Explore the vast range of titles available.

A key challenge for schools throughout the COVID-19 pandemic was finding ways to monitor and prevent COVID-19 cases. While diagnostic testing and connecting students and their families to appropriate resources to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 were recommended, few schools had scalable infrastructure, including information technology systems, to implement these types of measures. This study tested a new approach to COVID-19 testing (SCALE-UP Counts) in school settings that used automated bidirectional text messages provided to the school community that alerted parents of students to COVID-19 testing options and guidance on when to test. The SCALE-UP Counts trial was designed as a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial and final analyses compared results from parents who received intensive, fully automated, bidirectional text messaging about COVID-19 testing or usual care (control; fully automated unidirectional text messaging about COVID-19 testing), unblinded interventions. From the 16 selected schools, we enrolled all eligible participants who did not opt out of the study. The study provided schools from both arms of the trial with free at-home COVID-19 test kits. The primary outcome was the proportion of parents whose households tested for COVID-19, and the secondary outcome was the number of missed school days. The study asked parents to respond to self-report measures on testing outcomes and missed school days through web-based questionnaires. The study included 7122 parents of students from 16 schools, half of which were title 1 schools; 2588 were randomized to usual care or control and 4534 to bidirectional text messaging. The SCALE-UP Counts intervention led to increased self-reported testing when compared with the control condition (22.8% vs 13.5%, relative testing rate=1.64, 95% CI 1.31-2.02; P<.001). There was no observed difference in missed school days between the study arms (0.43 per month vs 0.28 in usual care, relative missed days rate=1.55, 95% CI 0.98-2.45; P=.06). SCALE-UP Counts worked closely with schools and the state's public health system to implement and test a scalable health information technology approach that delivered automated text messages to students' parents around COVID-19 testing and provided access to free at-home test kits. Such an approach can help facilitate COVID-19 testing among school communities, including those that provide education and resources to students and their families from racial or ethnic minorities and with low socioeconomic status. Similar health information technology approaches could be used to increase ease of access to testing, reduce testing burden, and provide tailored information on health measures in school communities for a variety of illnesses or public health concerns. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05112900; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05112900.

IntroductionAlthough evidence-based guidelines recommend non-pharmacologic treatments as first-line care for chronic low back pain (LBP), uptake has been limited, particularly in rural, low-income and ethnically diverse communities. The BeatPain study will evaluate the implementation and compare the effectiveness of two strategies to provide non-pharmacologic treatment for chronic LBP. The study will use telehealth to overcome access barriers for persons receiving care in federally qualified health centres (FQHCs) in the state of Utah.Methods and analysisBeatPain Utah is a pragmatic randomised clinical trial with a hybrid type I design investigating different strategies to provide non-pharmacologic care for adults with chronic LBP seen in Utah FQHCs. The intervention strategies include a brief pain consult (BPC) and telehealth physical therapy (PT) component provided using either an adaptive or sequenced delivery strategy across two 12-week treatment phases. Interventions are provided via telehealth by centrally located physical therapists. The sequenced delivery strategy provides the BPC, followed by telehealth PT in the first 12 weeks for all patients. The adaptive strategy uses a stepped care approach and provides the BPC in the first 12 weeks and telehealth PT to patients who are non-responders to the BPC component. We will recruit 500 English-speaking or Spanish-speaking participants who will be individually randomised with 1:1 allocation. The primary outcome is the Pain, Enjoyment and General Activity measure of pain impact with secondary outcomes including the additional pain assessment domains specified by the National Institutes (NIH) of Health Helping to End Addiction Long Initiative and implementation measures. Analyses of primary and secondary measures of effectiveness will be performed under longitudinal mixed effect models across assessments at baseline, and at 12, 26 and 52 weeks follow-ups.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for the study was obtained from the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. On completion, study data will be made available in compliance with NIH data sharing policies.Trial registration numberNCT04923334.

Background Considerable disparities in chronic pain management have been identified. Persons in rural, lower income, and minoritized communities are less likely to receive evidence-based, nonpharmacologic care. Telehealth delivery of nonpharmacologic, evidence-based interventions for persons with chronic pain is a promising strategy to lessen disparities, but implementation comes with many challenges. The BeatPain Utah study is a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation pragmatic clinical trial investigating telehealth strategies to provide nonpharmacologic care from physical therapists to persons with chronic back pain receiving care in ommunity health centers (CHCs). CHCs provide primary care to all persons regardless of ability to pay. This paper outlines the use of implementation mapping to develop a multifaceted implementation plan for the BeatPain study. Methods During a planning year for the BeatPain trial, we developed a comprehensive logic model including the five-step implementation mapping process informed by additional frameworks and theories. The five iterative implementation mapping steps were addressed in the planning year: (1) conduct needs assessments for involved groups; (2) identify implementation outcomes, performance objectives, and determinants; (3) select implementation strategies; (4) produce implementation protocols and materials; and (5) evaluate implementation outcomes. Results CHC leadership/providers, patients, and physical therapists were identified as involved groups. Barriers and assets were identified across groups which informed identification of performance objectives necessary to implement two key processes: (1) electronic referral of patients with back pain in CHC clinics to the BeatPain team and (2) connecting patients with physical therapists providing telehealth. Determinants of the performance objectives for each group informed our choice of implementation strategies which focused on training, education, clinician support, and tailoring physical therapy interventions for telehealth delivery and cultural competency. We selected implementation outcomes for the BeatPain trial to evaluate the success of our implementation strategies. Conclusions Implementation mapping provided a comprehensive and systematic approach to develop an implementation plan during the planning phase for our ongoing hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. We will be able to evaluate the implementation strategies used in the BeatPain Utah study to inform future efforts to implement telehealth delivery of evidence-based pain care in CHCs and other settings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04923334 . Registered June 11, 2021.

In this article, we present the results of an original study identifying the perceptions of beginning philosophy students at the start of their first introductory course. We surveyed over 1,100 students representing over 40 universities and colleges in the United States regarding their initial perceptions of gender bias, inclusivity, value, understanding, similarities, and enjoyment of philosophy. We analyzed the results based on gender, first-generation status, and student of color status. This work represents the perspectives of a more diverse range of students, reflecting far more first-generation college students (40 percent) and students who identify as people of color (43 percent) than in previous work. Additionally, this study provides novel data as we were able to collect data on the first day of classes, in most cases before students were exposed to syllabi or content that could inform their views about philosophy. Understanding what beginning students think about philosophy before formal exposure to the field might help us to identify concerns, misconceptions, and areas for improvement. Many results are striking, and our project offers insight into the initial perspectives of philosophy students.

IntroductionLung cancer is a significant burden on societies worldwide, and the most common cause of death in patients with cancer overall. Exercise intervention studies in patients with lung cancer have consistently shown benefits with respect to physical and emotional functioning. However, to date, exercise training has not been consistently implemented into clinical practice given that interventions have been costly and not aligned with clinical care.Methods/designThe Precision-Exercise-Prescription (PEP) study is a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and feasibility of a personalised intervention exercise programme among patients with lung cancer undergoing surgery. Two-hundred patients who are diagnosed with stage primary or secondary lung cancer and are eligible to undergo surgical treatment at Huntsman Cancer Institute comprise the target population. Patients are randomised to either the (1) outpatient precision-exercise intervention group or (2) delayed intervention group. The intervention approach uses Motivation and Problem Solving, a hybrid behavioural treatment based on motivational interviewing and practical problem solving. The dosage of the exercise intervention is personalised based on the individual’s Activity Measure for Post-Acute-Care outpatient basic mobility score, and incorporates four exercise modes: mobility, callisthenics, aerobic and resistance. Exercise is implemented by physical therapists at study visits from presurgery until 6 months postsurgery. The primary endpoint is the level of physical function assessed by 6 min walk distance at 2 months postsurgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes (eg, quality of life, fatigue and self-efficacy) and other clinical outcomes, including length of stay, complications, readmission, pulmonary function and treatment-related costs up to 6 months postsurgery.Ethics/disseminationThe PEP study will test the clinical effectiveness and feasibility of a personalised exercise intervention in patients with lung cancer undergoing surgery. Outcomes of this clinical trial will be presented at national and international conferences and symposia and will be published in international, peer-reviewed journals. Ethics approval was obtained at the University of Utah (IRB 00104671).Trial registration number NCT03306992.

Background: More than 88 million Americans are at risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The National Diabetes Prevention Program’s Lifestyle Change Program (DPP LCP) has been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of progressing from prediabetes to T2DM. However, most individuals who could benefit from the program do not enroll. Objective: The aim of this trial is to test the real-world efficacy of 3 mobile phone–based approaches to increasing enrollment in the DPP LCP including a best-practice condition and 2 novel approaches. Methods: We will conduct a 3-armed randomized clinical trial comparing enrollment and 1-month engagement in the DPP LCP among adults with prediabetes from 2 health care settings. Participants in the best-practice condition will receive SMS-based notifications that they have prediabetes and a link to a website that explains prediabetes, T2DM, and the DPP LCP. This will be followed by a single question survey, “Would you like the DPP LCP to call you to enroll?” Participants in the 2 intervention arms will receive the same best-practice intervention plus either 2 mobile 360° videos or up to 5 brief phone calls from a health coach trained in a motivational coaching approach known as Motivation and Problem Solving (MAPS). We will collect measures of diabetes-related knowledge, beliefs in the controllability of risk for T2DM, risk perceptions for T2DM, and self-efficacy for lifestyle change pre-intervention and 4 weeks later. The primary outcomes of the study are enrollment in the DPP LCP and 4-week engagement in the DPP LCP. In addition, data on the person-hours needed to deliver the interventions as well as participant feedback about the interventions and their acceptability will be collected. Our primary hypotheses are that the 2 novel interventions will lead to higher enrollment and engagement in the DPP LCP than the best-practice intervention. Secondary hypotheses concern the mechanisms of action of the 2 intervention arms: (1) whether changes in risk perception are associated with program enrollment among participants in the mobile 360° video group and (2) whether changes in self-efficacy for lifestyle change are associated with program enrollment among participants in the MAPS coaching group. Finally, exploratory analyses will examine the cost effectiveness and acceptability of the interventions. Results: The project was funded in September 2020; enrollment began in February 2021 and is expected to continue through July 2022. Conclusions: We are conducting a test of 2 novel, scalable, mobile phone–based interventions to increase enrollment in the DPP LCP. If effective, they have tremendous potential to be scaled up to help prevent T2DM nationwide. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04746781; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04746781 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/28884

This compact and innovative book tackles one of the central issues in drug policy: the lack of a coherent conceptual structure for thinking about drugs. Drugs generally fall into one of seven categories: prescription, over the counter, alternative medicine, common-use drugs like alcohol, tobacco and caffeine; religious-use, sports enhancement; and of course illegal street drugs like cocaine and marijuana. Our thinking and policies varies wildly from one to the other, with inconsistencies that derive more from cultural and social values than from medical or scientific facts. Penalties exist for steroid use, while herbal remedies or cold medication are legal. Native Americans may legally use peyote, but others may not. Penalties may vary for using different forms of the same drug, such as crack vs. powder cocaine. Herbal remedies are unregulated by the FDA; but medical marijuana is illegal in most states. Battin and her contributors lay a foundation for a wiser drug policy by promoting consistency and coherency in the discussion of drug issues and by encouraging a unique dialogue across disciplines. The contributors are an interdisciplinary group of scholars mostly based at the University of Utah, and include a pharmacologist, a psychiatrist, a toxicologist, a trial court judge, a law professor, an attorney, a diatary specialist, a physician, a health expert on substance abuse, and Battin herself who is a philosopher. They consider questions like the historical development of current policy and the rationales for it; scientific views on how drugs actually cause harm; how to define the key notions of harm and addiction; and ways in which drug policy can be made more consistent. They conclude with an examination of the implications of a consistent policy for various disciplines and society generally. The book is written accessibly with little need for expert knowledge, and will appeal to a diverse audience of philosophers, bioethicists, clinicians, policy makers, law enforcement, legal scholars and practitioners, social workers, and general readers, as well as to students in areas like pharmacy, medicine, law, nursing, sociology, social work, psychology, and bioethics.

To date, the literature describing the characteristics and functioning of adult children of alcoholics (ACOAs) is largely based on clinical observation, and very few systematic studies have been conducted. Furthermore, few studies have compared the functioning of ACOAs to adults who were raised in dysfunctional homes where alcohol was not abused. Without such a comparison, we are unable to conclude whether ACOAs develop specific characteristics directly related to parental alcohol abuse, or whether they comprise a subset of a larger group of adults from dysfunctional families. The purpose of this study was to compare four groups with respect to the variables of trust, fear of disapproval, and potential for alcohol abuse. The four groups of interest were: adult children of alcoholics who perceived their families as functional (ACOA-Fs), adult children of alcoholics who perceived their families as dysfunctional (ACOA-Ds), adult children of dysfunctional families with no history of parental alcohol abuse (ACODs), and adult children of functional families (ACOFs). It was hypothesized that participants from dysfunctional families would be less willing to trust others and be more fearful of negative evaluation than would participants from functional families. Additionally, it was hypothesized that participants from alcoholic families would display a higher potential for addiction than participants from nonalcoholic families. A total of 264 participants completed the study. The data were analyzed using three two-way ANOVAs, with family functionality and parental alcoholism as independent variables. The results revealed that participants from dysfunctional families were significantly more fearful of negative evaluation than those from functional families (p$<$ .01). There were no other significant findings. This study suggests that it may be erroneous to assume that ACOAs will develop problems in life which are a direct result of exposure to or living with an alcoholic parent.

Summary Points * Based on extensive review of global evidence, the recommendations of the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health highlight the need for strengthening research on health equity with a focus on social determinants of health. * To do so requires a paradigm shift that explicitly addresses social, political, and economic processes that influence population health; this shift is under way and complements existing research in medicine, the life sciences, and public health. * Reflecting further synthesis and stakeholder consultations, an agenda for future research on health equity is outlined in four distinct yet interrelated areas: (1) global factors and processes that affect health equity; (2) structures and processes that differentially affect people's chances to be healthy within a given society; (3) health system factors that affect health equity; and (4) policies and interventions to reduce health inequity. * Influencing regional and national research priorities on equity and health and their implementation requires joint efforts towards creating a critical mass of researchers, expanding collaborations and networks, and refining norms and standards, with WHO having an important role given recent mandates. Appropriate resources will further enable intensive efforts across WHO to integrate reduction of health inequities into national and regional research agendas and enable the WHO secretariat to facilitate Member States' requests related to resolution 62.14 [1]. (d) Ensuring that norms and standards for the monitoring and assessment of health inequalities on multiple dimensions including class, gender, age, and ethnicity are updated and used in the course of data gathering, statistical analysis, and dissemination to support countries in their efforts and wider global monitoring.