Impact Of Non-clinical Factors Research Articles

Nurses' Anxiety Mediates the Relationship between Clinical Tolerance to Uncertainty and Antibiotic Initiation Decisions in Residential Aged-Care Facilities.

The impact of non-clinical factors (e.g., resident and family preferences) on prescribing is well-established. There is a gap in the literature regarding the mechanisms through which these preferences are experienced as pressure by prescribers within the unique context of residential aged-care facilities (RACFs).A significant relationship was found between nurses' anxiety, clinical tolerance of uncertainty, and the perceived need for antibiotics and assessment.As such, there is a need to expand stewardship beyond education alone to include interventions that help nurses manage uncertainty and anxiety and include other stakeholders (e.g., family members) when making clinical decisions in the RACF setting.

The Perception of Women in Rural and Remote Scotland About Intrapartum Care: A Qualitative Study.

The views of mothers are important in shaping policy and practice regarding options for intrapartum care. Mothers in rural and remote areas face unique challenges accessing services, and these need to be well understood. Therefore, our aim was to understand the compromises that women who live in remote and rural settings, more than 1h from a maternity unit, face regarding intrapartum care. Qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews (n=14) were undertaken in rural Scotland with 13 women who had young children and one who was pregnant. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed by two researchers. Key themes identified were women's perceptions about risk and the safety of different pathways of maternity care and birth locations; the actual and perceived distance between home and the place of birth, and the type of maternity care available at a place of birth. Mothers in rural and remote areas face particular challenges in choosing where to have their babies. In addition to clinical decisions about 'place of birth' agreed with healthcare professionals, they have to mentally juggle the implications of giving birth when at a distance from family support and away from familiar surroundings. It was clear that many women from rural communities have a strong sense of 'place' and that giving birth in a geographical location, community and culture that feels familiar is important to many of them. Health care staff need to appreciate the impact of non-clinical factors that are important to mothers in remote and rural areas and acknowledge these, even when they cannot be accommodated. Local and national policy also needs to reflect and respond to the practical challenges faced by rurality.

Factors associated with treatment given and survival outcomes in synovial sarcoma.

e23539 Background: Synovial sarcoma (SS) is a rare, high-grade soft tissue tumor and often requires multidisciplinary care with different treatment modalities. However, information on treatment patterns, especially in patients with localized disease and impact on survival is currently lacking. Methods: Adolescents and young adults (AYA, 15-39 years) and older adults (“adults,” ≥40 years) diagnosed with localized SS from 2000-2018 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. Treatment for SS consists of surgery and may also include chemotherapy and/or radiation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify clinical (e.g., tumor size) and sociodemographic factors (e.g., neighborhood socioeconomic status [SES]) associated with receipt of chemotherapy and/or radiation (versus none). Cox proportional hazards regression identified factors associated with overall survival (OS). Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR), respectively, with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: There were 346 AYAs and 272 adults diagnosed with localized SS. Surgical resection occurred in 95% of patients. AYAs with tumors > 5 cm (vs. ≤5) were more likely to be given chemotherapy (OR 4.83, CI 2.66-8.79) as were adults with tumors > 10 cm (OR 5.21, CI 2.28-11.92). Adults ≥65 (vs. 60-65 years) were significantly less likely to receive chemotherapy (OR 0.11, CI 0.03-0.43). Adults living in high SES neighborhoods were more likely to receive chemotherapy (vs. low SES: OR 3.20, CI 1.40-7.31) or chemotherapy and radiation (OR 3.03, CI 1.24-7.41). In contrast, adults with public/no insurance were less likely to receive chemotherapy (OR 0.44, CI 0.20-0.95) or chemotherapy and radiation (OR 0.32, CI 0.13-0.79) than those with private insurance. There were no associations with age, insurance or SES and therapy given in the AYA patients. In AYAs, living in a low SES neighborhood (HR 2.28, 1.09-4.77) and tumor size > 5 cm (HR 2.01, CI 1.02-3.95) was associated with poor OS. In adults, older age (> 65: HR 3.34, CI 1.88-5.94), tumor size > 5 cm (HR 3.14, CI 1.92-5.15) and no surgical resection (HR 4.31, CI 1.54-12.06) was associated with worse OS. Treatment with chemotherapy and/or radiation was not associated with OS in either age group. Conclusions: In AYAs and adults with localized SS, tumor size impacted the likelihood of receiving treatment and influenced survival. Importantly, non-clinical factors, such as insurance and SES, also influenced the likelihood of receiving treatment among adults though they did not impact survival. Even in a population of patients with localized disease, living in a low SES neighborhood was associated with worse survival among AYAs. This underscores the impact of non-clinical factors in this population, and further research is needed to elucidate how these factors lead to disparities in care and to identify interventions to improve survival outcomes for these patients.

The Impact of Non-Clinical Factors in Clinical Trial Enrollments of Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

IntroductionThe improvement of care and advancement of treatment options is heavily reliant on the success and diversity of clinical trials (CTs), yet data suggests that only 3-9% of patients with a cancer diagnosis participate in CTs. We sought to evaluate reasons for declining participation in CTs among patients with hematologic malignancies within our medical center. Our primary objective was to assess the prevalence of non-clinical factors in patients contributing to the lack of participation compared to those who agreed to participate. The secondary objective was to identify the reasons noted by patients for declining trials.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients with hematologic malignancies who were offered a clinical trial from 2016-2020. Eligible patients were identified through review of Cancer Center Clinical Trials Office screening logs. We collected data relative to: disease, sex, age, race and ethnicity, English as a first language, marital status, caregiver support, level of education, type of insurance, trial phase, and trial indication. The data was compared between patients who refused participation versus those who agreed to participate. Descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and multivariate logistic regression were used to interpret the data with IBM SPSS Statistics.ResultsOf patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies and offered a CT from 2016 to 2020 at our center, 136 signed consent and 125 declined participation. The sample was predominantly older with a mean patient age of 60.9 in those who signed ICF and 61.9 in those who declined participation (Table 1). Males and non-Hispanic white patients encompassed over half of the sample in each group. Multiple myeloma was the most common diagnosis among either group. Trials offered were predominantly phase 2 or 3 and for varying disease states. We found that patients who were divorced (P = 0.024), did not have caregiver support (P = 0.005), and did not speak English as their first language (P = 0.004) were more likely to decline CT participation (Table 2). The most common reasons that patients cited for declining participation were: preference for another treatment option, distance for travel, and concerns for transportation (Table 3).ConclusionIn this retrospective analysis evaluating reasons behind CT refusal in patients with hematologic malignancies at our center, we found that being divorced, not having defined caregiver support, and not speaking English as the first language made patients more likely to decline a CT. Our sample displayed greater diversity in comparison to the national averages for cancer CT participation despite the predominance of male and non-Hispanic white patients within our sample. This may be representative of the population our center serves. The significance of marital status and caregiver support suggests that support systems are integral in the decision-making process for CTs. Furthermore, the role of divorce in declining trials may be indicative of familial motivation or spousal influence. The significance of English as a first language is notable as our center utilizes an oral translation for informed consent with a short form signature. This suggests that a full translation of CT documents may be beneficial to enrollment. Logistical concerns were frequently cited as a reason for declining, which should be considered by sponsors in the design of CTs as alleviating this burden on patients may help overall recruitment. Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature, manual data extraction, and consistency of research team documentation. The results suggest that introducing support groups and interventions to provide transportation services for trial patients may be beneficial to enrollment and retention. [Display omitted] DisclosuresShammo: Abbvie: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Research Funding; Astra zeneca: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI pharma: Research Funding; Stemline therapeutics: Research Funding; Kartos Pharma: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxter: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Takeda: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Honoraria, Research Funding; NS Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Paner: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Rush University Medical Center: Consultancy, Current Employment; Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Ustun: novartis: Honoraria; Blueprint: Honoraria.

Impact of nonclinical factors on intensive care unit admission decisions: a vignette-based randomized trial (V-TRIAGE).

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of intensive care unit bed availability, distractors and choice framing on intensive care unit admission decisions.MethodsThis study was a randomized factorial trial using patient-based vignettes. The vignettes were deemed archetypical for intensive care unit admission or refusal, as judged by a group of experts. Intensive care unit physicians were randomized to 1) an increased distraction (intervention) or a control group, 2) an intensive care unit bed scarcity or nonscarcity (availability) setting, and 3) a multiple-choice or omission (status quo) vignette scenario. The primary outcome was the proportion of appropriate intensive care unit allocations, defined as concordance with the allocation decision made by the group of experts.ResultsWe analyzed 125 physicians. Overall, distractors had no impact on the outcome; however, there was a differential drop-out rate, with fewer physicians in the intervention arm completing the questionnaire. Intensive care unit bed availability was associated with an inappropriate allocation of vignettes deemed inappropriate for intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.47; 95%CI 1.19 - 5.11) but not of vignettes appropriate for intensive care unit admission. There was a significant interaction with the presence of distractors (p = 0.007), with intensive care unit bed availability being associated with increased intensive care unit admission of vignettes inappropriate for intensive care unit admission in the distractor (intervention) arm (OR = 9.82; 95%CI 2.68 - 25.93) but not in the control group (OR = 1.02; 95%CI 0.38 - 2.72). Multiple choices were associated with increased inappropriate allocation in comparison to the omission group (OR = 5.18; 95%CI 1.37 - 19.61).ConclusionIntensive care unit bed availability and cognitive biases were associated with inappropriate intensive care unit allocation decisions. These findings may have implications for intensive care unit admission policies.

Factors influencing general practitioners decisions to refer Paediatric patients to the emergency department: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BackgroundClinical guidelines are integral to a general practitioner’s decision to refer a paediatric patient to emergency care. The influence of non-clinical factors must also be considered. This review explores the non-clinical factors that may influence general practitioners (GPs) when deciding whether or not to refer a paediatric patient to the Emergency Department (ED).MethodsA systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from August 1980 to July 2019 was conducted to explore the non-clinical factors that influence GPs’ decision-making in referring paediatric patients to the emergency department. The results were synthesised using a narrative approach.ResultsSeven studies met the inclusion criteria. Non-clinical factors relating to patients, GPs and health systems influence GPs decision to refer children to the ED. GPs reported parents/ caregivers influence, including their perception of severity of child’s illness, parent’s request for onward referral and GPs’ appraisal of parents’ ability to cope. Socio-economic status, GPs’ aversion to risk and system level factors such as access to diagnostics and specialist services also influenced referral decisions.ConclusionsA myriad of non-clinical factors influence GP referrals of children to the ED. Further research on the impact of non-clinical factors on clinical decision-making can help to elucidate patterns and trends of paediatric healthcare and identify areas for intervention to utilise resources efficiently and improve healthcare delivery.

Impact of Nonclinical Factors on Treatment Decisions: What Can and Cannot Be Done and Why?

AbstractThis clinical scenario describes a situation where drug-resistant focal epilepsy could have been treated with specific surgery, but a mixture of nonclinical factors led to a different management. The epilepsy started at the age of 6 years and the assessment for other treatment options by this team was done at the age of 12 years. Financial factors were important in the decisions that had to be made and effectively perhaps decisive.

A5157 - Impact of non-clinical factors on length of stay after primary bariatric surgery

A5157 - Impact of non-clinical factors on length of stay after primary bariatric surgery

An up-date on health-related quality of life in myasthenia gravis -results from population based cohorts.

Current available therapies control Myasthenia gravis (MG) reasonably well, but Health Related Quality of life (HRQOL) remains lower than expected. The aim was provide insights in how HRQOL in MG stands across borders and time, compare the scores to general population controls and other chronic disorders and assess the impact of potential predictors for quality of life such as a) clinical characteristics b) antibodies c) thymoma and d) treatment in a population-based cohort.MethodsWe designed a population-based cross-sectional study including 858 patients, 373 from Norway and 485 from the Netherlands. The Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36) and a cross-cultural validated questionnaire were used. Data were in addition compared to the general population, other chronic diseases and previous studies.ResultsMean physical composite score was 59.4 and mental composite score 69.0 with no differences between the countries. The mean HRQOL score was lower in patients with bulbar and generalized symptoms (p < 0.001) compared to sex and age adjusted healthy controls, but not in patients with ocular symptoms or patients in remission. Multivariate analysis revealed that female gender, generalized symptoms and use of secondary immunosuppressive drugs at the time of testing were risk factors for reduced HRQOL.ConclusionsRemission and absence of generalized symptoms were favorable factors for HRQOL in MG patients. Historically, the HRQOL levels have not changed since 2001 and no new clinical predictors could be detected in this exhaustive population-based study. Further studies should explore the impact of non clinical factors like ethnic variations, socio-economic and hormonal factors on HRQOL.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-015-0298-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study: further analyses to enhance policy and service delivery decision-making for planned place of birth

BackgroundEvidence from the Birthplace in England Research Programme supported a policy of offering ‘low risk’ women a choice of birth setting, but a number of unanswered questions remained.AimsThis project aimed to provide further evidence to support the development and delivery of maternity services and inform women’s choice of birth setting: specifically, to explore maternal and organisational factors associated with intervention, transfer and other outcomes in each birth setting in ‘low risk’ and ‘higher risk’ women.DesignFive component studies using secondary analysis of the Birthplace prospective cohort study (studies 2–5) and ecological analysis of unit/NHS trust-level data (studies 1 and 5).SettingObstetric units (OUs), alongside midwifery units (AMUs), freestanding midwifery units (FMUs) and planned home births in England.ParticipantsStudies 1–4 focused on ‘low risk’ women with ‘term’ pregnancies planning vaginal birth in 43 AMUs (n = 16,573), in 53 FMUs (n = 11,210), at home in 147 NHS trusts (n = 16,632) and in a stratified, random sample of 36 OUs (n = 19,379) in 2008–10. Study 5 focused on women with pre-existing medical and obstetric risk factors (‘higher risk’ women).Main outcome measuresInterventions (instrumental delivery, intrapartum caesarean section), a measure of low intervention (‘normal birth’), a measure of spontaneous vaginal birth without complications (‘straightforward birth’), transfer during labour and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcome (‘intrapartum-related mortality and morbidity’ or neonatal admission within 48 hours for &gt; 48 hours). In studies 1 and 3, rates of intervention/maternal outcome and transfer were adjusted for maternal characteristics.AnalysisWe used (a) funnel plots to explore variation in rates of intervention/maternal outcome and transfer between units/trusts, (b) simple, weighted linear regression to evaluate associations between unit/trust characteristics and rates of intervention/maternal outcome and transfer, (c) multivariable Poisson regression to evaluate associations between planned place of birth, maternal characteristics and study outcomes, and (d) logistic regression to investigate associations between time of day/day of the week and study outcomes.ResultsStudy 1 – unit-/trust-level variations in rates of interventions, transfer and maternal outcomes were not explained by differences in maternal characteristics. The magnitude of identified associations between unit/trust characteristics and intervention, transfer and outcome rates was generally small, but some aspects of configuration were associated with rates of transfer and intervention. Study 2 – ‘low risk’ women planning non-OU birth had a reduced risk of intervention irrespective of ethnicity or area deprivation score. In nulliparous women planning non-OU birth the risk of intervention increased with increasing age, but women of all ages planning non-OU birth experienced a reduced risk of intervention. Study 3 – parity, maternal age, gestational age and ‘complicating conditions’ identified at the start of care in labour were independently associated with variation in the risk of transfer in ‘low risk’ women planning non-OU birth. Transfers did not vary by time of day/day of the week in any meaningful way. The duration of transfer from planned FMU and home births was around 50–60 minutes; transfers for ‘potentially urgent’ reasons were quicker than transfers for ‘non-urgent’ reasons. Study 4 – the occurrence of some interventions varied by time of the day/day of the week in ‘low risk’ women planning OU birth. Study 5 – ‘higher risk’ women planning birth in a non-OU setting had fewer risk factors than ‘higher risk’ women planning OU birth and these risk factors were different. Compared with ‘low risk’ women planning home birth, ‘higher risk’ women planning home birth had a significantly increased risk of our composite adverse perinatal outcome measure. However, in ‘higher risk’ women, the risk of this outcome was lower in planned home births than in planned OU births, even after adjustment for clinical risk factors.ConclusionsExpansion in the capacity of non-OU intrapartum care could reduce intervention rates in ‘low risk’ women, and the benefits of midwifery-led intrapartum care apply to all ‘low risk’ women irrespective of age, ethnicity or area deprivation score. Intervention rates differ considerably between units, however, for reasons that are not understood. The impact of major changes in the configuration of maternity care on outcomes should be monitored and evaluated. The impact of non-clinical factors, including labour ward practices, staffing and skill mix and women’s preferences and expectations, on intervention requires further investigation. All women planning non-OU birth should be informed of their chances of transfer and, in particular, older nulliparous women and those more than 1 week past their due date should be advised of their increased chances of transfer. No change in the guidance on planning place of birth for ‘higher risk’ women is recommended, but research is required to evaluate the safety of planned AMU birth for women with selected relatively common risk factors.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Answers and Questions: A Star*D Report

Answers and Questions: A Star*D Report

The Impact of Nonclinical Factors on Care Use for Patients with Depression: A STAR*D Report

This article presents baseline findings that describe how nonclinical factors were associated with patient use of psychiatric and general medical care and how those relationships changed after patients enrolled in the 41-site Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression study (STAR*D). STAR*D offered adult outpatients with major depression diligently delivered, measurement-based care. To achieve full remission within a tolerable medication dose, recommendations for treatment based on routine symptom and side-effect measurements were discussed with patients by clinical research coordinators and offered to clinicians who could flexibly tailor that guidance to accommodate individual patient needs. Medications were provided gratis. Pre- and post-enrollment data came from provider records and from patient face-to-face, telephone, and computer-assisted surveys. Two-part nested mixed models assessed patient likelihood and volume of mental and general medical care services. Prior to enrollment, predisposing (gender, race, education, and care attitude), affordability (private insurance), and clinical factors (depressive symptoms and mental and physical functioning) were found to be important drivers of patient use of psychiatric and general medical care. After STAR*D enrollment, however, predisposing factors were less important drivers of psychiatric service use but remained important drivers of general medical care. Data suggest diligent, measurement-based mental health programs may reduce race, gender, and education disparities in the use of needed mental health care.

Nonclinical factors associated with primary care physicians’ ordering patterns of magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography for headache 1

Rationale and objectives The purpose of ordering an imaging test for headache, which is one of the most common reasons for patient consultation with a primary care physician (PCP), include medical indications as well as patient anxiety and medico-legal concerns. The impact of nonclinical factors on PCPs’ ordering patterns of magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography for patients presenting with a headache was examined. Materials and methods A retrospective record review of all patients treated for headache as their primary complaint by a PCP from a multispecialty group practice associated with an 180,000-member Health Maintenance Organization during calendar year 2000 was examined. The practice included 18 clinics. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between physician ordering patterns of imaging tests and patient, physician, and clinic setting characteristics. Results Of the total study subjects (n = 4,372), a magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography imaging test was ordered for 5.3%. At their first encounter, patient’s gender, site of care, and insurance status under the health care system’s Health Maintenance Organization had statistically significant associations with the likelihood of imaging test orders. Female physicians were less likely to order an imaging test (OR = 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.39–1.08). For subsequent encounters, however, site of care was the only nonclinical factor that had a consistent association with the likelihood of having a magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography ordered. Conclusion These data show that a number of nonclinical factors may have been associated with having an imaging test ordered by a PCP when patients presented with a headache. These factors were more significant when the patient was being seen for the first time with this complaint.

The Impact of Nonclinical Factors on Repeat Cesarean Section

Nonclinical factors, including the setting in which health care takes place, influence clinical decisions. This research measures the independent effects of organizational and socioeconomic factors on repeat cesarean section use in California. Of 45 425 births to women with previous cesarean sections in 1986, vaginal birth after cesarean section occurred in 10.9%. Sizable nonclinical variations were noted. By hospital ownership, rates ranged from 4.9% (for-profit hospitals) to 29.2% (University of California). Variations also existed by hospital teaching level (nonteaching hospitals, 7.0%, vs formalized teaching hospitals, 23.3%); payment source (private insurance, 8.1%, vs indigent services, 25.2%); and obstetric volume (low-volume hospitals, 5.4%, vs high-volume hospitals, 16.6%). Multiple logistic regression demonstrated that these variables had independent effects after accounting for their overlapping influences and the effects of patient characteristics. The observed variations demonstrate the prominence of nonclinical factors in decision making and question the clinical appropriateness of current practice patterns. ( JAMA . 1991;265:59-63)

The Impact of Nonclinical Factors on Repeat Cesarean Section

Nonclinical factors, including the setting in which health care takes place, influence clinical decisions. This research measures the independent effects of organizational and socioeconomic factors on repeat cesarean section use in California. Of 45,425 births to women with previous cesarean sections in 1986, vaginal birth after cesarean section occurred in 10.9%. Sizable nonclinical variations were noted. By hospital ownership, rates ranged from 4.9% (for-profit hospitals) to 29.2% (University of California). Variations also existed by hospital teaching level (nonteaching hospitals, 7.0%, vs formalized teaching hospitals, 23.3%); payment source (private insurance, 8.1%, vs indigent services, 25.2%); and obstetric volume (low-volume hospitals, 5.4%, vs high-volume hospitals, 16.6%). Multiple logistic regression demonstrated that these variables had independent effects after accounting for their overlapping influences and the effects of patient characteristics. The observed variations demonstrate the prominence of nonclinical factors in decision making and question the clinical appropriateness of current practice patterns.