Building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in public health: a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) intervention was designed to integrate the approach to chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care and demonstrated effective in a previous randomized trial. METHODS: We tested the effectiveness of the BETTER HEALTH intervention, a public health adaptation of BETTER, at improving participation in chronic disease prevention and screening actions for residents of low-income neighbourhoods in a cluster randomized trial, with ten low-income neighbourhoods in Durham Region Ontario randomized to immediate intervention vs. wait-list. The unit of analysis was the individual, and eligible participants were adults age 40-64 years residing in the neighbourhoods. Public health nurses trained as "prevention practitioners" held one prevention-focused visit with each participant. They provided participants with a tailored prevention prescription and supported them to set health-related goals. The primary outcome was a composite index: the number of evidence-based actions achieved at six months as a proportion of those for which participants were eligible at baseline. RESULTS: Of 126 participants (60 in immediate arm; 66 in wait-list arm), 125 were included in analyses (1 participant withdrew consent). In both arms, participants were eligible for a mean of 8.6 actions at baseline. At follow-up, participants in the immediate intervention arm met 64.5% of actions for which they were eligible versus 42.1% in the wait-list arm (rate ratio 1.53 [95% confidence interval 1.22-1.84]). CONCLUSION: Public health nurses using the BETTER HEALTH intervention led to a higher proportion of identified evidence-based prevention and screening actions achieved at six months for people living with socioeconomic disadvantage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03052959 , registered February 10, 2017.

Using self-reported data on the social determinants of health in primary care to identify cancer screening disparities: opportunities and challenges.

BACKGROUND: Data on the social determinants of health can help primary care practices target improvement efforts, yet relevant data are rarely available. Our family practice located in Toronto, Ontario routinely collects patient-level sociodemographic data via a pilot-tested survey developed by a multi-organizational steering committee. We sought to use these data to assess the relationship between the social determinants and colorectal, cervical and breast cancer screening, and to describe the opportunities and challenges of using data on social determinants from a self-administered patient survey. METHODS: Patients of the family practice eligible for at least one of the three cancer screening types, based on age and screening guidelines as of June 30, 2015 and who had answered at least one question on a socio-demographic survey were included in the study. We linked self-reported data from the sociodemographic survey conducted in the waiting room with patients' electronic medical record data and cancer screening records. We created an individual-level income variable (low-income cut-off) that defined a poverty threshold and took household size into account. The sociodemographic characteristics of patients who were overdue for screening were compared to those who were up-to-date for screening for each cancer type using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: We analysed data for 5766 patients for whom we had survey data. Survey participants had significantly higher screening rates (72.9, 78.7, 74.4% for colorectal, cervical and breast cancer screening respectively) than the 13, 036 patients for whom we did not have survey data (59.2, 65.3, 58.9% respectively). Foreign-born patients were significantly more likely to be up-to-date on colorectal screening than their Canadian-born peers but showed no significant differences in breast or cervical cancer screening. We found a significant association between the low-income cut-off variable and cancer screening; neighbourhood income quintile was not significantly associated with cancer screening. Housing status was also significantly associated with colorectal, cervical and breast cancer screening. There was a large amount of missing data for the low-income cut-off variable, approximately 25% across the three cohorts. CONCLUSION: While we were able to show that neighbourhood income might under-estimate income-related disparities in screening, individual-level income was also the most challenging variable to collect. Future work in this area should target the income disparity in cancer screening and simultaneously explore how best to collect measures of poverty.

Suppression of the motor cortex by magnetic stimulation of the cerebellum.

Conditioning magnetic stimulation of the cerebellum suppresses the motor cortex 5-8 ms later, probably through activation of cerebellar Purkinje cells, which inhibit the dentatothalamocortical pathway. To further characterize this pathway, we examined several factors that may modulate its excitability. We tested the effects of different test motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes, voluntary activation of the target muscle, and arm extension that required activation of proximal arm muscles while maintaining relaxation of hand muscles. Surface electromyography was recorded from the right first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. A double-cone coil centered 3 cm lateral to the inion was used for right cerebellar stimulation. The stimulus intensity was set at 5% below the threshold for activation of the corticospinal tract. A figure-of-eight coil was used for left motor cortex stimulation. Interstimulus intervals (ISIs) between 3 and 15 ms were studied. Small test MEPs of about 0.5 mV were markedly inhibited at ISIs of 5-8 ms, but there was much less inhibition for test MEPs of about 2 mV. There was no significant MEP suppression during voluntary activation of the FDI muscle or during right arm extension. Left arm extension did not affect inhibition. Our findings indicate that cerebellar stimulation has a much stronger effect on motor cortex neurons activated near threshold intensities than those activated at higher intensities. Activation of contralateral but not ipsilateral proximal arm muscles during arm extension reduced the excitability of the cerebellothalamocortical projections to the hand area of the motor cortex.