary clinical care and two in specialised care. Four of the studies targeted physicians only and one targeted nurses only. In only two of the five RCTs was a statistically significant effect size associated with the intervention to have healthcare professionals adopt SDM. The first of these two studies compared a single intervention (a patient-mediated intervention: the Statin Choice decision aid) to another single intervention (also patient-mediated: a standard Mayo patient education pamphlet). In this study, the Statin Choice decision aid group performed better than the standard Mayo patient education pamphlet group (standard effect size = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.50). The other study compared a multifaceted intervention (distribution of educational material, educational meeting and audit and feedback) to usual care (control group) (standard effect size = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.90). This study was the only one to report an assessment of barriers prior to the elaboration of its multifaceted intervention. Authors' conclusions The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.

White paper defining optimal palliative care in older people with dementia: a Delphi study and recommendations from the European Association for Palliative Care.

Abstract: Background: Dementia is a life-limiting disease without curative treatments. Patients and families may need palliative care specific to dementia. Aim: To define optimal palliative care in dementia. Methods: Five-round Delphi study. Based on literature, a core group of 12 experts from 6 countries drafted a set of core domains with salient recommendations for each domain. We invited 89 experts from 27 countries to evaluate these in a two-round online survey with feedback. Consensus was determined according to predefined criteria. The fourth round involved decisions by the core team, and the fifth involved input from the European Association for Palliative Care. Results: A total of 64 (72%) experts from 23 countries evaluated a set of 11 domains and 57 recommendations. There was immediate and full consensus on the following eight domains, including the recommendations: person-centred care, communication and shared decision-making; optimal treatment of symptoms and providing comfort (these two identified as central to care and research); setting care goals and advance planning; continuity of care; psychosocial and spiritual support; family care and involvement; education of the health care team; and societal and ethical issues. After revision, full consensus was additionally reached for prognostication and timely recognition of dying. Recommendations on nutrition and dehydration (avoiding overly aggressive, burdensome or futile treatment) and on dementia stages in relation to care goals (applicability of palliative care) achieved moderate consensus. Conclusion: We have provided the first definition of palliative care in dementia based on evidence and consensus, a framework to provide guidance for clinical practice, policy and research.

Predictors of eHealth Usage: Insights on The Digital Divide From the Health Information National Trends Survey 2012

Abstract: Background: Recent eHealth developments have elevated the importance of assessing the extent to which technology has empowered patients and improved health, particularly among the most vulnerable populations. With noted disparities across racial and social groups in chronic health outcomes, such as cancer, obesity, and diabetes, it is essential that researchers examine any differences in the implementation, uptake, and impact of eHealth strategies across groups that bear a disproportionate burden of disease. Objective: The goal was to examine eHealth use by sociodemographic factors, such as race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), age, and sex. Methods: We drew data from National Cancer Institute’s 2012 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) (N=3959) which is publicly available online. We estimated multivariable logistic regression models to assess sociodemographic predictors of eHealth use among adult Internet users (N=2358) across 3 health communication domains (health care, health information–seeking, and user-generated content/sharing). Results: Among online adults, we saw no evidence of a digital use divide by race/ethnicity. However, there were significant differences in use by SES, particularly for health care and health information–seeking items. Patients with lower levels of education had significantly lower odds of going online to look for a health care provider (high school or less: OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33-0.76) using email or the Internet to communicate with a doctor (high school or less: OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.72), tracking their personal health information online (high school or less: OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.84), using a website to help track diet, weight, and physical activity (high school or less: OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.98; some college: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.93), or downloading health information to a mobile device (some college: OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.89). Being female was a consistent predictor of eHealth use across health care and user-generated content/sharing domains, whereas age was primarily influential for health information–seeking. Conclusions: This study illustrates that lower SES, older, and male online US adults were less likely to engage in a number of eHealth activities compared to their counterparts. Future studies should assess issues of health literacy and eHealth literacy and their influence on eHealth engagement across social groups. Clinical care and public health communication efforts attempting to leverage Web 2.0 and 3.0 platforms should acknowledge differential eHealth usage to better address communication inequalities and persistent disparities in health. [J Med Internet Res 2014;16(7):e172]

Evaluation and Treatment of Functional Constipation in Infants and Children: Evidence-Based Recommendations From ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN

Abstract: Background: Constipation is a pediatric problem commonly encountered by many health care workers in primary, secondary, and tertiary care. To assist medical care providers in the evaluation and management of children with functional constipation, the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition were charged with the task of developing a uniform document of evidence-based guidelines. Methods: Nine clinical questions addressing diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic topics were formulated. A systematic literature search was performed from inception to October 2011 using Embase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and PsychInfo databases. The approach of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was applied to evaluate outcomes. For therapeutic questions, quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Grading the quality of evidence for the other questions was performed according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. During 3 consensus meetings, all recommendations were discussed and finalized. The group members voted on each recommendation, using the nominal voting technique. Expert opinion was used where no randomized controlled trials were available to support the recommendation. Results: This evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of children with functional constipation to standardize and improve their quality of care. In addition, 2 algorithms were developed, one for the infants <6 months of age and the other for older infants and children. Conclusions: This document is intended to be used in daily practice and as a basis for further clinical research. Large well-designed clinical trials are necessary with regard to diagnostic evaluation and treatment.

Social Media and Health Care Professionals: Benefits, Risks, and Best Practices

Abstract: Health care professionals can use a variety of social media tools to improve or enhance networking, education, and other activities. However, these tools also present some potential risks, such as unreliable information and violations of patients' privacy rights.

What Is the Value of the Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Toward Improvement of Patient Outcomes, Processes of Care, and Health Service Outcomes in Cancer Care? A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials

Abstract: Purpose The systematic use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been advocated as an effective way to standardize cancer practice. Yet, the question of whether PROMs can lead to actual improvements in the quality of patient care remains under debate. This review examined whether inclusion of PROM in routine clinical practice is associated with improvements in patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes during active anticancer treatment. Methods A systematic review of five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], PsycINFO, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection [PBSC]) was conducted from database inception to May 2012 to locate randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials of patients receiving active anticancer treatment or supportive care irrespective of type of cancer. Results Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 26 articles that reported on 24 unique controlled trials. Wide ...