Faculty Bibliography

The New Jersey Medication Assisted Treatment Initiative (NJ-MATI) sought to reduce barriers to treatment by providing free, opioid agonist treatment (OAT, methadone or buprenorphine) via mobile medication units (MMUs). To evaluate barriers to OAT, logistic regression was used to compare opioid dependent patients enrolled in NJ-MATI to those entering treatment at fixed-site methadone clinics or non-medication assisted treatment (non-MAT). Client demographic and clinical data were taken from an administrative database for licensed treatment providers. The MMUs enrolled a greater proportion of African-American, homeless, and uninsured individuals than the fixed-site methadone clinics. Compared to non-MAT and traditional methadone clients, NJ-MATI patients were more likely to be injection drug users and daily users but less likely to have a recent history of treatment. These observations suggest that the patient-centered policies associated with NJ-MATI increased treatment participation by high severity, socially disenfranchised patients who were not likely to receive OAT.

The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study prospectively identified youth aged <20 years with physician-diagnosed diabetes. Annual type 1 diabetes (T1D) incidence per 100,000 person-years (95% CI) overall, by age-group, and by sex were calculated for at-risk non-Hispanic white (NHW) youth from 2002 through 2009. Joinpoint and Poisson regression models were used to test for temporal trends. The age- and sex-adjusted incidence of T1D increased from 24.4/100,000 (95% CI 23.9-24.8) in 2002 to 27.4/100,000 (26.9-27.9) in 2009 (P for trend = 0.0008). The relative annual increase in T1D incidence was 2.72% (1.18-4.28) per year; 2.84% (1.12-4.58) per year for males and 2.57% (0.68-4.51) per year for females. After adjustment for sex, significant increases were found for youth aged 5-9 years (P = 0.0023), 10-14 years (P = 0.0008), and 15-19 years (P = 0.004) but not among 0-4-year-olds (P = 0.1862). Mean age at diagnosis did not change. The SEARCH study demonstrated a significant increase in the incidence of T1D among NHW youth from 2002 through 2009 overall and in all but the youngest age-group. Continued surveillance of T1D in U.S. youth to identify future trends in T1D incidence and to plan for health care delivery is warranted.

PURPOSE:The purpose of this study is to describe (1) the receipt of diabetes self-management education (DSME) in a large, diverse cohort of US youth with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), (2) the segregation of self-reported DSME variables into domains, and (3) the demographic and clinical characteristics of youth who receive DSME. METHODS:Data are from the US population-based cohort SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth. A cross-sectional analysis was employed using data from 1273 youth <20 years of age at the time of diagnosis of T1DM. Clusters of 19 self-reported DSME variables were derived using factor analysis, and their associations with demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated using polytomous logistic regression. RESULTS:Nearly all participants reported receiving DSME content consistent with "survival skills" (eg, target blood glucose and what to do for low or high blood glucose), yet gaps in continuing education were identified (eg, fewer than half of the participants reported receiving specific medical nutrition therapy recommendations). Five DSME clusters were explored: receipt of specific MNT recommendations, receipt of diabetes information resources, receipt of clinic visit information, receipt of specific diabetes information, and met with educator or nutritionist. Factor scores were significantly associated with demographic and clinical characteristics, including race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and diabetes self-management practices. CONCLUSIONS:Health care providers should work together to address reported gaps in DSME to improve patient care.

OBJECTIVE:To describe the prevalence of access and process barriers to health care and to examine their relationship to sociodemographic and disease factors in a large and diverse cohort of US youth with type 1 diabetes. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A cross-sectional analysis of 780 youth who participated in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study and were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 2002-2005. Experience of barriers to care was collected from parent report on questionnaires. Analyses included multivariate regression models to predict the presence of specific barriers to care. RESULTS:Overall, 81.7% of participants reported at least one barrier; the 3 most common were costs (47.5%), communication (43.0%), and getting needed information (48.4%). Problems with access to care, not having a regular provider, and receiving contextual care (care that takes into account personal and family context) were associated with poorer glycated hemoglobin levels. Adjusted multivariate models indicated that barriers related to access (regular provider, cost) were most likely for youth with low family income and those without public health insurance. Barriers associated with the processes of quality care (contextual care, communication) were more likely for Hispanic youth and those whose parents had less education. CONCLUSIONS:This study indicates that a large proportion of youth with type 1 diabetes experience substantial barriers to care. Barriers to access and those associated with processes of quality care differed by sociodemographic characteristics. Future investigators should expand knowledge of the systemic processes that lead to disparate outcomes for some youth with diabetes and assess potential solutions.

OBJECTIVE:To examine the longitudinal associations between sex, diabetes self-care, and the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of children and adolescents with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:The sample included 910 participants with type 1 and 241 participants with type 2, ages 10-22 years at baseline, from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study, a longitudinal observational study. The primary outcome measure was the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory. Repeated measures, mixed-model regression analysis was conducted with the use of data from baseline and at least one follow-up assessment, spanning approximately 4 years. RESULTS:HRQL was greater among those with type 1 versus type 2 diabetes. Among participants with type 1, greater (better) Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory total scores over time were related to greater parent education (P = .0007), lower glycated hemoglobin values (P < .0001), and greater physical activity during the past 7 days (PÂ = .0001). There was a significant interaction between sex and age (P < .0001); girls' HRQL remained stable or decreased over time, whereas males' HRQL increased. For participants with type 2 diabetes, there was no significant interaction by age and sex, but lower total HRQL was related to being female (P = .011) and greater body mass index z-scores (P = .014). CONCLUSIONS:HRQL in this cohort varied by diabetes type. The interaction between sex and age for type 1 participants, coupled with poorer HRQL among female than male participants with type 2 diabetes, suggests the impacts of diabetes on HRQL differ by sex and should be considered in clinical management. Encouraging physical activity and weight control continue to be important in improving HRQL.

Communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs) in health care organizations seek to identify medical injuries promptly; ensure that they are disclosed to patients compassionately; pursue timely resolution through patient engagement, explanation, and, where appropriate, apology and compensation; and use lessons learned to improve patient safety. CRPs have existed for years, but they are being tested in new settings and primed for broad implementation through grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. These projects do not require changing laws. However, grantees' experiences suggest that the path to successful dissemination of CRPs would be smoother if the legal environment supported them. State and federal policy makers should try to allay potential defendants' fears of litigation (for example, by protecting apologies from use in court), facilitate patient participation (for example, by ensuring access to legal representation), and address the reputational and economic concerns of health care providers (for example, by clarifying practices governing National Practitioner Data Bank reporting and payers' financial recourse following medical error).

The study of adverse event disclosure has typically focused on the words that are said to the patient and family members after an event. But there is also growing interest in determining how patients and their families can be involved in the analysis of the adverse events that harmed them. We conducted a two-phase study to understand whether patients and families who have experienced an adverse event should be involved in the postevent analysis following the disclosure of a medical error. We first conducted twenty-eight interviews with patients, family members, clinicians, and administrators to determine the extent to which patients and family members are included in event analysis processes and to learn how their experiences might be improved. Then we reviewed our interview findings with patients and health care experts at a one-day national conference in October 2011. After evaluating the findings, conference participants concluded that increasing the involvement of patients and their families in the event analysis process was desirable but needed to be structured in a patient-centered way to be successful. We conclude by describing when and how information from patients might be incorporated into the event analysis process and by offering recommendations on how this might be accomplished.

As hospital, physician, and health insurance markets consolidate and change in response to health care reform, some commentators have called for vigorous enforcement of the federal antitrust laws to prevent the acquisition and exercise of market power. In health care, however, stricter antitrust enforcement will benefit consumers only if it accounts for the competitive distortions caused by the sector's long history of government regulation. This article directs policy makers to a neglected dimension of health care competition that has been altered by regulation: the product. Competition may have failed to significantly lower costs, increase access, or improve quality in health care because we have been buying and selling the wrong things. Competition policy makers-meaning both antitrust enforcers and regulators-should force the health care industry to define and market products that can be assembled and warranted to consumers while keeping emerging sectors such as mHealth free from overregulation, wasteful subsidy, and appropriation by established insurer and provider interests.