RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker tests can be ordered as part of the diagnostic workup of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Little is known about how patients with MCI and their care partners decide whether to pursue testing. OBJECTIVE: To examine factors that influence AD biomarker testing decisions among patients with MCI and their care partners. DESIGN: We performed structured research interviews with patients with MCI and their study partners to assess the importance of eight factors in the decision whether to undergo AD biomarker testing (6-point Likert scale; 1-extremely unimportant to 6-extremely important): cost, fear of testing procedures, learning if AD is the cause of cognitive problems, concern about health insurance, instructing future planning, informing treatment decisions, family members' opinions, and doctor recommendation. SETTING: Two researchers administered interviews with participants in-person (i.e., participant home, research center) or remotely (i.e., telephone, video-conference). PARTICIPANTS: We completed interviews with 65 patients with a diagnosis of MCI and 57 study partners, referred by dementia specialist clinicians from the University of California, Irvine health system. MEASUREMENTS: We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to examine the mean importance of each factor among patients and study partners, and the mean difference in importance of each factor within dyads. RESULTS: One third of participants reported the patient had previously undergone AD biomarker testing. Fifty-five percent of patients and 65% of study partners who reported no previous testing indicated a desire for the patient to be tested. GEE analyses found that patients and study partners rated the following factors with highest importance: informing treatment decisions (mean score 5.29, 95% CI: 5.06, 5.52 for patients; mean score 5.56, 95% CI: 5.41, 5.72 for partners); doctor recommendation (4.94, 95% CI: 4.73, 5.15 for patients; 5.16, 95% CI: 4.97, 5.34 for partners); and instructing future planning (4.88, 95% CI: 4.59, 5.16 for patients; 5.11, 95% CI: 4.86, 5.35 for partners). High dyadic agreement was observed for all factors except fear of testing, which patients rated with lower importance than their study partners. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker testing for AD in patients with MCI is a rapidly evolving practice and limited data exist on patient perspectives. In this study, most patients and their care partners were interested in testing to help inform treatment decisions and to plan for the future. Participants placed high importance on clinician recommendations for biomarker testing, highlighting the need for clear communication and education on the options, limitations, risks, and benefits of testing.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Recruitment to dementia prevention clinical trials is challenging, and participants are not representative of US adults at risk. A better understanding of the general public's interest in dementia prevention research participation is needed to inform future recruitment strategies. OBJECTIVE: To examine US adults' characteristics associated with self-reported likelihood to participate in dementia prevention clinical trials. DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using the October 2018 wave of the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging. SETTING: The National Poll on Healthy Aging is a nationally representative survey of adults using KnowledgePanel (Ipsos Public Affairs LLC), a probability-based panel of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data from 1,028 respondents, ages 50 to 64 years, who completed a web survey module on brain health. MEASUREMENTS: We used logistic regression models to examine associations between sociodemographic and dementia-related factors (e.g., family history) and self-reported likelihood to participate in a dementia prevention clinical trial of a new medicine ("very" or "somewhat likely" vs. "not likely" survey responses). Among respondents not likely to participate, we examined frequency of reasons endorsed for this decision, stratified by age, sex, and race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Of the 1,028 respondents, half were female, 68% Non-Hispanic White, 13% Hispanic, and 12% Non-Hispanic Black. Twelve percent of respondents reported being very likely to participate in a dementia prevention trial, 32% somewhat likely, and 56% not likely. Factors associated with higher likelihood to participate were higher perceived risk of dementia [OR, 2.17 (95% CI, 1.61, 2.93)], a positive family history of dementia [OR, 1.75 (95% CI, 1.27, 2.43)], and having discussed dementia prevention with a doctor [OR, 2.20 (95% CI, 1.10, 4.42)]. There were no differences in likelihood to participate by sociodemographic characteristics. Among 570 respondents not likely to participate, 39% said they did not want to be a guinea pig, 23% thought dementia would not affect them, 22% thought there would be too high a chance for harm, 15% indicated study participation would take too much time, and 5% reported fear of learning information about oneself. There were no differences across age, sex, and racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, perceived risk of dementia, family history, and discussion of prevention with a doctor were associated with likelihood to participate in a dementia prevention clinical trial, whereas sociodemographic factors including race and ethnicity were not. Findings suggest that recruitment interventions focused on increasing knowledge of dementia risk and prevention trials and involving healthcare providers may be effective tools to improve enrollment rates, regardless of target community.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Preclinical Alzheimer's disease clinical trials test candidate treatments in individuals with biomarker evidence but no cognitive impairment. Participants are required to co-enroll with a knowledgeable study partner, to whom biomarker information is disclosed. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether reluctance to share biomarker results is associated with viewing the study partner requirement as a barrier to preclinical trial enrollment. DESIGN: We developed a nine-item assessment on views toward the study partner requirement and performed in-person interviews based on a hypothetical clinical trial requiring biomarker testing and disclosure. SETTING: We conducted interviews on campus at the University of California, Irvine. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred cognitively unimpaired older adults recruited from the University of California, Irvine Consent-to-Contact Registry participated in the study. MEASUREMENTS: We used logistic regression models, adjusting for potential confounders, to examine potential associations with viewing the study partner requirement as a barrier to preclinical trial enrollment. RESULTS: Eighteen percent of participants reported strong agreement that the study partner requirement was a barrier to enrollment. Ten participants (5%) agreed at any level that they would be reluctant to share their biomarker result with a study partner. The estimated odds of viewing the study partner requirement as a barrier to enrollment were 26 times higher for these participants (OR=26.3, 95% CI 4.0, 172.3), compared to those who strongly disagreed that they would be reluctant to share their biomarker result. Overall, participants more frequently agreed with positive statements than negative statements about the study partner requirement, including 76% indicating they would want their study partner with them when they learned biomarker results. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to explore how potential preclinical Alzheimer's disease trial participants feel about sharing their personal biomarker information with a study partner. Most participants viewed the study partner as an asset to trial enrollment, including having a partner present during biomarker disclosure.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The fracture dislocation of the hip is a rare lesion described up to 4 to 17% of the cases and usually secondary to automobile accidents. Generally of poor prognosis and with already well documented complications such as avascular necrosis of the femoral head, osteoarthritis and heterotopic ossification. The iatrogenic fracture of the neck or head of the proximal femur is a complication even more rare and is not documented its incidence in the world literature. Having as probable causes the irreducibility of a dislocation of hip, more than one attempt of closed reduction, inadequate technique and some problems with the anesthesia and relaxation of the patient. We present the case of a young patient attended in the first eight hours after his accident with an iatrogenic fracture of the femoral head with follow up to 18 months and emphasizing the importance of making an anatomic open reduction and stable fixation in order to get favorable results.

La fractura luxación de la articulación coxofemoral es una lesión rara descrita de 4 a 17% de los casos por lo regular secundaria a accidentes automovilísticos. Generalmente de mal pronóstico y con complicaciones ya bien documentadas como la necrosis avascular de la cabeza femoral, la osteoartritis y la osificación heterotópica. La fractura iatrogénica del cuello o de la cabeza femoral es una complicación aún más rara cuya incidencia no está documentada en la literatura mundial. Como probables causas se tienen la irreductibilidad de una luxación de cadera al hacer más de un intento de manipulaciones cerradas, la ausencia de una adecuada anestesia y la falta de relajación del paciente. Se presenta el caso de una paciente joven atendida en las primeras ocho horas posteriores al accidente con fractura iatrogénica de la cabeza femoral con seguimiento a 18 meses, haciendo énfasis en la importancia de realizar una reducción anatómica y fijación estable para obtener resultados favorables.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A telehealth programme for schools was established by staff at the East Carolina University schools of nursing, health education, social work, nutrition, education and medicine, in conjunction with the Eastern Area Health Education Center. A health education curriculum was developed for rural high schools using the North Carolina Information Highway for delivery. A Web page provided additional resources for teachers, teenagers and health professionals. Four telehealth sessions were conducted over three years: two with the pilot school and two with a second school on-line simultaneously. A total of 76 ninth-grade students completed the courses. Evaluation indicated successful outcomes in student learning. Respondents to a follow-up survey of members of the first telehealth class had positive comments about the experience. Utilization of the Web page increased steadily from 1997.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Integrated school health services traditionally have been provided through the local board of education or health department. However, increased competitiveness in the health care arena has challenged providers to find innovative models to deliver health services to school-aged children. This article describes a partnership among a hospital, a university, private providers, and a local school system and health department to provide school health services. Noteworthy aspects of the project include the organizational structure and funding of the program, implementation of a case management model, and a focus on documenting outcomes. This program has been successful in building local alliances to provide health care services to school children. Implications for other school systems struggling to fund health services for school-aged children are discussed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The TeleHealth Project is a model telecommunications program that provides health education and consultation on the Internet. The TeleHealth Project delivers health information to rural ninth-grade students and their communities on the North Carolina Information Highway through interactive distance learning. The "trip" is a two-way adventure for students, educators, and health professionals. The Eastern Area Health Education Center (EAHEC), associated with East Carolina University (ECU) in Greenville, North Carolina, produces the TeleHealth Program. This collaborative model was built on prior successful relationships between the school system and EAHEC, and university faculty who had worked on interdisciplinary projects related to adolescents and the professional preparation of health providers in school settings.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Numerous advantages are anticipated with the implementation of the school-based referral system as a method of providing outpatient clinical experiences for a group of Psychiatric/Mental Health Nursing students. The school setting, when used as a clinical site, can provide valuable learning experiences where the student can apply the nursing process with individuals, families and groups. This multi-dimensional involvement reinforces family systems theory as well as group concepts. The nature of the students' experiences through the school-based referral system gives them the opportunity to increase their knowledge and understanding of the three levels of prevention: primary, secondary, and tertiary. The referrals generally constitute secondary intervention, with early recognition/intervention being the focus. Students are also encouraged to assess for factors that would place a child at risk for the development of other problems. With the identification of such factors, primary intervention strategies can be structured and implemented to reduce the child's risk. In some cases, students are involved in tertiary prevention, with a rehabilitative approach employed to assist individuals/families cope with a long-term problem situation. This expanded clinical experience facilitates the application of leadership concepts and reinforces the collaborative role of the nurse in the multidisciplinary provision of client services. Since the Psychiatric/Mental Health component of the curriculum is in the senior year, involvement in such a clinical experience also provides the students with a positive stimulus for the assumption of their professional roles and an opportunity to synthesize all previous learning.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)