Evaluation for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) can trigger posttraumatic stress symptoms (PSS). Research suggests that younger, versus older, individuals may be at elevated risk for PSS after ACS evaluation. It has been proposed that younger individuals may be at greater risk because they perceive the suspected ACS event as more threatening than their older counterparts; however, this has yet to be tested. We examined whether perceived threat during ACS evaluation mediated the association between age and PSS after ACS evaluation in an observational cohort study of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected ACS. Demographics and perceived threat were assessed in the ED. PSS were measured upon inpatient transfer or by phone 3 days later. The analytic sample comprised 871 adult participants. Multiple linear regression was used to examine (1) associations of age and perceived threat with PSS and (2) whether perceived threat mediated the association. Bootstrapping with percentile-based confidence intervals (CIs) was used to test the indirect effect. Each year of age was associated with lower PSS (b = - 0.12, p < .001), independent of covariates. Older age was associated with lower perceived threat during ACS evaluation (b = - 0.05, p < .001). Greater threat perceptions predicted greater PSS (b = 0.94, p < .0001). The indirect effect (- 0.04) was statistically significant (95% CI - 0.07, - 0.02). Younger, versus older, individuals are at risk for greater PSS after ACS evaluation, and elevated perceived threat partially mediated this association. Understanding age differences in PSS development risk and the potential impact of age on threat perceptions may help inform ED treatment.
Purpose: Little is known about the effectiveness of bright white light therapy (BWL) for depressive symptoms in cancer survivors, many of whom prefer non-pharmacological treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of BWL versus dim red light therapy (DRL) on depressive symptoms within individual cancer survivors using personalized (N-of-1) trials. Methods: Cancer survivors with at least mild depressive symptoms were randomized to one of two treatment sequences consisting of counterbalanced crossover comparisons of three-weeks of lightbox-delivered BWL (intervention) or DRL (sham) for 30 min each morning across 12 weeks. A smartphone application guided cancer survivors through the treatment sequence and facilitated data collection. Cancer survivors tracked end-of-day depressive symptoms (primary outcome) and fatigue using visual analog scales. Within-patient effects of BWL were assessed using an autoregressive model with adjustment for linear time trends. Results: Eight of nine cancer survivors completed the 12-week protocol. Two survivors reported significantly (i.e., p < 0.05) lower depressive symptoms (−1.3 ± 0.5 and −1.30 ± 0.9 points on a 10-point scale), five reported no difference in depressive symptoms, and one reported higher depressive symptoms (+1.7 ± 0.6 points) with BWL versus DRL. Eight of nine cancer survivors recommended personalized trials of BWL to others. Conclusions: There were heterogeneous effects of three-week BWL on self-reported depressive symptoms among cancer survivors, with some finding a benefit but others finding no benefit or even harm. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Personalized trials can help cancer survivors learn if BWL is helpful for improving their depressive symptoms.
This N-of-1 intervention study demonstrates that a one-time brief message conveying personalized exercise predictors had a beneficial effect on exercise behavior among urban adults.
BackgroundAs many as 12% of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients screen positive for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms due to their cardiac event, and emergency department (ED) factors such as overcrowding have been associated with risk for PTSD. We tested the association of patients’ perceptions of their proximity to a critically ill patient during ED evaluation for ACS with development of posttraumatic stress symptoms (PSS) in the month after hospital discharge.MethodsParticipants were enrolled in the REactions to Acute Care and Hospitalization (REACH) study during evaluation for ACS in an urban ED. Participants reported whether they perceived a patient near them was close to death. They also reported their current fear, concern they may die, perceived control, and feelings of vulnerability on an Emergency Room Perceptions questionnaire. One month later, participants reported on PTSD symptoms specific to the cardiac event and ED hospitalization.ResultsOf 763 participants, 12% reported perceiving a nearby patient was likely to die. In a multivariate linear regression model [F(9757) = 19.69, p < .001, R2 adjusted = .18] with adjustment for age, sex, GRACE cardiac risk score, discharge ACS diagnosis, Charlson comorbidity index, objective ED crowding, and depression symptoms at baseline, perception of a nearby patients’ likely death was associated with a 2.33 point (95% CI, 0.60–4.61) increase in 1 month PTSD score. A post hoc mediation analysis with personal threat perceptions [F(10,756) = 25.28, p < .001, R2 adjusted = .24] showed increased personal threat perceptions during the ED visit, B = 0.71 points on the PCL per point on the personal threat perception questionnaire, β = 0.27, p = .001, fully mediated association of participants’ perceptions of nearby patients’ likely death with 1-month PTSD score (after adjustment for ED threat perceptions,) B = 0.89 (95% CI, −1.33 to 3.12), β = 0.03, p = .43, accounting for 62% of the adjusted effect and causing the main effect to become statistically nonsignificant.ConclusionsWe found patients who perceived a nearby patient was likely to die had significantly greater PTSD symptoms at 1 month. Awareness of this association may be helpful for designing ED patient management procedures to identify and treat patients with an eye to post-ACS psychological care.
BACKGROUND: There are substantial differences in the effects of blood pressure (BP) medications in individual patients. Yet, the current standard approach to prescribing BP medications is not personalized. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of individualizing the selection of BP medications through pragmatic personalized (i.e., N-of-1) trials. DESIGN: Series of N-of-1 trials. SETTING: Outpatient. PATIENTS: Hypertensive adults prescribed none or one BP medication. INTERVENTION: Participation in a flexible, open-label personalized trial of two to three BP medications (NCT02744456). MEASUREMENTS: BP was measured twice per day with a validated home BP device. Frequency and severity of side effects were assessed at the end of the day via an electronic questionnaire. Patients' BP medication preference was assessed after reviewing BP lowering and side effect results with a study clinician. Feasibility was assessed by determining the proportion of patients who adhered to self-assessments. Benefit was assessed by asking patients to rate the helpfulness of participation and whether they would recommend personalized trials to other hypertensive patients. KEY RESULTS: Of ten patients enrolled, two dropped out prior to initiation, one discovered white coat hypertension through ambulatory BP monitoring, and seven (mean age 58 years, 71% of women) completed personalized trials. All seven were compliant with home BP monitoring and side effect tracking. All seven recommended personalized trials of BP medications to others. Thiazides were preferred by three patients, renin-angiotensin system-blocking agents by two patients, a combination of thiazide and beta-blocker by one patient, and any of three classes by one patient. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized trials of BP medications were feasible and led to improved treatment precision. Heterogeneity of patient preferences and of therapeutic BP response for first-line BP medications can be determined through a personalized trial approach.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.