Try a new search

Format these results:

Searched for:



Total Results:


Reliability of a Rapid Screener for an Intercept Survey about Drug Use

Palamar, Joseph J; Acosta, Patricia; Cleland, Charles M; Sherman, Scott
Intercept surveys are a relatively inexpensive method to rapidly collect data on drug use. However, querying use of dozens of drugs can be time-consuming. We determined whether using a rapid screener is efficacious in detecting which participants use drugs and should be offered a full survey which asks more extensively about use.
PMID: 34313194
ISSN: 1532-2491
CID: 5005852

The cost, survival, and quality-of-life implications of guideline-discordant imaging for prostate cancer

Winn, Aaron N; Kelly, Matthew; Ciprut, Shannon; Walter, Dawn; Gold, Heather T; Zeliadt, Steven B; Sherman, Scott E; Makarov, Danil V
BACKGROUND:National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for incident prostate cancer staging imaging have been widely circulated and accepted as best practice since 1996. Despite these clear guidelines, wasteful and potentially harmful inappropriate imaging of men with prostate cancer remains prevalent. AIM/OBJECTIVE:To understand changing population-level patterns of imaging among men with incident prostate cancer, we created a state-transition microsimulation model based on existing literature and incident prostate cancer cases. METHODS:To create a cohort of patients, we identified incident prostate cancer cases from 2004 to 2009 that were diagnosed in men ages 65 and older from SEER. A microsimulation model allowed us to explore how this cohort's survival, quality of life, and Medicare costs would be impacted by making imaging consistent with guidelines. We conducted a probabilistic analysis as well as one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS:When only imaging high-risk men compared to the status quo, we found that the population rate of imaging dropped from 53 to 38% and average per-person spending on imaging dropped from $236 to $157. The discounted and undiscounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicated that ideal upfront imaging reduced costs and slightly improved health outcomes compared with current practice patterns, that is, guideline-concordant imaging was less costly and slightly more effective. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates the potential reduction in cost through the correction of inappropriate imaging practices. These findings highlight an opportunity within the healthcare system to reduce unnecessary costs and overtreatment through guideline adherence.
PMID: 34137520
ISSN: 2573-8348
CID: 4936812

Tobacco Screening and Treatment during Outpatient Urology Office Visits in the United States

Bernstein, A P; Bjurlin, M A; Sherman, S E; Makarov, D V; Rogers, E; Matulewicz, R S
PURPOSE: Tobacco use is a causative or exacerbating risk factor for benign and malignant urological disease. However, it is not well known how often urologists screen for tobacco use and provide tobacco cessation treatment at the population level. We sought to evaluate how often urologists see patients for tobacco-related diagnoses in the outpatient setting and how often these visits include tobacco use screening and treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey public use files for the years 2014-2016 to identify all outpatient urology visits with adults 18 years old or older. Clinic visit reasons were categorized according to diagnoses associated with the encounter: all urological diagnoses, a tobacco-related urological condition or a urological cancer. Our primary outcome was the percentage of visits during which tobacco screening was reported. Secondary outcomes included reported delivery of cessation counseling and provision of cessation pharmacotherapy.
RESULT(S): We identified 4,625 unique urological outpatient encounters, representing a population-weighted estimate of 63.9 million visits over 3 years. Approximately a third of all urology visits were for a tobacco-related urological diagnosis and 15% were for urological cancers. An estimated 1.1 million visits over 3 years were with patients who identified as current tobacco users. Of all visits, 70% included tobacco screening. However, only 7% of visits with current smokers included counseling and only 3% of patients were prescribed medications. No differences in screening and treatment were observed between visit types.
CONCLUSION(S): Urologists regularly see patients for tobacco-related conditions and frequently, although not universally, screen patients for tobacco. However, urologists rarely offer counseling or cessation treatment. These findings may represent missed opportunities to decrease the morbidity associated with tobacco use
ISSN: 1527-3792
CID: 4883502

E-cigarette use and beliefs among adult smokers with substance use disorders

El-Shahawy, Omar; Schatz, Daniel; Sherman, Scott; Shelley, Donna; Lee, Joshua D; Tofighi, Babak
Background/UNASSIGNED:We explored characteristics and beliefs associated with e-cigarette use patterns among cigarette smokers requiring inpatient detoxification for opioid and/or alcohol use disorder(s). Methods/UNASSIGNED:-test statistics, and logistic regression models were used. Results/UNASSIGNED: Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:E-cigarette use seems to be appealing to a small proportion of cigarette smokers with SUD. Although, dual smokers seem to use e-cigarettes for its cessation premise, they don't appear to be actively seeking to quit. E-cigarettes may offer a more effective method for harm reduction, further evaluation of incorporating it within smoking cessation protocols among patients in addiction treatment is needed.
PMID: 33385062
ISSN: 2352-8532
CID: 4731972

Pain, cannabis use, and physical and mental health indicators among veterans and non-veterans: results from National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III

Enkema, Matthew C; Hasin, Deborah S; Browne, Kendall C; Stohl, Malki; Shmulewitz, Dvora; Fink, David S; Olfson, Mark; Martins, Silvia S; Bohnert, Kipling M; Sherman, Scott E; Cerda, Magdalena; Wall, Melanie; Aharonovich, Efrat; Keyhani, Salomeh; Saxon, Andrew J
ABSTRACT/UNASSIGNED:Chronic pain is associated with mental and physical health difficulties and is prevalent among veterans. Cannabis has been put forth as a treatment for chronic pain, and changes in laws, attitudes, and use patterns have occurred over the last two decades. Differences in prevalence of non-medical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder (CUD) were examined across two groups: veterans/non-veterans and those reporting/not reporting recent pain. Data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (2012-2013; n=36,309) were analyzed using logistic regression. Prevalence Differences (PD) for three cannabis outcomes: (1) past-year non-medical cannabis use, (2) frequent (≥3 times a week) non-medical use, and (3) DSM-5 CUD were estimated for those reporting recent moderate-severe pain (veterans/non-veterans), and veterans reporting/not reporting recent pain. Difference in differences were calculated to investigate prevalence differences on outcomes associated with residence in a state with medical cannabis laws (MCLs). Associations between physical and mental health and cannabis variables were tested. Results indicated that the prevalence of recent pain was greater among veterans (PD=7.25%, 95% CI [4.90, 9.60]). Among veterans, the prevalence of frequent cannabis use was greater among those with pain (PD=1.92%, 98% CI [0.21, 3.63]), and, among veterans residing in a state with MCLs, the prevalence of CUD was greater among those reporting recent pain (PD=3.88%, 98% CI [0.36, 7.39]). Findings failed to support the hypothesis that cannabis use improves mental or physical health for veterans with pain. Providers treating veterans with pain in MCL states should monitor such patients closely for CUD.
PMID: 34108436
ISSN: 1872-6623
CID: 4900072

The Association of Veterans' PSA Screening Rates with Changes in USPSTF Recommendations

Becker, Daniel J; Rude, Temitope; Walter, Dawn; Wang, Chan; Loeb, Stacy; Li, Huilin; Ciprut, Shannon; Kelly, Matthew; Zeliadt, Steven B; Fagerlin, Angela; Lepor, Herbert; Sherman, Scott; Ravenell, Joseph E; Makarov, Danil V
BACKGROUND:In 2012, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) formally recommended against all Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer. Our goal was to characterize PSA screening trends in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) before and after the USPSTF recommendation, and to determine if PSA screening was more likely to be ordered based on a Veteran's race or age. METHODS:Using the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we created 10 annual groups of PSA-eligible men covering 2009-2018. We identified all PSA tests performed in the VA to determine yearly rates of PSA screening. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS:The overall rate of PSA testing in the VA decreased from 63.3% in 2009 to 51.2% in 2018 (p<.001). PSA screening rates varied markedly by age group during our study period, with men aged 70-80 having the highest initial rate and greatest decline (70.6% in 2009 to 48.4% in 2018, p<.001). Men aged 55-69 saw a smaller decline (65.2% in 2009 to 58.9% in 2018, p<.001) while the youngest men, aged 40-54, had an increase in PSA screening (26.2% in 2009 to 37.8 in 2018, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS:In this analysis of PSA screening rates among veterans before and after the 2012 USPSTF recommendation against screening, we found that overall PSA screening decreased only modestly, continuing for more than half of the men in our study. Veterans of different races had similar screening rates, suggesting that VA care may minimize racial disparities. Veterans of varying age experienced significantly different trends in PSA screening.
PMID: 32797212
ISSN: 1460-2105
CID: 4566242

The HEAR-VA Pilot Study: Hearing Assistance Provided to Older Adults in the Emergency Department

Chodosh, Joshua; Goldfeld, Keith; Weinstein, Barbara E; Radcliffe, Kate; Burlingame, Madeleine; Dickson, Victoria; Grudzen, Corita; Sherman, Scott; Smilowitz, Jessica; Blustein, Jan
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Poor communication is a barrier to care for people with hearing loss. We assessed the feasibility and potential benefit of providing a simple hearing assistance device during an emergency department (ED) visit, for people who reported difficulty hearing. DESIGN/METHODS:Randomized controlled pilot study. SETTING/METHODS:The ED of New York Harbor Manhattan Veterans Administration Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:One hundred and thirty-three Veterans aged 60 and older, presenting to the ED, likely to be discharged to home, who either (1) said that they had difficulty hearing, or (2) scored 10 or greater (range 0-40) on the Hearing Handicap Inventory-Survey (HHI-S). INTERVENTION/METHODS:Subjects were randomized (1:1), and intervention subjects received a personal amplifier (PA; Williams Sound Pocketalker 2.0) for use during their ED visit. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Three survey instruments: (1) six-item Hearing and Understanding Questionnaire (HUQ); (2) three-item Care Transitions Measure; and (3) three-item Patient Understanding of Discharge Information. Post-ED visit phone calls to assess ED returns. RESULTS:Of the 133 subjects, 98.3% were male; mean age was 76.4 years (standard deviation (SD) = 9.2). Mean HHI-S score was 19.2 (SD = 8.3). Across all HUQ items, intervention subjects reported better in-ED experience than controls. Seventy-five percent of intervention subjects agreed or strongly agreed that ability to understand what was said was without effort versus 56% for controls. Seventy-five percent of intervention subjects versus 36% of controls said clinicians provided them with an explanation about presenting problems. Three percent of intervention subjects had an ED revisit within 3 days compared with 9.0% controls. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Veterans with hearing difficulties reported improved in-ED experiences with use of PAs, and were less likely to return to the ED within 3 days. PAs may be an important adjunct to older patient ED care but require validation in a larger more definitive randomized controlled trial.
PMID: 33576037
ISSN: 1532-5415
CID: 4780132

Reply by Authors

Matulewicz, Richard S; Basak, Ramsankar; Zambrano, Ibardo; Dearing, Bianca A; Schatz, Daniel; El Shahawy, Omar; Sherman, Scott; Bjurlin, Marc A
PMID: 33705219
ISSN: 1527-3792
CID: 4809422

Patterns and associations of smoking and electronic cigarette use among survivors of tobacco related and non-tobacco related cancers: A nationally representative cross-sectional analysis

Bjurlin, Marc A; Basak, Ramsankar; Zambrano, Ibardo; Schatz, Daniel; El Shahawy, Omar; Sherman, Scott; Matulewicz, Richard S
BACKGROUND:Tobacco-use among cancer survivors leads to preventable morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs. We sought to explore the prevalence of smoking and e-cigarette use among survivors of tobacco and non-tobacco related cancers. METHODS:A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the 2015-2018 National Health Interview Survey. Our primary outcome was the prevalence of current cigarette smoking or e-cigarette use among adults with self-reported history of tobacco related or non-tobacco related cancer. Logistic regression analysis was to assess the association of reported cancer type with cigarette smoking or e-cigarette use. Secondary outcomes included yearly trends and dual use. RESULTS:A total of 12,984 respondents reported a history of cancer, representing a weighted estimate of 5,060,059 individuals with a history of tobacco-related malignancy and 17,583,788 with a history of a tobacco and non-tobacco related cancer, respectively. Survivors of tobacco-related cancers had a significantly higher prevalence of current cigarette use (18.2 % vs 9.7 %, P < 0.0001), e-cigarette use (2.7 % vs 1.6 %, P < 0.0001) and similar rates of dual use. The prevalence of cigarette smoking among all survivors increased as time increased from the year of diagnosis up to 2 years post-diagnosis (P = 0.047). Odds of reporting current cigarette smoking use was higher for survivors of tobacco-related cancers, adjusted for sociodemographic factors (OR1.69, 95 % CI 1.44-1.99). CONCLUSIONS:Survivors of tobacco-related cancers have a higher prevalence of current cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use compared to survivors of non-tobacco related cancers. There was a sequential increase in the prevalence of cigarette use during each subsequent year from the time of a new cancer diagnosis, underscoring the need for long term tobacco cessation support among newly diagnosed adults with cancer.
PMID: 33674247
ISSN: 1877-783x
CID: 4808762

Peer-Assisted Lifestyle (PAL) intervention: a protocol of a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a health-coaching intervention delivered by veteran peers to improve obesity treatment in primary care

Wittleder, Sandra; Smith, Shea; Wang, Binhuan; Beasley, Jeannette M; Orstad, Stephanie L; Sweat, Victoria; Squires, Allison; Wong, Laura; Fang, Yixin; Doebrich, Paula; Gutnick, Damara; Tenner, Craig; Sherman, Scott E; Jay, Melanie
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:). Clinical guidelines recommend multicomponent lifestyle programmes to promote modest, clinically significant body mass (BM) loss. Primary care providers (PCPs) often lack time to counsel and refer patients to intensive programmes (≥6 sessions over 3 months). Using peer coaches to deliver obesity counselling in primary care may increase patient motivation, promote behavioural change and address the specific needs of veterans. We describe the rationale and design of a cluster-randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of the Peer-Assisted Lifestyle (PAL) intervention compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) to improve BM loss, clinical and behavioural outcomes (aim 1); identify BM-loss predictors (aim 2); and increase PCP counselling (aim 3). METHODS AND ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:We are recruiting 461 veterans aged 18-69 years with obesity or overweight with an obesity-associated condition under the care of a PCP at the Brooklyn campus of the Veterans Affairs NY Harbor Healthcare System. To deliver counselling, PAL uses in-person and telephone-based peer support, a tablet-delivered goal-setting tool and PCP training. Patients in the EUC arm receive non-tailored healthy living handouts. In-person data collection occurs at baseline, month 6 and month 12 for patients in both arms. Repeated measures modelling based on mixed models will compare mean BM loss (primary outcome) between study arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION/UNASSIGNED:The protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board and the Research and Development Committee at the VA NY Harbor Health Systems (#01607). We will disseminate the results via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER/BACKGROUND:NCT03163264; Pre-results.
PMID: 33637544
ISSN: 2044-6055
CID: 4800882