Family Medicine and Community Health最新文献

Objective: To investigate whether COVID-19 infection was associated with increased risk for incident respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections and associated diseases among young children that might have contributed to the 2022 surge of severe paediatric RSV cases in the USA.

Design: This is a retrospective population-based cohort study. Five outcomes were examined, including overall RSV infection, positive lab test-confirmed RSV infection, clinically diagnosed RSV diseases, RSV-associated bronchiolitis and unspecified bronchiolitis. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI of the outcomes that occurred during the 2022 and 2021 RSV seasons were calculated by comparing propensity-score matched cohorts.

Setting: Nationwide multicentre database of electronic health records (EHRs) of 61.4 million patients in the USA including 1.7 million children 0-5 years of age, which was accessed through TriNetX Analytics that provides web-based and secure access to patient EHR data from hospitals, primary care and specialty treatment providers.

Participants: The study population consisted of 228 940 children of 0-5 years with no prior RSV infection who had medical encounters in October 2022. Findings were replicated in a separate study population of 370 919 children of 0-5 years with no prior RSV infection who had medical encounters in July 2021-August 2021 during a non-overlapping time period.

Results: For the 2022 study population (average age 2.4 years, 46.8% girls, 61% white, 16% black), the risk for incident RSV infection during October 2022-December 2022 was 6.40% for children with prior COVID-19 infection, higher than 4.30% for the matched children without COVID-19 (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.55); and among children aged 0-1 year, the overall risk was 7.90% for those with prior COVID-19 infection, higher than 5.64% for matched children without (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.62). For the 2021 study population (average age 2.2 years, 46% girls, 57% white, 20% black), the risk for incident RSV infection during July 2021-December 2021 was 4.85% for children with prior COVID-19 infection, higher than 3.68% for the matched children without COVID-19 (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.56); and 7.30% for children aged 0-1 year with prior COVID-19 infection, higher than 4.98% for matched children without (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.82).

Conclusion: COVID-19 was associated with a significantly increased risk for RSV infections among children aged 0-5 years in 2022. Similar findings were replicated for a study population of children aged 0-5 years in 2021. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 contributed to the 2022 surge of RSV cases in young children through the large buildup of COVID-19-infected children and the potential long-term adverse effects of COVID-19 on the immune and respiratory system.

Objective: The long-term time trend and seasonality variations of first-time medically attended respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections among young children are unknown. We aim to examine the time trend of medically attended first-time RSV infections among young children in the USA from January 2010 through January 2023.

Design: This is a population-based cohort study using electronic health records (EHRs). Monthly incidence rate of medically attended first-time RSV infection (cases per 10 000 000 person-days). A time-series regression model was used to model and predict time trends and seasonality.

Setting: Multicenter and nationwide TriNetX Network in the USA.

Participants: The study population comprised children aged 0-5 years who had medical visits during the period of January 2010 to January 2023.

Results: The data included 29 013 937 medical visits for children aged 0-5 years (46.5% girls and 53.5% boys) from January 2010 through January 2023. From 2010 through 2019, the monthly incidence rate of first-time medically attended RSV infection in children aged 0-5 years followed a consistent seasonal pattern. Seasonal patterns of medically attended RSV infections were significantly disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, the seasonal variation disappeared with a peak incidence rate of 20 cases per 1 000 000 person-days, a decrease of 97.4% from the expected peak rate (rate ratio or RR: 0.026, 95% CI 0.017 to 0.040). In 2021, the seasonality returned but started 4 months earlier, lasted for 9 months, and peaked in August at a rate of 753 cases per 1 000 000 person-days, a decrease of 9.6% from the expected peak rate (RR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99). In 2022, the seasonal pattern is similar to prepandemic years but reached a historically high rate of 2182 cases per 10 000 000 person-days in November, an increase of 143% from the expected peak rate (RR: 2.43, 95% CI 2.25 to 2.63). The time trend and seasonality of the EHR-based medically attended RSV infections are consistent with those of RSV-associated hospitalisations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey-based surveillance system.

Conclusion: The findings show the disrupted seasonality during the COVID-19 pandemic and a historically high surge of paediatric RSV cases that required medical attention in 2022. Our study demonstrates the potential of EHRs as a cost-effective alternative for real-time pathogen and syndromic surveillance of unexpected disease patterns including RSV infection.

Guidelines are essential tools in healthcare decision-making. Trustworthy guidelines inform clinicians not only on the direction (against or in favour) and strength (strong or weak/conditional) of recommendations but also on the certainty of the underlying evidence. Developing trustworthy guidelines requires panellists with clinical and methodological expertise who consider patients' values and preferences. Adherence to trustworthiness standards remains variable; clinicians should, therefore, be able to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy guidelines. In this paper, we offer eight domains of disparities between trustworthy evidence-based guidelines and less trustworthy guidelines.

Objective: To compare evaluations of depressive episodes and suggested treatment protocols generated by Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT)-3 and ChatGPT-4 with the recommendations of primary care physicians.

Methods: Vignettes were input to the ChatGPT interface. These vignettes focused primarily on hypothetical patients with symptoms of depression during initial consultations. The creators of these vignettes meticulously designed eight distinct versions in which they systematically varied patient attributes (sex, socioeconomic status (blue collar worker or white collar worker) and depression severity (mild or severe)). Each variant was subsequently introduced into ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4. Each vignette was repeated 10 times to ensure consistency and reliability of the ChatGPT responses.

Results: For mild depression, ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 recommended psychotherapy in 95.0% and 97.5% of cases, respectively. Primary care physicians, however, recommended psychotherapy in only 4.3% of cases. For severe cases, ChatGPT favoured an approach that combined psychotherapy, while primary care physicians recommended a combined approach. The pharmacological recommendations of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 showed a preference for exclusive use of antidepressants (74% and 68%, respectively), in contrast with primary care physicians, who typically recommended a mix of antidepressants and anxiolytics/hypnotics (67.4%). Unlike primary care physicians, ChatGPT showed no gender or socioeconomic biases in its recommendations.

Conclusion: ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 aligned well with accepted guidelines for managing mild and severe depression, without showing the gender or socioeconomic biases observed among primary care physicians. Despite the suggested potential benefit of using atificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like ChatGPT to enhance clinical decision making, further research is needed to refine AI recommendations for severe cases and to consider potential risks and ethical issues.

Objective: In 2020, cancer screenings declined, resulting in a cancer screening deficit. The significance of this deficit, however, has yet to be quantified from a population health perspective. Our study addresses this evidence gap by examining how the pandemic changed the timing of American adults' most recent cancer screen.

Methodology: We obtained population-based, cancer screening data from the Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020). Mammograms, pap smears and colonoscopies were each specified as a variable of mutually exclusive categories to indicate the timing since the most recent screening (never, 0-1 years, 1-2 years, 3+ years). Our cross-sectional, quasi-experimental design restricts the sample to adults surveyed in January, February or March. We then leverage a quirk in the BRFSS implementation and consider adults surveyed in the second year of the 2020 survey wave as exposed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents surveyed in January 2020-March 2020 were considered unexposed. To estimate the impact of exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic on the timing of recent cancer screenings, we constructed linear and logistic regression models which control for sociodemographic characteristics associated with screening patterns, and state fixed effects and temporal trend fixed effects to control for confounding.

Results: In 2020, the cancer screening deficit was largely due to a 1 year delay among adults who receive annual screening, as the proportion of adults reporting a cancer screen in the past year declined by a nearly identical proportion of adults reporting their most recent cancer screen 1-2 years ago (3%-4% points). However, the relative change was higher for mammograms and pap smears (17%) than colonoscopies (4%). We also found some evidence that the proportion of women reporting never having completed a mammogram declined in 2020, but the mechanisms for this finding should be further explored with the release of future data.

Conclusion: Our estimates for the pandemic's effect on cancer screening rates are smaller than prior studies. Because we account for temporal trends, we believe prior studies overestimated the effect of the pandemic and underestimated the overall downward trend in cancer screenings across the country leading up to 2020.

Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare long-term physical and mental health outcome between SARS-CoV-2 infected and uninfected household members to differentiate between infection-related and pandemic-related outcomes after about two and a half years of the pandemic. Furthermore, possible differences in the outcome of adults and children and young people (CYP) were of interest.

Design: In a cross-sectional study design, we compared the long-term physical and mental health outcome of between infected and uninfected as well as between adult and CYP (household members).

Setting: The FamilyCoviDD19 study-a serology study in households-was initially conducted to evaluate virus transmission in a close contact setting focusing on households with children and adolescents in Germany. At least 1 year after initial infection in the respective households, a follow-up took place in which the prevalence and type of possible long-term consequences were surveyed on the basis of self-reported information on physical and mental health.

Participant: In this study, a total of 533 household members of 146 families participated and responded to our survey, including 296 (55.5%) adults and 237 (44.5%) CYP.

Result: The difference in frequency of reported symptoms between infected and uninfected individuals was very moderate, suggesting that the vast majority of reported symptoms were not attributable to a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, regardless of age and infection status, this study showed overall high rates of self-reported symptoms with CYP having fewer long-term sequelae than adults one year after infection. Furthermore, over 50% of those reporting symptoms were not affected in their daily life, with CYPs reporting an even lower percentage compared with adults.

Conclusion: CYP are at reduced risk not only to develop symptomatic infection or severe disease courses (previous analyses) but also to develop infection-associated long-term sequelae (this study). Independent of infection CYP reported high rates of neurocognitive, pain, somatic and mood symptoms, which makes the influence of the pandemic itself-including pandemic control measures-decisive.

Objective: It is well known that social determinants of health (SDOH), including poverty, education, transportation and housing, are important predictors of health outcomes. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health centres serve a patient population with high vulnerability to barriers posed by SDOH and are required to provide services that enable health centre service utilisation and assist patients in navigating barriers to care. This study explores whether health centres with higher percentages of patients using these enabling services experience better clinical performance and outcomes.

Design and setting: The analysis uses organisational characteristics, patient demographics and clinical quality measures from HRSA's 2018 Uniform Data System. Health centres (n=875) were sorted into quartiles with quartile 1 (Q1) representing the lowest utilisation of enabling services and quartile 4 (Q4) representing the highest. The researchers calculated a service area social deprivation score weighted by the number of patients for each health centre and used ordinary least squares to create adjusted values for each of the clinical quality process and outcome measures. Analysis of variance was used to test differences across enabling services quartiles.

Results: After adjusting for patient characteristics, health centre size and social deprivation, authors found statistically significant differences for all clinical quality process measures across enabling services quartiles, with Q4 health centres performing significantly better than Q1 health centres for several clinical process measures. However, these Q4 health centres performed poorer in outcome measures, including blood pressure and haemoglobin A1c control.

Conclusion: These findings emphasise the importance of how enabling services (eg, translation services, transportation) can address unmet social needs, improve utilisation of health services and reaffirm the challenges inherent in overcoming SDOH to improve health outcomes.