Search

Background: There is growing recognition that healthcare should align with individuals' health priorities; however, these priorities remain undefined, especially among older adults. The Rehabilitation Using Mobile Health for Older Adults with Ischemic Heart Disease in the Home Setting (RESILIENT) trial, designed to test the efficacy of mobile health cardiac rehabilitation (mHealth‐CR) in an older cohort, also measures the attainment of participant‐defined health outcome goals as a prespecified secondary endpoint. This study aimed to characterize the health priorities of older adults with ischemic heart disease (IHD) using goal attainment scaling—a technique for measuring individualized goal achievement—in a sample of 100 RESILIENT participants. Methods: The ongoing RESILIENT trial randomizes patients aged ≥65 years with IHD (defined as hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome and/or coronary revascularization), to receive mHealth‐CR or usual care. For the current study, we qualitatively coded baseline goal attainment scales from randomly selected batches of 20 participants to identify participants' cardiac rehabilitation outcome goals and their perceptions of barriers and action plans for goal attainment. We used a deductive framework (i.e., 4 value categories from Patient Priorities Care) and inductive approaches to code and analyze interviews until thematic saturation. Results: This sample of 100 older adults set diverse health outcome goals. Most (54.6%) prioritized physical activity, fewer (17.1%) identified symptom management, fewer still (13.7%) prioritized health metrics, mostly comprised of weight loss goals (10.3%), and the fewest (<4%) were related to clinical metrics such as reducing cholesterol or preventing hospital readmission. Participants anticipated extrinsic (access to places to exercise, time) and intrinsic (non‐cardiac pain, motivation) barriers. Action plans detailed strategies for exercise, motivation, accountability, and overcoming time constraints. Conclusions: Using goal attainment scaling, we elicited specific and measurable goals among older adults with IHD beginning cardiac rehabilitation. Priorities were predominantly functional, diverging from clinical metrics emphasized by clinicians and healthcare systems. See related Editorial by Shanahan and Naik [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To characterize the hospitalization and death rates among patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and to analyze the associations of comorbidities and immunomodulatory medications with infection outcomes. Methods: Data on clinical and demographic features, maintenance treatment, disease course, and outcomes in individuals with IA (rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis) with symptomatic COVID‐19 infection were prospectively assessed via web‐based questionnaire followed by individual phone calls and electronic medical record review. Baseline characteristics and medication use were summarized for hospitalized and ambulatory patients, and outcomes with the different medication classes were compared using multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 103 patients with IA were included in the study (80 with confirmed COVID‐19 and 23 with high suspicion of COVID‐19). Hospitalization was required in 26% of the participants, and 4% died. Patients who were hospitalized were significantly more likely to be older (P < 0.001) and have comorbid hypertension (P = 0.001) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.02). IA patients taking oral glucocorticoids had an increased likelihood of being admitted for COVID‐19 (P < 0.001), while those receiving maintenance anticytokine biologic therapies did not. Conclusion: Among patients with underlying IA, COVID‐19 outcomes were worse in those receiving glucocorticoids but not in patients receiving maintenance anticytokine therapy. Further work is needed to understand whether immunomodulatory therapies affect COVID‐19 incidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Scalable, accessible forms of behavioral therapy for migraine prevention are needed. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) delivered by a smartphone application (app) in the Primary Care setting. Methods: This pilot study was a non‐blinded, randomized, parallel‐arm controlled trial of adults with migraine and 4+ headache days/month. Eligible participants spoke English and owned a smartphone. All participants were given the RELAXaHEAD app which includes an electronic headache diary. Participants were randomized to receive 1 of the 2 versions of the app‐one with PMR and the other without PMR. The primary outcomes were measures of feasibility (adherence to the intervention and diary entries during the 90‐day interval) and acceptability (satisfaction levels). We conducted exploratory analyses to determine whether there was a change in Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores or a change in headache days. Results: Of 139 participants (77 PMR, 62 control), 116 (83%) were female, mean age was 41.7 ± 12.8 years. Most patients 108/139 (78%) had moderate‐severe disability. Using a 1‐5 Likert scale, participants found the app easy to use (mean 4.2 ± 0.7) and stated that they would be happy to engage in the PMR intervention again (mean 4.3 ± 0.6). For the first 6 weeks, participants practiced PMR 2‐4 days/week. Mean per session duration was 11.1 ± 8.3 minutes. Relative to the diary‐only group, the PMR group showed a greater non‐significant decline in mean MIDAS scores (−8.7 vs −22.7, P =.100) corresponding to a small‐moderate mean effect size (Cohen's d = 0.38). Conclusion: Smartphone‐delivered PMR may be an acceptable, accessible form of therapy for migraine. Mean effects show a small‐moderate mean effect size in disability scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine whether a smartphone application (app) with an electronic headache diary and a progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) intervention is feasible and acceptable to people presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with migraine. This single arm prospective study assessed feasibility by actual use of the app and acceptability by satisfaction with the app. We report preliminary data on change in migraine disability and headache days. The 51 participants completed PMR sessions on a mean of 13 ± 19 (0,82) days for the 90-day study period, lasting a median of 11 min (IQR 6.5, 17) each. Median number of days of diary use was 34 (IQR 10, 77). Diaries were completed at least twice a week in half of study weeks (337/663). Participants were likely (≥4/5 on a 5-point Likert scale) to recommend both the app (85%) and PMR (91%). MIDAS scores significantly decreased by a mean of 38 points/participant (p < 0.0001). More frequent PMR use was associated with a higher odds of headache free days (p = 0.0148). Smartphone-based PMR introduced to patients who present to the ED for migraine is feasible and acceptable. More frequent users have more headache free days. Future work should focus on intervention engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]