Social Determinants of Treatment Response

Clinical Interviewing: An Essential but Neglected Method of Medicine

Clinical interviewing is the basic method to understand how a person feels and what are the presenting complaints, obtain medical history, evaluate personal attitudes and behavior related to health and disease, give the patient information about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, and establish a bond between patient and physician that is crucial for shared decision making and self-management. However, the value of this basic skill is threatened by time pressures and emphasis on technology. Current health care trends privilege expensive tests and procedures and tag the time devoted to interaction with the patient as lacking cost-effectiveness. Instead, the time spent to inquire about problems and life setting may actually help to avoid further testing, procedures, and referrals. Moreover, the dialogue between patient and physician is an essential instrument to increase patient's motivation to engage in healthy behavior. The aim of this paper was to provide an overview of clinical interviewing and its optimal use in relation to style, flow and hypothesis testing, clinical domains, modifications according to settings and goals, and teaching. This review points to the primacy of interviewing in the clinical process. The quality of interviewing determines the quality of data that are collected and, eventually, of assessment and treatment. Thus, interviewing deserves more attention in educational training and more space in clinical encounters than it is currently receiving.

Precision medicine and the problem of structural injustice

Many countries currently invest in technologies and data infrastructures to foster precision medicine (PM), which is hoped to better tailor disease treatment and prevention to individual patients. But who can expect to benefit from PM? The answer depends not only on scientific developments but also on the willingness to address the problem of structural injustice. One important step is to confront the problem of underrepresentation of certain populations in PM cohorts via improved research inclusivity. Yet, we argue that the perspective needs to be broadened because the (in)equitable effects of PM are also strongly contingent on wider structural factors and prioritization of healthcare strategies and resources. When (and before) implementing PM, it is crucial to attend to how the organisation of healthcare systems influences who will benefit, as well as whether PM may present challenges for a solidaristic sharing of costs and risks. We discuss these issues through a comparative lens of healthcare models and PM-initiatives in the United States, Austria, and Denmark. The analysis draws attention to how PM hinges on-and simultaneously affects-access to healthcare services, public trust in data handling, and prioritization of healthcare resources. Finally, we provide suggestions for how to mitigate foreseeable negative effects.

Postoperative opioid prescribing patients with diabetes: Opportunities for personalized pain management

BACKGROUND

Opioids are commonly prescribed for postoperative pain, but may lead to prolonged use and addiction. Diabetes impairs nerve function, complicates pain management, and makes opioid prescribing particularly challenging.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included a cohort of postoperative patients from a multisite academic health system to assess the relationship between diabetes, pain, and prolonged opioid use (POU), 2008-2019. POU was defined as a new opioid prescription 3-6 months after discharge. The odds that a patient had POU was assessed using multivariate logistic regression controlling for patient factors (e.g., demographic and clinical factors, as well as prior pain and opiate use).

FINDINGS

A total of 43,654 patients were included, 12.4% with diabetes. Patients with diabetes had higher preoperative pain scores (2.1 vs 1.9, p<0.001) and lower opioid naïve rates (58.7% vs 68.6%, p<0.001). Following surgery, patients with diabetes had higher rates of POU (17.7% vs 12.7%, p<0.001) despite receiving similar opioid prescriptions at discharge. Patients with Type I diabetes were more likely to have POU compared to other patients (Odds Ratio [OR]: 2.22; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]:1.69-2.90 and OR:1.44, CI: 1.33-1.56, respectively).

INTERPRETATION

In conclusion, surgical patients with diabetes are at increased risk for POU even after controlling for likely covariates, yet they receive similar postoperative opiate therapy. The results suggest a more tailored approach to diabetic postoperative pain management is warranted.

The Strengthening Mechanism of the Relationship between Social Work and Public Health under COVID-19 in China

Social work and public health have always shared a common mission and vision in promoting human health. However, existing research tends to view social work and public health as two separate fields at both practice and policy levels, and these studies have largely neglected the consideration of how to integrate public health and social work. In the context of the COVID-19 epidemic, the link between the two has been strengthened and health social work has been given more importance. The question addressed in this article is through what mechanisms or practices the social work profession can strengthen its professional status and engage in interprofessional collaboration. Based on key informant interviews and case studies (one community and two cabin Hospitals), this study points out that three legitimacy mechanisms are needed: operationalizing policy, extending value, and completing justification. Furthermore, the future and possible limitations in relation to the development of health social work in China are discussed and specific recommendations are provided. Health social work needs to conduct practices and summarize its experiences and methods, to create a more friendly political environment by translating its results into policies that are conducive to the development of health social work through a political agenda. It needs to improve upon its practical abilities and methodologies, as well as professional education relating to professional values and ethics, in addition to identifying the deeper social needs of residents and discovering new, undeveloped areas of service. Moreover, because long-term change is difficult to justify due to China’s policy agendas, the question of whether the professional status of health social work in the post-epidemic context can be improved is something that needs to be further explored in future studies.

Social Determinants of Health: What's a Healthcare System to Do?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A growing literature regarding the health consequences of social risks, such as substandard housing and food insecurity, combined with increased adoption of risk-based payment models have contributed to a wave of healthcare sector initiatives focused on the social determinants of health. Yet decisions about how and when to address adverse social conditions are frequently guided by limited information about potential interventions and a lack of data on their effectiveness. We describe four complementary strategies that healthcare leaders can pursue to intervene on social adversity, split between patient care and community-level approaches. Patient care strategies rely on data about patients' social risks to adapt medical care or improve patients' social circumstances directly. Community-level strategies focus on improving the broader health and well-being of the local population through a mix of direct investments in communities and collaboration through multisector partnerships. Each approach presents unique incentives and challenges, and healthcare systems wanting to address social adversity may adopt one or more. Understanding the range of potential choices may help healthcare leaders make more informed choices in response to patient needs and changing payment and policy initiatives.

Sex-Gender Variable: Methodological Recommendations for Increasing Scientific Value of Clinical Studies

There is a clear sex-gender gap in the prevention and occurrence of diseases, and in the outcomes and treatments, which is relevant to women in the majority of cases. Attitudes concerning the enrollment of women in randomized clinical trials have changed over recent years. Despite this change, a gap still exists. This gap is linked to biological factors (sex) and psycho-social, cultural, and environmental factors (gender). These multidimensional, entangled, and interactive factors may influence the pharmacological response. Despite the fact that regulatory authorities recognize the importance of sex and gender, there is a paucity of research focusing on the racial/ethnic, socio-economic, psycho-social, and environmental factors that perpetuate disparities. Research and clinical practice must incorporate all of these factors to arrive at an intersectional and system-scenario perspective. We advocate for scientifically rigorous evaluations of the interplay between sex and gender as key factors in performing clinical trials, which are more adherent to real-life. This review proposes a set of 12 rules to improve clinical research for integrating sex-gender into clinical trials.