Person-centred interventions to improve patient-provider relationships for HIV services in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Person-centred care (PCC) has been recognized as a critical element in delivering quality and responsive health services. The patient-provider relationship, conceptualized at the core of PCC in multiple models, remains largely unexamined in HIV care. We conducted a systematic review to better understand the types of PCC interventions implemented to improve patient-provider interactions and how these interventions have improved HIV care continuum outcomes and person-reported outcomes (PROs) among people living with HIV in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We searched databases, conference proceedings and conducted manual targeted searches to identify randomized trials and observational studies published up to January 2023. The PCC search terms were guided by the Integrative Model of Patient-Centeredness by Scholl. We included person-centred interventions aiming to enhance the patient-provider interactions. We included HIV care continuum outcomes and PROs. RESULTS: We included 28 unique studies: 18 (64.3%) were quantitative, eight (28.6.%) were mixed methods and two (7.1%) were qualitative. Within PCC patient-provider interventions, we inductively identified five categories of PCC interventions: (1) providing friendly and welcoming services; (2) patient empowerment and improved communication skills (e.g. supporting patient-led skills such as health literacy and approaches when communicating with a provider); (3) improved individualized counselling and patient-centred communication (e.g. supporting provider skills such as training on motivational interviewing); (4) audit and feedback; and (5) provider sensitisation to patient experiences and identities. Among the included studies with a comparison arm and effect size reported, 62.5% reported a significant positive effect of the intervention on at least one HIV care continuum outcome, and 100% reported a positive effect of the intervention on at least one of the included PROs. DISCUSSION: Among published HIV PCC interventions, there is heterogeneity in the components of PCC addressed, the actors involved and the expected outcomes. While results are also heterogeneous across clinical and PROs, there is more evidence for significant improvement in PROs. Further research is necessary to better understand the clinical implications of PCC, with fewer studies measuring linkage or long-term retention or viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS: Improved understanding of PCC domains, mechanisms and consistency of measurement will advance PCC research and implementation.

Cannabis Use among Cancer Survivors: Use Pattern, Product Type, and Timing of Use.

Despite growing interest in the use of cannabis for the treatment of cancer-related symptoms, there are limited studies that have assessed the use pattern, type, and mode of delivery of cannabis products used by cancer survivors. This study describes the current state of the use pattern, product type, and mode of delivery of cannabis used by cancer survivors. This was a cross-sectional study of cancer survivors from 41 U.S. states who received treatment at the largest NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. The weighted prevalence of the use patterns, product types, and modes of delivery of cannabis used by cancer survivors was estimated. A total of 1886 cancer survivors were included in the study, with 915 (48% [95% CI: 45-51]) reporting ever using cannabis. Of survivors who had ever used cannabis, 36% (95% CI: 33-40) were current users. Among survivors who reported cannabis use after diagnosis, 40% used cannabis during and after cancer treatment, 35% used cannabis during treatment, and 25% used cannabis after completing their cancer treatment. Additionally, 48% of survivors reported an increase in cannabis use since cancer diagnosis. The commonest types of cannabis products used by cancer survivors were dry leaf cannabis (71%), cannabidiol (CBD) oil (46%), and cannabis candy (40%). Moreover, cancer survivors frequently used baked goods (32%), creams and gels (21%), and tinctures (18%). Furthermore, among ever users, the predominant mode of use was cannabis inhalation/smoking (69%) compared to eating/drinking (59%). More so, the common mode of inhalation/smoking of cannabis products were rolled cannabis cigarettes (79%), pipes (36%), water pipes (34%), vaporizers or vapes (14%), and e-cigarette devices (14%). A substantial number of cancer survivors use cannabis during cancer treatment, with increased use following cancer diagnosis. The forms and modes of delivery of cannabis varied among survivors, with most survivors inhaling or smoking cannabis. There is a need to educate healthcare providers (HCPs) and survivors on current evidence of cannabis use and strengthen cannabis regulatory frameworks to optimize benefits and minimize adverse events from cannabis use during cancer treatment.

Barriers and determinants of consistent offering of HPV vaccination by healthcare facilities.

Expanding access to HPV vaccination is critical to increasing HPV vaccine uptake. We assessed the determinants and barriers to consistent offering of HPV vaccine among healthcare facilities. This was a cross-sectional survey of healthcare providers (HCPs) in Texas. Prevalence of the reasons healthcare practices do not consistently offer HPV vaccination was estimated. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted. Of 1169 HCPs included in the study, 47.5% (95% CI: 44.6-50.3%) reported their practices do not provide HPV vaccination or do not offer it consistently. Compared to physicians, nurses had 77% lower odds (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16-0.32, p-value: < .001), and physician assistants had 89% lower odds (AOR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16, p-value: < .001) of their healthcare practices consistently offering HPV vaccination. Compared to university/teaching hospitals, the odds of healthcare practices consistently offering HPV vaccination were 44% lower (AOR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35-0.91, p-value: 0.019) in solo practices but 266% higher (AOR: 3.66, 95% CI: 2.04-6.58, p-value: < .001) in FQHC/public facilities. The common reasons healthcare practices do not consistently offer HPV vaccination were; HPV vaccination is not within the scope of the practice (48.1%), referrals to other clinics (27.7%), and limited personnel (11.4%). Non-physicians were more likely to report that HPV vaccination was not in their scope and to refer patients than physicians. Moreover, solo practices were more likely to report challenges with acquisition and storage of the vaccine and referral of patients as reasons for not consistently offering HPV vaccination than university/teaching hospitals, FQHC/public facilities, or group practices. System-level interventions including training of non-physicians and expansion of practice enrollment in programs that support HPV vaccine acquisition and storage are needed.

Statins use and COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for novel therapeutic strategies for reversing COVID-19-related lung inflammation. Recent evidence has demonstrated that the cholesterol-lowering agents, statins, are associated with reduced mortality in patients with various respiratory infections. We sought to investigate the relationship between statin use and COVID-19 disease severity in hospitalized patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients admitted to the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions between March 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020 was performed. The outcomes of interest were mortality and severe COVID-19 infection, as defined by prolonged hospital stay (≥ 7 days) and/ or invasive mechanical ventilation. Logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching were used to obtain both univariable and multivariable associations between covariates and outcomes in addition to the average treatment effect of statin use. RESULTS: Of the 4,447 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 594 (13.4%) patients were exposed to statins on admission, of which 340 (57.2%) were male. The mean age was higher in statin users compared to non-users [64.9 ± 13.4 vs. 45.5 ± 16.6 years, p <0.001]. The average treatment effect of statin use on COVID-19-related mortality was RR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.01, p = 0.928), while its effect on severe COVID-19 infection was RR = 1.18 (95% CI: 1.11-1.27, p <0.001). CONCLUSION: Statin use was not associated with altered mortality, but with an 18% increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection.

The Global Health Security Index is not predictive of coronavirus pandemic responses among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has devastated many countries with ripple effects felt in various sectors of the global economy. In November 2019, the Global Health Security (GHS) Index was released as the first detailed assessment and benchmarking of 195 countries to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats. This paper presents the first comparison of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD countries' performance during the pandemic, with the pre-COVID-19 pandemic preparedness as determined by the GHS Index. Using a rank-based analysis, four indices were compared between select countries, including total cases, total deaths, recovery rate, and total tests performed, all standardized for comparison. Our findings suggest a discrepancy between the GHS index rating and the actual performance of countries during this pandemic, with an overestimation of the preparedness of some countries scoring highly on the GHS index and underestimation of the preparedness of other countries with relatively lower scores on the GHS index.