Journal of general internal medicine
-
Editorial Review
Rethinking Substance Use as Social History: Charting a Way Forward.
Physicians have traditionally asked about substance use within the Social History section of the consultation note. Drawing on social science theory and using the authors' own experiences as generalists and addiction scholars, we consider the possible unintended harms associated with this approach. The inclusion of the substance use history within the Social History reproduces the discourse of substance use disorders as "life-style choices" rather than medical conditions, and reinforces stigma among healthcare workers through the attribution of personal responsibility for complications associated with problematic substance use. ⋯ These missed opportunities may include inadequate withdrawal management leading to discharge before medically advised, insufficient use of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, polypharmacy, medical complications, and repeated admissions to hospital. We argue instead that the Substance Use History should be a stand-alone section within the consultation note. This new section would reduce the invisibility of substance use disorders within our medical systems and model that these chronic medical conditions are amenable to prevention, treatment and harm reduction through the application of evidence-based practices.
-
Novel statistical methods have emerged in recent medical literature, which clinicians must understand to properly appraise and integrate evidence into their practice. Some of these key concepts include win ratios, restricted mean survival time, responder analyses, and standardized mean difference. This article offers guidance to busy clinicians on the comprehension and practical applicability of the results to patients. ⋯ When meta-analyzing continuous outcomes, point estimates can be converted to standardized mean differences to facilitate the combination of data utilizing various outcome measures. However, clinicians may find it challenging to grasp the clinical meaningfulness of a standardized mean difference, and may benefit from converting it to well-known outcomes. By providing the background knowledge of these statistical methods, along with practical applicability, benefits, and inevitable limitations, this article aims to provide clinicians with an approach to appraise the literature and apply the results in clinical practice.
-
Meta Analysis
Identifying the Best Initial Oral Antibiotics for Adults with Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Network Meta-Analysis.
The objective of this network meta-analysis was to compare rates of clinical response and mortality for empiric oral antibiotic regimens in adults with mild-moderate community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). ⋯ We observed trends toward a better clinical response and lower mortality for quinolones as empiric antibiotics for CAP, but found no conclusive evidence of any antibiotic being clearly more effective than another. More trials are needed to inform guideline recommendations on the most effective antibiotic regimens for outpatients with mild to moderate CAP.
-
Meta Analysis
Interventions to Reduce Loneliness in Community-Living Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
The problem of loneliness has garnered increased attention from policymakers, payors, and providers due to higher rates during the pandemic, particularly among seniors. Prior systematic reviews have in general not been able to reach conclusions about effectiveness of interventions. ⋯ PROSPERO ( CRD42021272305 ).
-
In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. ⋯ Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial.