Sharma, Pravesh

Abstract Background Women remain underrepresented in alcohol use disorder (AUD) research despite sex- and gender-specific health disparities and barriers to treatment. Community-engaged approaches can identify opportunities for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (CER) that reflect women’s lived experiences. The WomenWise project used community engaged, bi-directional, partnered learning sessions (PLS) to qualitatively explore women’s perspectives on alcohol misuse, treatment barriers, and priorities for future CER. Methods In 2025, we conducted five 90-minute PLSs via Zoom with attendees who were aged ≥ 18 years, self-identified as a woman, reported lived experience of alcohol misuse, were a family member/caregiver of a woman with AUD, and were affiliated with a WomenWise partner organization or a healthcare provider treating AUD. Moderated PLSs focused on bi-directional knowledge exchange and sharing of experiences. Audio transcripts, Zoom chat content, and one asynchronous online discussion thread were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Suggested future CER topics generated during sessions were presented to the WomenWise community advisory board (CAB), which ranked priority topics by vote. Results In total, 51 attendees shared their experiences. The major themes centered on a sense of shame and stigma unique to women, with many attendees mentioning gendered norms, “mom culture,” “quiet drinking,” and caregiver role strain. Barriers to treatment included structural challenges, poor healthcare provider communication, the need for trauma-informed care, and concerns about privacy particularly in rural areas. Six future CER topics emerged, of which the CAB selected three priorities: (1) harm reduction/moderation versus abstinence-only approaches, (2) trauma-focused care versus standard AUD treatment, and (3) care access and engagement strategies. Conclusions These bidirectional, co-learning sessions identified patient-centered, community-informed priorities for future AUD research in women. The findings highlight the importance of addressing stigma, trauma, structural barriers, and provider communication when designing future women-centered treatment studies and care models.

ABSTRACT Purpose This study assesses the association between colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and a validated, housing-based measure of individual-level socioeconomic status (SES, called HOUSES hereafter) within rural communities and determines whether HOUSES-integrated geospatial analysis can be used to tailor interventions. Methods We used CRC screening data from a subset of Mayo Clinic Midwest patients living in cities without ready access to routine care in the Mayo Clinic Health System in 2019 to represent rural communities. At the individual level, we assessed the association between CRC screening rates and the HOUSES index, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, distance from home address to clinic, and area deprivation index, using a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model. Additionally, we conducted geospatial analysis to examine the correlation between hotspots of 1) lower CRC screening rates and 2) lower SES of the subject population (HOUSES quartile 1). Findings Among 34,489 individuals (median age 64.0 years, 52.4% female), those with the lowest SES (HOUSES Q1) had 37% lower odds of being CRC screening adherent than those with the highest SES (HOUSES Q4) (adj. OR [95% CI]: 0.63 [0.58-0.69]). In the 14 identified HOUSES Q1 hotspots, there was a significant correlation in counts of HOUSES Q1 and low CRC screening (correlation coefficient=0.81). Conclusion Lower SES was significantly associated with lower CRC screening among rural populations. HOUSES-enabled geospatial analysis identified geographic hotspots with lower CRC screening rates for targeted interventions to address disparities in CRC screening in rural communities. HOUSES may be a useful digital tool for cancer preventive care and research.

Abstract Rural and low-socioeconomic status women face social determinants of health barriers leading to disproportionately low rates of breast cancer screening and markedly reduced participation in clinical trials. To address this gap, we developed the WeCARE (Women’s Engagement for Cancer Awareness, Resources, and Education) intervention using a community-engaged approach. This paper describes how Community Advisory Board feedback informed the development of Mayo Clinic Health System’s WeCARE intervention components. Their input was systematically analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) to identify determinants of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility and to guide actionable refinements to intervention content and delivery.

Breathing is a physiological process that extends beyond gas exchange, linking neural, cardiovascular, glymphatic, and autonomic systems. This narrative review summarizes how breathing-based practices modulate physiological processes in the body and brain, emphasizing their applicability in clinical care. Regulating the pace and depth of breathing, particularly with relaxed exhalation, may engage vagal pathways that lower heart rate and blood pressure and promote a shift toward increased parasympathetic tone relative to sympathetic activity. Neuroimaging studies show that controlled breathing reduces activity in stress-related brain regions while enhancing networks supporting calm attention and emotional steadiness. Changes in breathing depth also influence cerebrospinal fluid movement, though direct evidence of waste clearance in humans is lacking. This review identifies populations requiring caution, including individuals with panic symptoms, significant cardiopulmonary disease, or pregnancy. Clinicians should distinguish between breathing-only and multimodal protocols when interpreting research findings, as combined interventions preclude attribution of benefit to breathing alone. Study design quality, particularly the use of active rather than waitlist controls, should inform how effect sizes are interpreted. Breathing practices are not a replacement for medical treatment but may represent accessible, low-cost adjuncts for stress reduction and cardiovascular regulation.

Background: Preliminary evidence examining ibogaine in neuropsychiatric and substance use disorders is accumulating. As patient interest and off-label use grow, clinicians require an understanding of emerging dosing strategies, investigational protocols, and reported adverse effects to appropriately counsel patients and contextualize potential risks and benefits. Methods: Databases were searched for human studies of ibogaine, noribogaine, or 5-MeO-DMT with relevant clinical outcomes, prioritizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), microdosing paradigms, and sequential protocols. Results: Only three RCTs were identified. First, a double-blind pilot study in 20 cocaine-dependent adults found that a single 1800 mg dose of ibogaine was associated with reduced craving versus placebo over follow-up of up to 24 weeks. Second, an ascending-dose trial in 36 healthy volunteers showed that noribogaine doses of 3–60 mg were safe and well-tolerated, without opioid-agonist effects. Third, a randomized crossover trial in 27 opioid-dependent patients receiving noribogaine 60–180 mg demonstrated dose-dependent heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation with non-significant reductions in withdrawal symptoms. Thus, two RCTs enrolled substance-dependent populations, while one focused on safety and pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers. Microdosing and escalating sequential protocols remain experimental, lack standardized definitions, and are supported only by preliminary observational data. Adverse effects include neurologic, psychiatric, and cardiac events, including QTc prolongation; fatalities have occurred in the presence of medical and substance use comorbidities. Conclusions: The available evidence is confined to case reports, observational analyses, and small early-phase or proof-of-concept studies. Given ibogaine’s cardiotoxicity and narrow therapeutic margin, clinical use cannot be recommended without confirmation from larger, well-controlled trials.

ABSTRACT Importance Rural-urban disparities in chronic disease prevalence are well established; however, the extent to which individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) contributes to these disparities remains unclear. Objective To examine the associations of rurality and SES with the prevalence of five most burdensome chronic diseases among adults. Design We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of adults across 27 Upper Midwest counties using the Expanded Rochester Epidemiology Project (E-REP) medical record data linkage system to evaluate associations between rurality, SES and chronic disease prevalence. Prevalence of clinically diagnosed asthma, diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and mood disorders was identified from International Classification of Diseases ICD9/10 codes over a five-year period (2014-2019). Setting Population based Participants Adults over 18 years residing in the 27 E-REP counties, excluding those missing rural-urban residence status. Exposure HOUSES index, an individual-level measure of SES, served as the primary measure, while rurality based on Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes 4-10 was the secondary measure. Main Outcome Prevalence of the five clinically diagnosed chronic diseases was identified using ICD9/10 codes from 2014–2019. Mixed effect logistic regression models were used and adjusted for demographics and general medical examination receipt, to assess rural-urban and SES differences for prevalence of each chronic disease. Results Among 455,802 adults with available HOUSES index, 42.8% lived in rural areas, 53.8% were female and 87.4% were non-Hispanic White. In the unadjusted analysis, rural and urban populations showed comparable asthma and CHD prevalence, while mood disorders, hypertension, and diabetes were more common in urban areas. After adjusting for demographic factors and healthcare utilization, rural-urban differences were no longer statistically significant, whereas SES remained strongly associated with all diseases in a dose response manner (e.g., adjusted Odds Ratio for hypertension (ref: HOUSES index Q4): 1.14, 1.27, and 1.42 for HOUSES index Q3, Q2, and Q1, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance Individual-level SES measured by the HOUSES index, was more strongly associated with chronic disease prevalence than rurality, supporting its integration into population health assessment and risk stratification.

Objective: This study aimed to examine whether parent–child interaction therapy (PCIT), compared with other therapy modalities, was associated with differences in substance use and psychiatric outcomes in a cohort of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using medical record data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). The sample included 643 children aged ≤7 years who were diagnosed with ADHD and received either stimulant or nonstimulant medication, along with psychosocial therapy. Participants were categorized into two groups: those who documented exposure to PCIT versus other therapy modalities such as behavioral management, play therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, parent management training, occupational therapy, speech therapy, parenting class, applied behavior analysis, and social skills training. Conditional logistic regression models were used to examine differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes between the two treatment groups. Results: Individuals in the PCIT group were more likely to have private insurance (66% vs. 57%; p = 0.016) and to fall into higher socioeconomic status quartiles ( p = 0.024) at baseline. PCIT recipients also had a higher prevalence of emotional and behavioral disturbances at baseline (40% vs. 25%; p < 0.001). The median age of the participants at follow-up was 19.6 years, indicating a median follow-up period of approximately 13 years from the initiation of treatment. At follow-up, the PCIT group demonstrated higher rates of problematic alcohol (24% vs. 17%; HR = 1.50, 95% CI: [1.02, 2.20]; p = 0.038) and cannabis use (25% vs. 18%; HR = 1.48, 95% CI: [1.03, 2.15]; p = 0.037). However, after controlling for covariates in the adjusted model, no statistically significant differences emerged between the groups across any substance use outcome. No significant differences were observed in other psychiatric diagnoses or mental health service utilization. Conclusions: Findings indicate that individuals who documented exposure to PCIT demonstrated elevated rates of alcohol and cannabis use in young adulthood, but had no other differences in psychiatric outcomes. While this aligns with prior literature reporting increased substance use risk in ADHD populations, our study cannot confirm this association relative to non-ADHD controls because such a comparison was not included. These associations likely reflect underlying differences in clinical severity and clinical comorbidities at baseline, rather than a direct effect of PCIT. Further investigation is warranted to determine the treatment effects based on baseline risk factors.

The use of ketamine for the management of neuropsychiatric conditions outside clinical settings has rapidly expanded, creating a critical need to understand diverse individual experiences. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of posts from the r/TherapeuticKetamine subreddit. From 3302 threads, the 500 highest-engagement threads (12,852 comments) were analyzed by independent coders across six domains: perceived positive effects, adverse effects, reasons for use, route of administration, polydrug use, and dose amounts. Mood-related concerns were the primary reason for use (53%). Users reported positive effects, most often improvements in emotional well-being (65%). Adverse effects were predominantly psychological or mood-related (56%). A total of 70% of reported doses exceeded 149 mg, suggesting a trend toward higher dose use. Intravenous administration (40%) and sublingual troches (23%) were the most frequently reported routes. Concurrent use of prescribed psychotropics, cannabis, and psychedelics was also reported. This analysis identified substantial heterogeneity in individual-reported experiences. Frequent high-dose use, dose escalation, and polydrug exposure underscores the importance of clinical monitoring and attention to addiction potential and drug–drug interactions. The findings should be interpreted with caution, as follow-up and clinical verification were not possible; however, the data provide an unfiltered view of individual experiences in relation to ketamine use outside the clinical setting.

PURPOSE Limited access to high-speed internet (broadband [BB]) may pose challenges to video telehealth visit (VTV) utilization. This study explored barriers, facilitators, and attitudes toward VTV adoption in patients with cancer residing in low-BB settings. METHODS We examined a cohort of patients with cancer receiving longitudinal care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Practice in the Upper Midwest. Eligible patients had ≥6 in-person visits during July 2020-October 2022, received oncology care at Mayo Clinic sites, were alive at sampling, and resided in low-BB areas defined by Federal Communications Commission data as 0 or 1 internet service provider offering <25 Mbps. We enrolled 24 participants stratified into two groups: (1) Transitioned users (TUs): adopted VTVs postpandemic (November 2022-December 2023); (2) persistent nonusers (PNUs): received exclusively in-person visits. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in June 2024 and thematically analyzed. RESULTS The average age of participants was 71.3 years (range, 42-88), 50% was female, and all identified as White. Three themes emerged: (1) Structural and clinical constraints—physical examinations, laboratory testing, and chemotherapy administration were viewed as requiring in-person care, whereas VTVs were perceived acceptable for routine follow-ups; (2) Skills and experience—digital literacy was generally adequate, but confidence and direct exposure to VTV distinguished TU from PNU; (3) Motivations—both groups preferred in-person care for cancer-related emotional reassurance. TU cited weather, travel burden, and proactive provider offering as adoption triggers, whereas PNU reported that VTV was rarely offered. TU focused on system-level solutions, whereas PNUs preferred individual-level resources. CONCLUSION Differential VTV adoption in low-BB settings reflected exposure, provider offering, and situational necessity rather than BB access alone. Oncology practices should consider normalizing the hybrid care model combining in-person and video appointment visits and provide tailored supports to advance equitable telemedicine. Expanding video care in oncology requires more than digital access and depends on patient experience, care context, and human connection inherent in oncology care.