The authors examined whether tailored self-management support (SMS) strategies reach patients in a safety net system and explored variation by language, literacy, and insurance. English-, Spanish-, and Cantonese-speaking diabetes patients were randomized to weekly automated telephone disease management (ATDM) or monthly group medical visits. The SMS programs employ distinct communication methods but share common objectives, including behavioral "action plans." Reach was measured using three complementary dimensions: (a) participation among clinics, clinicians, and patients; (b) patient representativeness; and (c) patient engagement with SMS. Participation rates were high across all levels and preferentially attracted Spanish-language speakers, uninsured, and Medicaid recipients. Although both programs engaged a significant proportion in action planning, ATDM yielded higher engagement, especially among those with limited English proficiency and limited literacy. These results provide important insights for health communication and translational research with respect to realizing the public health benefits of SMS and can inform system-level planning to reduce health disparities.

In this article the authors first highlight major challenges that higher education institutions (HEIs) are facing during the Covid-19 pandemic. They then consider the challenges HEIs should expect in the post-Covid period. In practice, HEIs are keen to maintain their core activities during the pandemic and in this context the authors examine how institutions can continue their activities efficiently by addressing issues related to the potential socio-psychological damage to stakeholders in higher education. To answer this question, they recommend the application of an all-inclusive resilience model at the beginning of the recovery period to withstand the shock of the pandemic and show how an HEI can apply the antifragile model for the advancement and betterment of the experience of individuals associated with it. The recommendations of the study contribute to the literature related to HEIs and the coronavirus, and constitute practical guidance for a post-Covid model that may be followed by HEIs around the world.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of coronavirus transmission to healthcare workers performing aerosol-generating procedures and the potential benefits of personal protective equipment during these procedures. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched using a combination of related MeSH terms and keywords. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies and case controls investigating common anesthetic and critical care aerosol-generating procedures and transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to healthcare workers were included for quantitative analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Qualitative and quantitative data on the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus to healthcare workers via aerosol-generating procedures in anesthesia and critical care were collected independently. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen studies out of 2,676 yielded records were included for meta-analyses. Endotracheal intubation (odds ratio, 6.69, 95% CI, 3.81–11.72; p < 0.001), noninvasive ventilation (odds ratio, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.86–7.19; p < 0.001), and administration of nebulized medications (odds ratio, 10.03; 95% CI, 1.98–50.69; p = 0.005) were found to increase the odds of healthcare workers contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The use of N95 masks (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03–0.39; p < 0.001), gowns (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48–0.73; p < 0.001), and gloves (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29–0.53; p < 0.001) were found to be significantly protective of healthcare workers from contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. CONCLUSIONS: Specific aerosol-generating procedures are high risk for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from patients to healthcare workers. Personal protective equipment reduce the odds of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Surveillance via a telephone-based, health IT-facilitated self-management support program can detect AEs and PotAEs. Events detected were frequently unknown to primary providers, and the majority were preventable or ameliorable, suggesting that this between-visit surveillance, with appropriate system-level intervention, can improve patient safety for chronic disease patients.

1829 patients underwent radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection (RP+PLND) (241 high-risk, 943 intermediate-risk, 645 low-risk). Positive margin rates were 17.8%, 14.8%, and 11.9% in the high, intermediate-and lowrisk groups. Five-year overall survival was 92.5% in lymph node-positive patients and 94.9% in lymph node-negative patients (p = 0.8). Age, prebiopsy prostatespecific antigen, and clinical stage were associated with positive surgical margins in patients with lymph node metastasis (LNM). Recipients of RP+PLND with LNM and positive surgical margins required adjuvant treatment.