Abu Dabrh, Abd Moain

Background: Shared Decision Making in palliative care encompassing patient-clinician collaboration has shown potential for improved patient outcomes. However, the impact of decision aids intended to support palliative care decision making discussions across clinical care settings remains uncertain. Aim: To assess the impact of shared of decision aids on decision making, clinical outcomes, and quality of life for patients with palliative care needs and their caregivers. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, reported according to PRISMA, with overall evidence quality assessed using GRADE. Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE (all segments), EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, from inception through September 20, 2024, without restrictions on publication date, sample size, or language. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that included adult patients with palliative care needs or their caregivers, using any form of decision aids. Outcomes encompassed decision-related, clinical, and quality of life measures. Results: Sixteen randomized controlled trials were included. Participant ages ranged from 44 to 85 years. Predominant decision aids were videos or printed materials addressing goals of care and treatment options, with aims that included improving understanding of prognosis and supporting values clarification. Decision aids significantly improved decision-related knowledge (SMD: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.14–0.67, p = 0.003) and lowered preference for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.20–0.40, p < 0.001). They showed no significant impact on decisional conflict, satisfaction, or regret. Conclusion: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of decision aids in palliative care decision making is limited and of low overall quality, with observed improvements primarily in patient knowledge and changes in stated treatment preferences rather than established improvements in decision quality or values-concordant care. Future research should prioritize integration into comprehensive shared decision making frameworks, cultural adaptations, and larger-scale studies to enhance patient-centered outcomes.

Objectives This study identified the prevalence of second victim experience (SVE) in a multidisciplinary sample of healthcare learners and explored personal experiences of trauma and desired forms of support following traumatic patient care events or situations. Method We used the validated SVE Support Tool-Revised and the Physician Well-Being Index (PWBI) to query healthcare learners at a large academic health system across the institution's medical, graduate medical education, and health sciences schools. The survey was open to all healthcare learners from April 8th, 2022 to May 30th, 2022. Here, we report on an analysis of respondents’ fixed responses describing the prevalence and characteristics of SVE. Results Of 2298 potential respondents, 206 answered at least one question (9.0% response rate). Of the 206 respondents, 205 answered questions inquiring if they had been a part of a stressful or traumatic patient care event or situation and 54.1% (111/205) answered in the affirmative. Of this group, 49.5% (51/103) reported feeling like a second victim (SV). The average PWBI of the exposed group was significantly higher (worse well-being) than the nonexposed group (3.4 vs 2.6, P = .0009). The most common forms of desired support for those exposed to a traumatic event and felt like an SV was conversation with peers 95.3% (41/43), family 81.4% (35/43), and a supervisor or manager 67.4% (29/43). Conclusion Findings suggest that many healthcare learners experience SVE and would benefit from connection to desired support strategies. Strategies to mitigate the impact of SVE on professional self-efficacy should be considered by education administrators. We present strategies from the literature and our institution that may be replicated for early identification and support of learners with SVE.

Objective: Diabetes is a defining disease of the 21st century because of its rising prevalence, association with obesity, and enormous health impact. Abundant evidence shows that lifestyle interventions can delay or prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D) in adults, offer relief, and sometimes achieve complete remission. Despite this empowering message, there are no clinical practice guidelines that focus primarily on lifestyle interventions as first-line management of prediabetes and T2D. Our objective, therefore, is to offer pragmatic, trustworthy, and evidence-based guidance for clinicians in using the 6 pillars of lifestyle medicine—nutrition, physical activity, stress management, sleep, social connectedness, avoidance of risky substances—for managing adults with T2D and in preventing T2D in adults with prediabetes or a history of gestational diabetes mellitus. Methods: We used well-established, peer-reviewed guideline methodology to develop evidence-based key action statements (recommendations) that facilitate quality improvement in clinical practice. The guideline development group included 20 members representing consumers, advanced practice nursing, cardiology, clinical pharmacology, behavioral medicine, endocrinology, family medicine, lifestyle medicine, nutrition and dietetics, health education, health and wellness coaching, sleep medicine, sports medicine, and obesity medicine. Recommendation strength was based on the aggregate evidence supporting a key action statement plus a comparison of associated benefits vs harms/costs. Multiple literature searches, conducted by an information specialist, identified 8 relevant guidelines, 118 relevant systematic reviews, and 112 randomized clinical trials. The guideline underwent extensive internal, external, and public review and comment prior to publication. Results: We developed 14 key action statements and associated evidence profiles, each with a distinct quality improvement goal in the context of lifestyle interventions for T2D. Strong recommendations were made regarding advocacy for lifestyle interventions; assessing baseline lifestyle habits; establishing priorities for lifestyle change; prescribing aerobic and muscle strength physical activity; reducing sedentary time; identifying sleep disorders; prescribing nutrition plans for prevention and treatment; promoting peer/familial support and social connections; counseling regarding tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drugs, and establishing a plan for continuity of care. Recommendations were made regarding identifying the need for psychological interventions and for adjusting (deprescribing) pharmacologic therapy. We include numerous tables and figures to facilitate implementation, a plain-language summary for consumers, and an executive summary for clinicians as separate publications. Conclusions: There is robust research evidence supporting the efficacy of lifestyle interventions in preventing, treating, and achieving remission of T2D in adults. Our multidisciplinary guideline development group successfully synthesized this evidence into 14 key action statements that can be used by clinicians and other healthcare professionals to improve quality of care for adults with, or at-risk for, T2D. Despite the research gaps and implementation challenges we highlight in the guideline we believe strongly that our recommendations have immediate relevance and can help raise awareness and shift the paradigm of T2D management towards optimal use of lifestyle interventions.

This executive summary highlights evidence-based recommendations for using lifestyle interventions in the treatment and remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes in adults. The summary and guideline are intended for any clinician or healthcare professional in a community or non-inpatient healthcare setting involved in managing non-pregnant adults with T2D, prediabetes or a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The purpose of this executive summary is to provide a succinct overview of the key action statements (recommendations) from Lifestyle Interventions for Treatment and Remission of Type 2 Diabetes and Prediabetes in Adults: A Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. This is the first diabetes guideline to emphasize lifestyle interventions as the foundation of management and is also the first to focus on all six pillars of lifestyle medicine (plant-predomination nutrition, regular physical activity, restorative sleep, stress reduction, social connectedness, and avoiding risky substances), including behavior change strategies. This summary is not intended to substitute for the full guideline, which should be read before taking the recommended actions. The guideline on which this summary is based was developed with a priori methodology that has been previously published, refined, and used in over 20 multidisciplinary, trustworthy, and evidence-based national guidelines. The guideline development group included 20 members representing consumers, advanced practice nursing, cardiology, clinical pharmacology, behavioral medicine, endocrinology, family medicine, lifestyle medicine, nutrition and dietetics, health education, health and wellness coaching, sleep medicine, sports medicine, and obesity medicine. We developed 14 key action statements and associated evidence profiles, each with a distinct quality improvement goal in the context of lifestyle interventions for T2D. Strong recommendations were made regarding advocacy for lifestyle interventions; assessing baseline lifestyle habits; establishing priorities for lifestyle change; prescribing aerobic and muscle strength physical activity; reducing sedentary time; identifying sleep disorders; prescribing nutrition plans for prevention and treatment; promoting peer/familial support and social connections; counseling regarding tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drugs, and establishing a plan for continuity of care. Recommendations were made regarding identifying the need for psychological interventions and for adjusting (deprescribing) pharmacologic therapy. We include numerous tables and figures to facilitate implementation, a plain-language summary for consumers, and an executive summary for clinicians as separate publications. Although not a substitute for the full clinical practice guideline, this executive summary can provide insight into the key guideline recommendations, to whom they apply, and to how they might alter care. These recommendations offer detailed, explicit, and evidence-based strategies for successful lifestyle behavior change, making them relevant not only to our guideline but to other guidelines and standards that advocate for lifestyle change in managing adults with T2D.

The optimal patient panel size (PPS) in primary care and the factors determining it remain unclear. We conducted a meta-narrative review of the literature to evaluate factors influencing PPS and assess its association with patient outcomes. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was performed from inception through December 2023, focusing on original studies reporting factors used to determine PPS and related outcomes (eg, clinical outcomes, process measures, and resource utilization). A total of 48 studies were included, identifying 7 key factors influencing PPS. Smaller panels were associated with improved patient satisfaction, continuity of care, and health promotion, while clinical outcomes, utilization, and costs showed minimal impact by PPS. Panel size was primarily associated with patient age, sex, comorbidities, and practice type and structure. Community-based centers typically managed smaller panels, often staffed by female clinicians and serving socioeconomically disadvantaged populations with greater health needs than hospital-based practices. Female clinicians were also independently associated with managing smaller panels, higher quality care indicators, fewer emergency department visits, and improved patient satisfaction. Determining the ideal PPS is a multifaceted process influenced by practice setting, patient demographics, and clinician characteristics. While practice-related factors showed limited association with PPS, patient-reported outcomes were more closely linked to it. Primary care practices should tailor panel sizes to their patient populations, emphasizing a patient-centered approach and ensuring adequate infrastructure support to optimize care delivery.

In 2020, a consortium composed of three national coach credentialing organizations, four medical societies, and 72 healthcare organizations led by National Board for Health and Wellness Coaching (NBHWC) was formed to advocate for the reimbursement of Health and Wellness Coaching (HWC) services in the U.S. healthcare system. Building on that, the NBHWC and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiated a pivotal collaboration in 2023, with a target audience comprised influential reimbursement policymakers, notably the American Medical Association’s Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) Panel and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). This concerted effort led to CMS announcing the temporary inclusion of HWC services on the 2024 Medicare Telehealth list. This ongoing advocacy work is crucial while understanding its key components is imperative for wider participation. This paper aims to distill the essence of the advocacy to date into a coherent narrative. By doing so, we seek to share with stakeholders—health and wellness coaches, medical professionals, healthcare organizations, patient advocates, and policy experts—a robust framework to support advocacy for reimbursement to both government and private insurers, at local and national levels. This initiative marks a significant milestone in healthcare policy, reflecting a growing recognition and impact of HWC.

Background For individuals living with chronic conditions like diabetes mellitus and obesity, there is a need for sustainable behavioral strategies and physiologic tools. These tools support identifying and addressing barriers to healthy eating, reducing body mass index (BMI), and building increased physical resilience in real time. Objective To evaluate whether a 12-week learning management system designed to combine nutritional intervention with education and coaching on improving emotional intelligence (EI) could alter cardiometabolic outcomes. Methods This pre-post prospective study enrolled 37 adult volunteers with BMI greater than 25 to participate in a 12-week learning management system. Primary (BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein [LDL], high-density lipoprotein, and fasting glucose levels) and secondary self-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, and 6 months after enrollment using Short Form-36, Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi), and Whole Health Index (WHI). Linear mixed-effects regression models with random effect were used to estimate changes in primary and secondary outcomes. We adjusted for multiple testing using Holm step-down method. Results BMI and LDL were the only primary endpoints lower at program completion and 6-month follow-up compared to baseline levels (−1.63 and −17.77 mg/dL, respectively; P < .001). Secondary outcomes showing statistically significant improvement from baseline to 6-month follow-up included energy/fatigue (Short Form-36), self-regard (EQi), decision-making (EQi), impulse control (EQi), stress management (EQi), Whole Brain – Form A (WHI), Whole Food – Form C (WHI), and Whole Body – Form D (WHI). Conclusion This study provides preliminary evidence that lifestyle programs combining nutritional interventions and EI can have a significant impact on BMI and LDL. Our study highlights the potential importance of both nutrition and EI in programs targeting diet and lifestyle modification.

Background Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a complex and often disabling chronic condition emerging worldwide, with no curative or definitive therapy yet identified. Ginseng has been widely used to treat fatigue in other patient groups and conditions; however, a systematic review focusing solely on the impact of ginseng on fatigue in patients with CFS has not been performed. Objective This study aimed to assess the current state of evidence regarding ginseng for CFS. Methods Multiple databases were searched from inception to October 2020. All data was extracted independently and in duplicates. Outcomes of interest included the effectiveness and safety of ginseng in patients with CFS. Results 2 studies enrolling 68 patients were deemed eligible, including one randomized clinical trial and one prospective observational study. The certainty of evidence in the effectiveness outcome was low and moderate from both studies, while the safety evidence was very low as reported from one study. Conclusion Study findings highlight a potential benefit of ginseng therapy in the treatment of CFS. However, we are not able to draw firm conclusions due to limited clinical studies. The paucity of data warrants limited confidence. There is a need for future rigorous studies to provide further evidence.