Predictors of acceptance of offered care management intervention services in a quality improvement trial for dementia

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/93528/1/gps2830.pd

The Consumer Experience of Responsibilization:The Case of Panera Cares

In this paper, we explore the consumer experience of responsibilization, wherein consumers are tasked with addressing social issues via their consumption choices. We study an approach to responsibilization which we label conscious pricing. Conscious pricing asks consumers to place a price on morality: How much would they pay for their lunch to combat the social issue of food insecurity? Conscious pricing stems from the broader movement of conscious capitalism, defined by its chief architects as an approach to business wherein the goal is to create value for all stakeholders: financial, ecological, ethical, and spiritual. Strategies such as conscious capitalism rely on consumers acting responsibly, assuming that consumers, when presented with the opportunity to “do good,” will do so, and that consumers will prefer companies who provide them this opportunity. Using a case study approach and online reviews, in our analysis of Panera Cares, we find that consumers in fact experience discomfort when asked to address social issues via how much they choose to pay for their meal. Because food insecurity is embodied by homeless people eating with them in the café, eating in the café is perceived as unpleasant, and the homeless also feel demoralized. This discomposure leads consumers to resist the subject position of being responsibilized by not supporting the organization that is tasking them to do so. This study is the first empirical examination of the consumer experience of consumer responsibilization and allows us to contribute to a deepened understanding of consumer ethics.</p

Persistence and Remission of Musculoskeletal Pain in Community‐Dwelling Older Adults: Results from the Cardiovascular Health Study

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/93534/1/jgs4082.pd

Comparative effect of collaborative care, pain medication, and duloxetine in the treatment of depression and comorbid pain in outpatient care: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial

Objective: Evidence exists for efficacy of collaborative care (CC) against MDD, for efficacy of consequent use of pain medication against pain, and for efficacy of duloxetine against both MDD and neuropathic pain. However, their relative effectiveness in comorbid major depression (MDD) and pain has never been established so far. This study evaluates the effectiveness of CC, pain medication and duloxetine, and CC, pain medication and placebo, compared to duloxetine alone, on depressive and pain outcomes. Methods: Three armed cluster randomized multi-centre placebo controlled trial in consecutive patients presented at three specialized mental health outpatient clinics who screened positive for MDD. All interventions lasted 12 weeks. In the CC groups duloxetine or placebo was prescribed. Pain medication was administered according to an algorithm that avoids opiate prescription as much as possible as an alternative to the current WHO pain ladder, with paracetamol, COX inhibitors and pregabalin as steps before opiates are considered. Patients who did not show up for three or more sessions were registered as noncompliant. Explorative, intention-to-treat and per protocol, multilevel regression analyses were performed. The trial is listed in the trial registration (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1089; NTR number: NTR1089). Results: This study was prematurely terminated because of massive reorganisations and reimbursement changes for mental health care during the study. 60 patients completed the study. Patients in all treatment groups reported significant less depressive and pain symptoms after 12 weeks. CC with placebo condition showed the fastest decrease of depressive symptoms compared to the duloxetine alone group (b = -.78; p = .01), Noncompliant patients did not improve over the 12 weeks period. Pain outcomes did not differ between the three groups. Conclusions: In MDD and pain, compliance of patients and placebo effects are more important than choice of one of the three treatments. Active pain management in CC with COX inhibitors and pregabalin as alternatives to Tramadol or other opiates might provide an attractive alternative to the current WHO pain ladder as it avoids opiate prescription as much as possible. The study was sufficiently powered to show an exploratory result, but the generalizability is limited due to the small sample size. Larger studies are needed

Decolonizing marketing

In January 2021, the ETHOS Research Center at Bayes Business School, along with the CRIS Research Center at Royal Holloway University of London, hosted an event entitled Decolonizing the Business School. Over 500 attendees participated, from all business disciplines, testifying to the strong levels of interest in this topic. Marketing was particularly active, with over 100 participants. In this article, I (Giana Eckhardt, one of the organizers of the event) speak with the marketing break out room facilitators – Russ Belk, Tonya Bradford, Susan Dobscha, Güliz Ger and Rohit Varman – in a wide-ranging conversation about what decolonization means to the field of marketing, and what marketing academics can do if they would like to explore these ideas further. First, we offer a brief introduction to decolonization. Also, a list of resources for the interested reader is presented as well as ideas for further exploration in this nascent domain at the end

Routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for improving treatment of common mental health disorders in adults

BACKGROUND: Routine outcome monitoring of common mental health disorders (CMHDs), using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), has been promoted across primary care, psychological therapy and multidisciplinary mental health care settings, but is likely to be costly, given the high prevalence of CMHDs. There has been no systematic review of the use of PROMs in routine outcome monitoring of CMHDs across these three settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of routine measurement and feedback of the results of PROMs during the management of CMHDs in 1) improving the outcome of CMHDs; and 2) in changing the management of CMHDs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis group specialised controlled trials register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References), the Oxford University PROMS Bibliography (2002-5), Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and International trial registries, initially to 30 May 2014, and updated to 18 May 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected cluster and individually randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with CMHDs aged 18 years and over, in which the results of PROMs were fed back to treating clinicians, or both clinicians and patients. We excluded RCTs in child and adolescent treatment settings, and those in which more than 10% of participants had diagnoses of eating disorders, psychoses, substance use disorders, learning disorders or dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently identified eligible trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We conducted meta-analysis across studies, pooling outcome measures which were sufficiently similar to each other to justify pooling. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies involving 8787 participants: nine in multidisciplinary mental health care, six in psychological therapy settings, and two in primary care. Pooling of outcome data to provide a summary estimate of effect across studies was possible only for those studies using the compound Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) or Outcome Rating System (ORS) PROMs, which were all conducted in multidisciplinary mental health care or psychological therapy settings, because both primary care studies identified used single symptom outcome measures, which were not directly comparable to the OQ-45 or ORS.Meta-analysis of 12 studies including 3696 participants using these PROMs found no evidence of a difference in outcome in terms of symptoms, between feedback and no-feedback groups (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.16 to 0.01; P value = 0.10). The evidence for this comparison was graded as low quality however, as all included studies were considered at high risk of bias, in most cases due to inadequate blinding of assessors and significant attrition at follow-up.Quality of life was reported in only two studies, social functioning in one, and costs in none. Information on adverse events (thoughts of self-harm or suicide) was collected in one study, but differences between arms were not reported.It was not possible to pool data on changes in drug treatment or referrals as only two studies reported these. Meta-analysis of seven studies including 2608 participants found no evidence of a difference in management of CMHDs between feedback and no-feedback groups, in terms of the number of treatment sessions received (mean difference (MD) -0.02 sessions, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.39; P value = 0.93). However, the evidence for this comparison was also graded as low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to support the use of routine outcome monitoring using PROMs in the treatment of CMHDs, in terms of improving patient outcomes or in improving management. The findings are subject to considerable uncertainty however, due to the high risk of bias in the large majority of trials meeting the inclusion criteria, which means further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. More research of better quality is therefore required, particularly in primary care where most CMHDs are treated.Future research should address issues of blinding of assessors and attrition, and measure a range of relevant symptom outcomes, as well as possible harmful effects of monitoring, health-related quality of life, social functioning, and costs. Studies should include people treated with drugs as well as psychological therapies, and should follow them up for longer than six months

Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems

This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 10. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.Common mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety, are estimated to affect up to 15% of the UK population at any one time, and health care systems worldwide need to implement interventions to reduce the impact and burden of these conditions. Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models that may be effective in the management of these common mental health problems

A multicomponent intervention for the management of chronic pain in older adults: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Studies have shown that physical interventions and psychological methods based on the cognitive behavioral approach are efficacious in alleviating pain and that combining both tends to yield more benefits than either intervention alone. In view of the aging population with chronic pain and the lack of evidence-based pain management programs locally, we developed a multicomponent intervention incorporating physical exercise and cognitive behavioral techniques and examined its long-term effects against treatment as usual (i.e., pain education) in older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain in Hong Kong. Methods/design: We are conducting a double-blind, cluster-randomized controlled trial. A sample of 160 participants aged ≥ 60 years will be recruited from social centers or outpatient clinics and will be randomized on the basis of center/clinic to either the multicomponent intervention or the pain education program. Both interventions consist of ten weekly sessions of 90 minutes each. The primary outcome is pain intensity, and the secondary outcomes include pain interference, pain persistence, pain self-efficacy, pain coping, pain catastrophizing cognitions, health-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, and hip and knee muscle strength. All outcome measures will be collected at baseline, postintervention, and at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed using mixed-effects regression to see whether the multicomponent intervention alleviates pain intensity and associated outcomes over and above the effects of pain education (i.e., a treatment × time intervention effect). Discussion: Because the activities included in the multicomponent intervention were carefully selected for ready implementation by allied health professionals in general, the results of this study, if positive, will make available an efficacious, nonpharmacological pain management program that can be widely adopted in clinical and social service settings and will hence improve older people’s access to pain management services

Identification and management of chronic pain in primary care:a review

Chronic pain is a common, complex, and challenging condition, where understanding the biological, social, physical and psychological contexts is vital to successful outcomes in primary care. In managing chronic pain the focus is often on promoting rehabilitation and maximizing quality of life rather than achieving cure. Recent screening tools and brief intervention techniques can be effective in helping clinicians identify, stratify and manage both patients already living with chronic pain and those who are at risk of developing chronic pain from acute pain. Frequent assessment and reassessment are key to ensuring treatment is appropriate and safe, as well as minimizing and addressing side effects. Primary care management should be holistic and evidence-based (where possible) and incorporates both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches, including psychology, self-management, physiotherapy, peripheral nervous system stimulation, complementary therapies and comprehensive pain-management programmes. These may either be based wholly in primary care or supported by appropriate specialist referral