Search

Introduction America's community health centers (HCs) are uniquely poised to implement the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, as they are effective in providing comprehensive, accessible, and continuous primary care. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between PCMH recognition in HCs and clinical performance. Methods Data for this study came from the 2012 Uniform Data System (UDS) as well as a survey of HCs' PCMH recognition achievement. The dependent variables included all 16 measures of clinical performance collected through UDS. Control measures included HC patient, provider, and practice characteristics. Bivariate analyses and multiple logistic regressions were conducted to compare clinical performance between HCs with and without PCMH recognition. Findings Health centers that receive PCMH recognition generally performed better on clinical measures than HCs without PCMH recognition. After controlling for HC patient, provider, and practice characteristics, HCs with PCMH recognition reported significantly better performance on asthma-related pharmacologic therapy, diabetes control, pap testing, prenatal care, and tobacco cessation intervention. Conclusion This study establishes a positive association between PCMH recognition and clinical performance in HCs. If borne out in future longitudinal studies, policy makers and practices should advance the PCMH model as a strategy to further enhance the quality of primary care.

Background Systematic reviews should provide trustworthy guidance to decision-makers, but their credibility is challenged by the selective reporting of trial results and outcomes. Some trials are not published, and even among clinical trials that are published partially (e.g., as conference abstracts), many are never published in full. Although there are many potential sources of published and unpublished data for systematic reviews, there are no established methods for choosing among multiple reports or data sources about the same trial. Methods We will conduct systematic reviews of the effectiveness and safety of two interventions following the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines: (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. For the review of gabapentin, we will include adult participants with neuropathic pain who do not require ventilator support. For the review of quetiapine, we will include adult participants with acute bipolar depression (excluding mixed or rapid cycling episodes). We will compare these drugs (used alone or in combination with other interventions) with placebo or with the same intervention alone; direct comparisons with other medications will be excluded. For each review, we will conduct highly sensitive electronic searches, and the results of the searches will be assessed by two independent reviewers. Outcomes, study characteristics, and risk of bias ratings will be extracted from multiple reports by two individuals working independently, stored in a publicly available database (Systematic Review Data Repository) and analyzed using commonly available statistical software. In each review, we will conduct a series of meta-analyses using data from different sources to determine how the results are affected by the inclusion of data from multiple published sources (e.g., journal articles and conference abstracts) as well as unpublished aggregate data (e.g., “clinical study reports”) and individual participant data (IPD). We will identify patient-centered outcomes in each report and identify differences in the reporting of these outcomes across sources. Systematic review registration CRD42015014037, CRD42015014038

This paper reports on a study to develop a construction resource efficiency stakeholder network in the UK. The primary stakeholders in the network were the client, designer and main contractor – the decision-makers on construction techniques, materials and products. The paper outlines the rationale for the study, development of waste-prevention measures and industrial networks, progressive implementation in three separate construction activities, barriers and practical constraints, key results, conclusions and recommendations. Improvements were achieved through increased specification and use of sustainably produced construction materials, greater separation of materials for recycling, increased reuse of materials and behaviour changes in energy and water use as a result of on-site monitoring.

The correct title of the article [1] should be “Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol”.

Background Systematic reviews should provide trustworthy guidance to decision-makers, but their credibility is challenged by the selective reporting of trial results and outcomes. Some trials are not published, and even among clinical trials that are published partially (e.g., as conference abstracts), many are never published in full. Although there are many potential sources of published and unpublished data for systematic reviews, there are no established methods for choosing among multiple reports or data sources about the same trial.

Systematic reviews should provide trustworthy guidance to decision-makers, but their credibility is challenged by the selective reporting of trial results and outcomes. Some trials are not published, and even among clinical trials that are published partially (e.g., as conference abstracts), many are never published in full. Although there are many potential sources of published and unpublished data for systematic reviews, there are no established methods for choosing among multiple reports or data sources about the same trial.We will conduct systematic reviews of the effectiveness and safety of two interventions following the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines: (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. For the review of gabapentin, we will include adult participants with neuropathic pain who do not require ventilator support. For the review of quetiapine, we will include adult participants with acute bipolar depression (excluding mixed or rapid cycling episodes). We will compare these drugs (used alone or in combination with other interventions) with placebo or with the same intervention alone; direct comparisons with other medications will be excluded. For each review, we will conduct highly sensitive electronic searches, and the results of the searches will be assessed by two independent reviewers. Outcomes, study characteristics, and risk of bias ratings will be extracted from multiple reports by two individuals working independently, stored in a publicly available database (Systematic Review Data Repository) and analyzed using commonly available statistical software. In each review, we will conduct a series of meta-analyses using data from different sources to determine how the results are affected by the inclusion of data from multiple published sources (e.g., journal articles and conference abstracts) as well as unpublished aggregate data (e.g., "clinical study reports") and individual participant data (IPD). We will identify patient-centered outcomes in each report and identify differences in the reporting of these outcomes across sources.CRD42015014037 , CRD42015014038.

The Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) model of care dates back to the 1960s, when it was originally conceived to improve care for children with special needs. The 7 core features of PCMH are: (1) a personal primary care physician, (2) a physician-directed medical practice, (3) whole person orientation, (4) coordinated or integrated care, (5) quality and safety, (6) enhanced access, and (7) payment reform.1 In the recent years, support for the expansion of PCMH has rapidly increased.2,3 Currently, the model is being applied through a growing number of demonstration projects, each with its own evaluation of effectiveness.4,5 One such application is through health centers (HCs), which receive funds from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to provide primary care services to medically underserved populations.6 As of 2012, >21 million patients were served by HRSA-supported HCs.7 HCs are poised to implement the PCMH model as they have proven to be effective in providing comprehensive, accessible, and continuous primary care.8,9 HRSA’s PCMH initiative supports HCs’ efforts to adopt PCMH features and gain recognition by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, by providing education, training, technical assistance, and fee waivers for gaining recognition.10 By the end of fiscal year 2014, HRSA aims to have approximately 40% of HCs recognized.11 Although preliminary evaluations show that PCMHs promote improvements in health care access and quality,12–14 most report inconclusive results because of insufficient sample sizes to detect significant effects or lack of association between PCMH measures and clinical outcome.3 Large-scale evaluations of the PCMH model, particularly in safety-net settings like HCs, are needed. To address this gap, the current study evaluated the relationship between PCMH model adoption in HCs [as determined by the Safety Net Medical Home Scale (SNMHS)] and clinical performance measures, to determine if adoption of PCMH characteristics is associated with better clinical performance.

Objectives We systematically reviewed research examining use of and attitudes toward nonmenthol-flavored tobacco products to provide information relevant to a decision to regulate these products in the future. Methods To identify eligible studies, we searched PubMed, CINHAL, Embase, LILACS, and PsycINFO on September 19, 2013, without date restrictions. We obtained additional studies via gray literature searches, expert contacts, and hand-searching citations of included articles. We included participants of all ages. We conducted a qualitative synthesis for included studies. Results The 32 studies included in this review exhibited substantial heterogeneity and were of varied methodological quality. Findings from observational, experimental, and quasiexperimental studies suggest that flavored tobacco use is associated with young age and that consumers may perceive flavored products more favorably than nonflavored products. Evidence from qualitative studies indicates that flavoring in tobacco is viewed favorably by users and nonusers of these products. Conclusions The Food and Drug Administration has expressed interest in regulating flavored tobacco products. This systematic review strengthens the evidence base relating to this issue by synthesizing the literature from the United States on the use of and attitudes toward flavored tobacco. To address gaps in the literature, more research is needed to understand how flavoring impacts tobacco use over time. The evidence base would further be strengthened with the collection of brand-, flavor-, and product-specific data.