Increased attention has focused on methods to increase empathy, compassion, and pro-social behavior. Meditation practices have traditionally been used to cultivate pro-social outcomes, and recently investigations have sought to evaluate their efficacy for these outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of meditation for pro-social emotions and behavior. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane databases (inception-April 2016) using the search terms: mindfulness, meditation, mind-body therapies, tai chi, yoga, MBSR, MBCT, empathy, compassion, love, altruism, sympathy, or kindness. Randomized controlled trials in any population were included (26 studies with 1,714 subjects). Most were conducted among healthy adults (=11) using compassion or loving kindness meditation (=18) over 8-12weeks (=12) in a group format (=17). Most control groups were wait-list or no-treatment (=15). Outcome measures included self-reported emotions (e.g., composite scores, validated measures) and observed behavioral outcomes (e.g., helping behavior in real-world and simulated settings). Many studies showed a low risk of bias. Results demonstrated small to medium effects of meditation on self-reported (SMD = .40, < .001) and observable outcomes (SMD = .45, < .001) and suggest psychosocial and neurophysiological mechanisms of action. Subgroup analyses also supported small to medium effects of meditation even when compared to active control groups. Clinicians and meditation teachers should be aware that meditation can improve positive pro-social emotions and behaviors.

Mind-body interventions are efficacious for reducing FCR, with small-to-medium effect sizes that persist after intervention delivery ends. Recommendations include testing effects among survivors of various cancers and exploring the optimal integration of mind-body practices for managing fundamental uncertainties and fears during cancer survivorship.

No abstract

Introduction:Patient experience with emergency department (ED) care is an expanding area of focus, and recent literature has demonstrated strong correlation between patient experience and meeting several ED and hospital goals. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of existing literature to identify specific factors most commonly identified as influencing ED patient experience.Methods:A literature search was performed, and articles were included if published in peer-reviewed journals, primarily focused on ED patient experience, employed observational or interventional methodology, and were available in English. After a structured screening process, 107 publications were included for data extraction.Result:Of the 107 included publications, 51 were published before 2011, 57% were conducted by American investigators, and 12% were published in nursing journals. The most commonly identified themes included staff-patient communication, ED wait times, and staff empathy and compassion.Conclusion:The most commonly identified drivers of ED patient experience include communication, wait times, and staff empathy; however, existing literature is limited. Additional investigation is necessary to further characterize ED patient experience themes and identify interventions that effectively improve these domains.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third‐leading cause of cancer‐related death worldwide, with a growing incidence and poor prognosis. While some recent studies suggest an inverse association between aspirin use and reduced HCC incidence, other data are conflicting. To date, the precise magnitude of risk reduction—and whether there are dose‐dependent and duration‐dependent associations—remains unclear. To provide an updated and comprehensive assessment of the association between aspirin use and incident HCC risk, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of all observational studies published through September 2020. Using random‐effects meta‐analysis, we calculated the pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between aspirin use and incident HCC risk. Where data were available, we evaluated HCC risk according to the defined daily dose of aspirin use. Among 2,389,019 participants, and 20,479 cases of incident HCC, aspirin use was associated with significantly lower HCC risk (adjusted RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51‐0.73; P ≤ 0.001; I2 = 90.4%). In subgroup analyses, the magnitude of benefit associated with aspirin was significantly stronger in studies that adjusted for concurrent statin and/or metformin use (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28‐0.64) versus those that did not (P heterogeneity = 0.02), studies that accounted for cirrhosis (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.45‐0.52) versus those that did not (P heterogeneity = 0.02), and studies that confirmed HCC through imaging/biopsy (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.15‐0.58) compared with billing codes (P heterogeneity < 0.001). In four studies, each defined daily dose was associated with significantly lower HCC risk (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97‐0.98), corresponding to an 8.4% risk reduction per year of aspirin use. Conclusion: In this comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis, aspirin use was associated with a significant reduction in HCC risk. These benefits appeared to increase with increasing dose and duration of aspirin use.

No abstract

Background The goal of bundled payments—lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event—is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists. Questions/purposes In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? Methods This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis. Results Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001). Conclusion In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models.

No abstract