Philpot, Lindsey M

Background: Chronic illness is often comorbid with the psychological state of loneliness. Models of care for patients who experience chronic migraines may often lack an understanding of psychosocial influences of the illness. Addressing the effects of loneliness on the health behaviors of chronic migraine patients may further elucidate gaps in care that exist beyond the biomedical approach to migraine treatment. The primary aim of this study was to assess the relationship between loneliness and behavioral health decisions in chronic migraine patients, specifically patient ability to self-manage, and effectiveness of treatments. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among patients (n = 500) with migraine and assessed for the experience of loneliness by using the University of California, Los Angeles–Revised (UCLA-R) Three-item Loneliness Scale and the extent of migraine-related disability via the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS). Furthermore, we evaluated patients for their ability to self-manage their migraines, and perceived effectiveness of treatment. Results: Nearly half of our population reported at least one measure of loneliness (230/500, 46.0%). Patients experiencing chronic migraine were statistically more likely to report feeling lonely when compared to patients with episodic migraines ( P < .001). Patients who report loneliness had lower odds of feeling ’very satisfied” with their ability to self-manage their migraine symptoms (aOR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.81) and had lower odds of feeling “very satisfied” with their ability to avoid conditions that cause their headache (aOR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.91). Conclusions: Loneliness has significant effects on the illness experience of patients with chronic migraines, including their ability to self-manage or be satisfied with their current state of care. Psychosocial models of care that address loneliness among patients with chronic migraine may help improve health outcomes and management.

Objective To inform migraine care model development by assessing differences between patients with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) in the current state of treatment, disability, patient satisfaction, and quality improvement opportunities. Background Efficient and focused use of scarce resources will be needed to address challenges within large populations of migraine patients. Methods We deployed a cross‐sectional survey study of randomly selected migraine patients within a community primary care practice. Results There were 516 survey respondents (516/1804 [30%] response rate). CM patients were more likely than EM patients to report care from a neurologist (76/110 [69%] vs 229/406 [56%]; P = .0026), and higher disability according to the Migraine Disability Assessment and Headache Impact Test – 6 questionnaires ( P < .0001). CM patients were less likely than EM patients to report overall satisfaction with care (16/110 [38%] vs 156/406 [66%], P = .0002), satisfaction with access to care (17/110 [33%] vs 176/406 [68%], P < .0001), and advice they needed (16/110 [31%] vs 160/406 [62%], P < .0001). Most patients with migraine had been offered triptan medications 377/516 (78%). Overall, 156/516 (31%) of individuals were currently taking any medication for migraine prevention, and 208/516 (40%) including botulinum toxin injections. CM patients were more likely to be taking preventive medication (39/110 [36%] vs 117/406 [29%], P = .0191) and report familiarity with the diagnosis of medication‐overuse headache than patients with EM (80/110 [81%] vs 256/406 [69%], P = .0178). Conclusions We observed differences between patients with chronic and EM and expected care delivery improvement opportunities for migraine patients in primary care. CM patients report higher levels of disability and less satisfaction with access to perceived needed medical advice and care. These findings support the need to further develop and study novel care models to efficiently and effectively deliver high‐quality care and expertise in limited supply to a diverse migraine population.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the ability of claims‐based risk adjustment and incremental components of clinical data to identify 90‐day episode costs among lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) patients according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program provisions.Data SourcesMedicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) data for qualifying CJR episodes in the United States, and FFS data linked with clinical data from CJR‐qualifying LEJR episodes performed at High Value Healthcare Collaborative (HVHC) and Mayo Clinic in 2013. HVHC and Mayo Clinic populations are subsets of the total FFS population to assess the additive value of additional pieces of clinical data in correctly assigning patients to cost groups.Study DesignMultivariable logistic models identified high‐cost episodes.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsClinical data from participating health care systems merged with Medicare FFS data.Principal FindingsOur three populations consisted of 363 621 patients in the CMS population, 4881 in the HVHC population, and 918 in the Mayo population. When modeling per CJR specifications, we observed low to moderate model performance (CMS C‐Stat = 0.714; HVHC C‐Stat = 0.628; Mayo C‐Stat = 0.587). Adding CMS‐HCC categories improved identification of patients in the top 20% of episode costs (CMS C‐Stat = 0.758, HVHC C‐Stat = 0.692, Mayo C‐Stat = 0.677). Clinical variables, particularly functional status in the population for which this was available (Mayo C‐Stat = 0.783), improved ability to identify patients within cost groups.ConclusionsPolicy makers could use these findings to improve payment adjustments for bundled LEJR procedures and in consideration of new data elements for reimbursement.

Abstract Background Many clinicians who prescribe opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) express concerns about opioid misuse, addiction, and physiological dependence. We evaluated the association between the degree of clinician concerns (highly vs less concerned), clinician attributes, other attitudes and beliefs, and opioid prescribing practices. Methods A web-based survey of clinicians at a multispecialty medical practice. Results Compared with less concerned clinicians, clinicians highly concerned with opioid misuse, addiction, and physiological dependence were more confident prescribing opioids (risk ratio [RR] = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08–1.67) but were more reluctant to do so (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.03–1.25). They were more likely to report screening patients for substance use disorder (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.01–1.37) and to discontinue prescribing opioids to a patient due to aberrant opioid use behaviors (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.13–1.50). They were also less likely to prescribe benzodiazepines and opioids concurrently (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.25–0.65). Highly concerned clinicians were more likely to work in clinics which engage in “best practices” for opioid prescribing requiring urine drug screening (RR = 4.65, 95% CI = 2.51–8.61), prescription monitoring program review (RR = 2.90, 95% CI = 1.84–4.56), controlled substance agreements (RR = 4.88, 95% CI = 2.64–9.03), and other practices. Controlling for clinician concern, prescribing practices were also associated with clinician confidence, reluctance, and satisfaction. Conclusions Highly concerned clinicians are more confident but more reluctant to prescribe opioids. Controlling for clinician concern, confidence in care and reluctance to prescribe opioids were associated with more conservative prescribing practices.

Background: Chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and chronic opioid therapy (COT) commonly coexist with comorbid depression and anxiety. We investigated the prevalence of depression and anxiety and their correlates at the time of controlled substance agreement (CSA) enrollment among patients with CNCP and a history of depression or anxiety on COT. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 1066 patients in a Midwest primary care practice enrolled in CSAs for COT between May 9, 2013, and August 15, 2016. Patients with self-reported symptoms or a clinical history of depression or anxiety were screened at CSA enrollment using the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 item scale and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 item scale. Results: The percentage of patients screening positive for depression and anxiety at CSA enrollment was 15.4% and 14.4%, respectively. Patients screening positive for depression or anxiety were more likely to be younger, unmarried, unemployed, and live alone compared to patients not screening positive. Patients screening positive for depression or anxiety were more likely to smoke cigarettes and report concern from friends or relatives regarding alcohol consumption. Compared to patients screening negative, patients screening positive for depression had higher odds of receiving opioid doses of ≥50 morphine milligram equivalents per day (adjusted odds ratio: 1.62; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-2.58). Conclusion: Anxiety and depression are prevalent at enrollment in CSAs among patients receiving COT. Future research is needed to determine whether recognition of anxiety and depression leads to improved management and outcomes for this population.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide information on how health care affects patient health and well-being and represent a patient-centered approach. Despite this potential, PROs are not widely used in clinical settings. Semi-structured focus groups were conducted with 3 stakeholder groups (patients, providers, and health care administrators) to determine the top 5 perceived barriers and benefits of PRO implementation. The Delphi technique was employed to obtain consensus and rank order responses. Patients perceived survey length to be important, whereas providers and administrators perceived time to collect data and patient health literacy, respectively, as the greatest barriers to PRO implementation. The greatest perceived benefits were the ability to track changes in clinical symptoms over time, improved quality of care, and better disease control among patients, providers, and administrators, respectively. These results may guide the development of novel frameworks for PRO implementation by addressing perceived barriers and building on the perceived benefits to encourage adoption of PROs.