Explore the vast range of titles available.

AbstractObjectiveWeakness in older emergency department (ED) patients presents a broad differential. Evaluation of these patients can be challenging, and the efficacy of head computed tomography (CT) imaging is unclear. This study assesses the usefulness of head CT as a diagnostic study of acute generalized weakness in older ED patients. MethodsThis retrospective review of patients aged 65 years and older presenting to 2 community EDs included patients with a chief complaint of generalized weakness who received a head CT. Patients presenting with a focal neurologic complaint, altered mental status, or trauma were excluded. Variables evaluated included additional triage chief complaints, dementia diagnosis, and deficits on physical examination. Primary outcome was acute intracranial finding on head CT. Secondary outcomes included neurology consultation, neurosurgical consultation, and neurosurgical intervention. ResultsOf 247 patients, 3.2% had an acute intracranial abnormality on head CT. Emergent consultations for neurology and neurosurgery occurred for 1.6% and 2.4% of patients, respectively. None required neurosurgical intervention. Patients with objective weakness or focal neurologic deficits on physical examination were more likely to have acute findings on head CT (8.5% vs. 2.0%, odds ratio 4.56, confidence interval 1.10–18.95). Additional characteristics did not predict acute intracranial abnormality or need for emergent consultation. ConclusionFew patients with generalized weakness evaluated with head CT had acutely abnormal intracranial findings. Patients with objective weakness or neurologic deficits were more likely to have acute abnormalities. Although head CT is frequently used to evaluate geriatric weakness, its utility is low, especially in patients with normal physical examinations.

ObjectivesPrior research has reported an increased risk of fatality for patients with cancer, but most studies investigated the risk by comparing cancer to non-cancer patients among COVID-19 infections, where cancer might have contributed to the increased risk. This study is to understand COVID-19’s imposed HR of fatality while controlling for covariates, such as age, sex, metastasis status and cancer type.MethodsWe conducted survival analyses of 4606 cancer patients with COVID-19 test results from 16 March to 11 October 2020 in UK Biobank and estimated the overall HR of fatality with and without COVID-19 infection. We also examined the HRs of 13 specific cancer types with at least 100 patients using a stratified analysis.ResultsCOVID-19 resulted in an overall HR of 7.76 (95% CI 5.78 to 10.40, p<10−10) by following 4606 patients with cancer for 21 days after the tests. The HR varied among cancer type, with over a 10-fold increase in fatality rate (false discovery rate ≤0.02) for melanoma, haematological malignancies, uterine cancer and kidney cancer. Although COVID-19 imposed a higher risk for localised versus distant metastasis cancers, those of distant metastases yielded higher overall fatality rates due to their multiplicative effects.DiscussionThe results confirmed prior reports for the increased risk of fatality for patients with COVID-19 plus hematological malignancies and demonstrated similar findings of COVID-19 on melanoma, uterine, and kidney cancers.ConclusionThe results highlight the heightened risk that COVID-19 imposes on localised and haematological cancer patients and the necessity to vaccinate uninfected patients with cancer promptly, particularly for the cancer types most influenced by COVID-19. Results also suggest the importance of timely care for patients with localised cancer, whether they are infected by COVID-19 or not.

In the United States, racial/ethnic minority, rural, and low-income populations continue to experience suboptimal access to and quality of health care despite decades of recognition of health disparities and policy mandates to eliminate them. Many health care interventions that were designed to achieve health equity fall short because of gaps in knowledge and translation. We discuss these gaps and highlight innovative interventions that help address them, focusing on cardiovascular disease and cancer. We also provide recommendations for advancing the field of health equity and informing the implementation and evaluation of policies that target health disparities through improved access to care and quality of care.

IntroductionMinority-serving hospitals (MSHs) need evidence-based strategies tailored to the populations they serve to improve patient-centered outcomes after hospitalization.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial (RCT) from October 2014 to January 2017 at a MSH comparing the effectiveness of a stakeholder-supported Navigator intervention vs. Usual care on post-hospital patient experience, outcomes, and healthcare utilization. Community health workers and peer coaches delivered the intervention which included (1) in-hospital visits to assess barriers to health/healthcare and to develop a personalized Discharge Patient Education Tool (DPET); (2) a home visit to review the DPET; and (3) telephone-based peer coaching. The co-primary outcomes were between-group comparisons of 30-day changes in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures of anxiety and informational support (minimum important difference is 2 to 5 units change); a p-value <0.025 was considered significant using intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included death, ED visits, or readmissions and measures of emotional, social, and physical health at 30 and 60 days.ResultsWe enrolled 1029 adults hospitalized with heart failure (28%), pneumonia (22%), MI (10%), COPD (11%), or sickle cell disease (29%). Over 80% were non-Hispanic Black. Overall, there were no significant between-group differences in the 30-day change in anxiety (adjusted difference: −1.6, 97.5% CI −3.3 to 0.1, p=0.03), informational support (adjusted difference: −0.01, 97.5% CI −2.0 to 1.9, p=0.99), or any secondary outcomes. Exploratory analyses suggested the Navigator intervention improved anxiety among participants with COPD, a primary care provider, a hospitalization in the past 12 months, or higher baseline anxiety; among participants without health insurance, the intervention improved informational support (all p-values <0.05).ConclusionsIn this pragmatic RCT at a MSH, the Navigator intervention did not improve post-hospital anxiety, informational support, or other outcomes compared to Usual care. Benefits observed in participant subgroups should be confirmed in future studies.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02114515

Abstract African American (AA) women experience much greater mortality due to breast cancer (BC) than non-Latino Whites (NLW). Clinical patient navigation is an evidence-based strategy used by healthcare institutions to improve AA women’s breast cancer outcomes. While empirical research has demonstrated the potential effect of navigation interventions for individuals, the population-level impact of navigation on screening, diagnostic completion, and stage at diagnosis has not been assessed. An agent-based model (ABM), representing 50–74-year-old AA women and parameterized with locally sourced data from Chicago, is developed to simulate screening mammography, diagnostic resolution, and stage at diagnosis of cancer. The ABM simulated three counterfactual scenarios: (1) a control setting without any navigation that represents the “standard of care”; (2) a clinical navigation scenario, where agents receive navigation from hospital-affiliated staff; and (3) a setting with network navigation, where agents receive clinical navigation and/or social network navigation (i.e., receiving support from clinically navigated agents for breast cancer care). In the control setting, the mean population-level screening mammography rate was 46.3% (95% CI: 46.2%, 46.4%), the diagnostic completion rate was 80.2% (95% CI: 79.9%, 80.5%), and the mean early cancer diagnosis rate was 65.9% (95% CI: 65.1%, 66.7%). Simulation results suggest that network navigation may lead up to a 13% increase in screening completion rate, 7.8% increase in diagnostic resolution rate, and a 4.9% increase in early-stage diagnoses at the population-level. Results suggest that systems science methods can be useful in the adoption of clinical and network navigation policies to reduce breast cancer disparities.

Background Patient navigation is an increasingly widespread intervention to address the persistent, severe, and disproportionate breast cancer (BC) burden that African Americans (AA) face. Navigation may have more widespread effects than previously estimated due to patient-driven diffusion of BC information. Methods This pilot study examined the network effects of a randomized controlled trial via recruitment of navigated and non-navigated AA BC patients as well as their network members. We estimated study arm differences in patient BC promotion (i.e., number of individuals to whom BC patients promote BC screening) and network BC screening (i.e., % BC screening among network members). Results Among our sample of 100 AA BC patients, navigated patients promoted BC screening to more individuals than non-navigated patients. BC patients were more likely to promote BC screening to children and individuals with whom they communicated more frequently. Some models further suggested more network BC screening among “navigated” network members relative to “non-navigated” network members. Conclusions Navigated AA patients promoted BC screening more widely throughout their networks than non-navigated AA BC patients. There were also suggestive findings regarding increased BC screening among their network members. Our pilot study highlights the potential for social network analysis to improve the precision of intervention effect estimates and to inform future innovations (e.g., integrating navigation and network-based interventions) with multilevel effects on cancer health disparities.

Over the past five years, we, the Principal Investigators of the current CPHHDs, have drawn upon diverse scientific disciplines, populations, and geographic regions. We have worked together across the CPHHDs to engage in in-depth exploration of the most compelling health issues facing diverse, underserved populations and to advance the science of health disparities research.

It is not known whether implementation of Medicaid expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was associated with improvements in the outcomes among racial and ethnic minority adults at risk of diabetes-related major amputations. To explore the association of early Medicaid expansion with outcomes of diabetic foot ulcerations (DFUs). This cohort study included hospitalizations for DFUs among African American, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Hispanic adults as well as adults with another minority racial or ethnic identification aged 20 to 64 years. Data were collected from the State Inpatient Databases for 19 states and the District of Columbia for 2013 to the third quarter of 2015. The analysis was performed on December 4, 2019, and updated on November 9, 2021. States were categorized into early-adopter states (expansion by January 2014) and nonadopter states. Poisson regression was performed to examine the associations of state type, time, and their combined association with the proportional changes of major amputation rate per year per 100 000 population. Among the 115 071 hospitalizations among racial and ethnic minority adults with DFUs (64% of sample aged 50 to 64 years; 35%, female; 61%, African American; 25%, Hispanic; 14%, other racial and ethnic minority group), there were 36 829 hospitalizations (32%) for Medicaid beneficiaries and 10 500 hospitalizations (9%) for uninsured patients. Hospitalizations increased 3% (95% CI, 1% to 5%) in early-adopter states and increased 8% (95% CI, 6% to 10%) in nonadopter states after expansion, a significant difference (P for interaction < .001). Although there was no change in the amputation rate (0.08%; 95% CI, -6% to 7%) in early-adopter states after expansion, there was a 9% (95% CI, 3% to 16%) increase in nonadopter states, a significant change (P = .04). For uninsured adults, the amputation rate decreased 33% (95% CI, 10% to 50%) in early-adopter states and did not change (12%; 95% CI, -10% to 38%) in nonadopter states after expansion, a significant difference (P = .006). There was no difference in the change of amputation rate among Medicaid beneficiaries between state types after expansion. This study found a relative improvement in the major amputation rate among African American, Hispanic, and other racial and ethnic minority adults in early-expansion states compared with nonexpansion states, which could be because of the recruitment of at-risk uninsured adults into the Medicaid program during the first 2 years of ACA implementation. Future study is required to evaluate the long-term association of Medicaid expansion and the rates of amputation.

Patient Navigation is an intervention aimed at addressing cancer health disparities by eliminating barriers to diagnosis, treatment, and services. Three major patient navigation (PN) programs (The National Cancer Institute, The American Cancer Society &The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) are underway to address the needs of medically underserved cancer patients. There has not been national training with a defined curriculum for patient navigators (PNs). Curriculum for training the PNs was created by experts from the three programs. The efficacy of training was evaluated using a pre- and posttest. The data show that overall the posttest scores improved from the pretest. In addition, having a high school education or greater or having more years of work experience were significantly related to improvements on the posttest. The first successful standardized national training program was attended by 116 PNs representing 85 cities with the goal to reduce health disparities for medically underserved.