Nevin Manimala

Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2024 Jul 24;(6). doi: 10.15620/cdc/157007.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study examines trends in the numbers, percentages, and rates of first and second and higher-order births to teenagers younger than age 20 and for those ages 15-17 and 18-19 by race and Hispanic origin.

METHODS: Data for this analysis are from the National Vital Statistics System birth data files from 2000 and 2022. Analyses are limited to births to females younger than age 20. Changes in the numbers, percentages, and rates of total, first, and second and higher-order teen births from 2000 to 2022 were calculated for all teenagers and for non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic teenagers.

RESULTS: The number of first teen births declined 67% and the number of second and higher-order teen births declined 79%, while the population of female teenagers increased 7% from 2000 to 2022. The declines were greater for younger teenagers compared with older teenagers. First and second and higher-order teen birth rates declined 69% and 80%, respectively. Similar declines were found for each race and Hispanic-origin group. In 2000 and 2022, first and second and higher-order birth rates were lowest among White teenagers. First birth rates were highest among Hispanic teenagers in 2000 and for Hispanic and non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native teenagers in 2022. In 2000, second and higher-order birth rates were highest for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic teenagers; second and higher-order birth rates were more similar by race and Hispanic-origin group in 2022.

PMID:39412875 | DOI:10.15620/cdc/157007

JMIR Form Res. 2024 Oct 16;8:e60434. doi: 10.2196/60434.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Menopause presents a period of heightened vulnerability for mental health issues. Despite this, mental health screening is not consistently integrated into menopausal health care, and access to psychological interventions is limited. Digital technologies, such as web and smartphone apps, may offer a way to facilitate and improve mental health care provision throughout menopause. However, little is known about potential users’ intention to use such technologies during this critical phase of life.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors that impact the intention of potential users to use a mental health app during menopause, we used the Health Belief Model (HBM), a psychological framework widely used to understand and predict individuals’ health-related behaviors.

METHODS: An online survey was generated. Convenience sampling was used, with participants recruited via social media and email, through relevant foundations and support groups, and by word of mouth. Structural equation modeling with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to explore whether the factor structure of the HBM is a good fit for predicting the intention to use a mental health app for menopause. A Cronbach α value of .05 was used for determining statistical significance.

RESULTS: A total of 1154 participants commenced the survey, of which 82.49% (n=952) completed at least 97% of the survey. Of these, 86.76% (n=826) expressed that their menopausal symptoms had negatively affected their mental health, and went on to answer questions regarding their experiences and interest in using a web or smartphone app for mental health symptoms related to menopause. Data from this subgroup (N=826) were analyzed. In total, 74.09% (n=612) of respondents sought online help for mental health symptoms related to menopause. The most common topics searched for were symptom characteristics (n=435, 52.66%) and treatment or therapy options (n=210, 25.42%). Psychoeducation (n=514, 62.23%) was the most desired mental health app feature, followed by symptom tracking (n=499, 60.41%) and self-help tips (n=469, 56.78%). In terms of the intention to use a mental health app, the Satorra-Bentler-scaled fit statistics indicated a good fit for the model (χ2278=790.44, P<.001; comparative fit index=0.933, root mean square error of approximation=0.047, standardized root mean square residual=0.056), with cues to action emerging as the most significant predictor of intention (β=.48, P<.001). This was followed by perceived barriers (β=-.25, P<.001), perceived susceptibility (β=.15, P<.001), and perceived benefits (β=.13, P<.001). Perceived severity (β=.01, P=.869) and self-efficacy (β=.03, P=.286) were not significantly associated with behavioral intention.

CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals important factors that influence the intention to use a mental health app during menopause. It emphasizes the need to address barriers to app usage, while highlighting the impact of credible endorsements and psychoeducation. Furthermore, the study underscores the significance of improving accessibility for users with lower digital literacy or limited resources.

PMID:39412868 | DOI:10.2196/60434

Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2024 Jul 25;(5). doi: 10.15620/cdc/157006.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This report presents final 2022 infant mortality statistics by age at death, maternal race and Hispanic origin, maternal age, gestational age, leading causes of death, and maternal state of residence. Trends in infant mortality are also examined.

METHODS: Descriptive tabulations of data are presented and interpreted for infant deaths and infant mortality rates using the 2022 period linked birth/infant death file. The linked birth/infant death file is based on birth and death certificates registered in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

RESULTS: A total of 20,577 infant deaths were reported in the United States in 2022, up 3% from 2021. The U.S. infant mortality rate was 5.61 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, a 3% increase from the rate of 5.44 in 2021. The neonatal mortality rate increased 3% from 3.49 in 2021 to 3.59 in 2022, and the postneonatal mortality rate increased 4% from 1.95 to 2.02. The overall infant mortality rate increased for infants of American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic, White non-Hispanic, and Dominican women in 2022 compared with 2021; changes in rates for the other race and Hispanic-origin groups were not significant. Infants of Black non-Hispanic women had the highest mortality rate (10.90) in 2022, followed by infants of American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander non-Hispanic (9.06 and 8.50, respectively), Hispanic (4.89), White non-Hispanic (4.52), and Asian non-Hispanic (3.51) women. Mortality rates increased from 2021 to 2022 among preterm (less than 37 weeks of gestation) infants (33.59 to 34.78) and for infants born term (37 to 41 weeks of gestation) (2.08 to 2.18). The five leading causes of infant death in 2022 were the same as in 2021. Infant mortality rates by state for 2022 ranged from a low of 3.32 in Massachusetts to a high of 9.11 in Mississippi.

PMID:39412861 | DOI:10.15620/cdc/157006

Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2024 Aug 21;(7). doi: 10.15620/cdc/157499.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This report presents complete period life tables for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia by sex based on age-specific death rates in 2021.

METHODS: Data used to prepare the 2021 state-specific life tables include: 2021 final mortality statistics; July 1, 2021, population estimates based on the Blended Base population estimates produced by the U.S. Census Bureau; and 2021 Medicare data for people ages 66-99. The methodology used to estimate the state-specific life tables is the same as that used to estimate the 2021 national life tables, with some modifications.

RESULTS: Among the 50 states and District of Columbia, Hawaii had the highest life expectancy at birth, 79.9 years in 2021, and Mississippi had the lowest, 70.9 years. From 2020 to 2021, life expectancy at birth declined for 39 states, increased for 11 states, and remained unchanged for the District of Columbia. In 2021, life expectancy at age 65 ranged from 16.1 years in Mississippi to 20.6 years in Hawaii. Life expectancy at birth was higher for females in all states and the District of Columbia. The difference in life expectancy between females and males ranged from 3.9 years in Utah to 7.6 years in New Mexico.

PMID:39412855 | DOI:10.15620/cdc/157499

JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024 Oct 16;10:e57242. doi: 10.2196/57242.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite strong evidence supporting COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, a proportion of the population remains hesitant to receive immunization. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) can help assess preferences and decision-making drivers.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to (1) elicit preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States; (2) understand which vaccine attributes people there value; and (3) gain insight into the choices that different population subgroups make regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS: Participants in the 2019nCoV-408 study were aged ≥18 years; self-reported antivaccinationists were excluded. A DCE with a series of 2 hypothetical vaccine options was embedded into a survey to determine participant treatment preferences (primary objective). Survey questions covered vaccine preference, previous COVID-19 experiences, and demographics, which were summarized using descriptive statistics to understand the study participants’ backgrounds. In the DCE, participants were provided choice pairs: 1 set with and 1 without an “opt-out” option. Each participant viewed 11 unique vaccine profiles. Vaccine attributes consisted of type (messenger RNA or protein), level of protection against any or severe COVID-19, risk of side effects (common and serious), and potential coadministration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Attribute level selections were included for protection and safety (degree of effectiveness and side effect risk, respectively). Participants were stratified by vaccination status (unvaccinated, or partially or fully vaccinated) and disease risk group (high-risk or non-high-risk). A conditional logit model was used to analyze DCE data to estimate preferences of vaccine attributes, with the percentage relative importance calculated to allow for its ranking. Each model was run twice to account for sets with and without the opt-out options.

RESULTS: The mean age of participants (N=2000) was 48 (SD 18.8) years, and 51.25% (1025/2000) were male. The DCE revealed that the most important COVID-19 vaccine attributes were protection against severe COVID-19 or any severity of COVID-19 and common side effects. Protection against severe COVID-19 was the most important attribute for fully vaccinated participants, which significantly differed from the unvaccinated or partially vaccinated subgroup (relative importance 34.8% vs 30.6%; P=.049). Avoiding serious vaccine side effects was a significantly higher priority for the unvaccinated or partially versus fully vaccinated subgroup (relative importance 10.7% vs 8.2%; P=.044). Attributes with significant differences in the relative importance between the high-risk versus non-high-risk subgroups were protection against severe COVID-19 (38.2% vs 31.5%; P<.000), avoiding common vaccine side effects (12% vs 20.5%; P<.000), and avoiding serious vaccine side effects (9.7% vs 7.5%; P=.002).

CONCLUSIONS: This DCE identified COVID-19 vaccine attributes, such as protection against severe COVID-19, that may influence preference and drive choice and can inform vaccine strategies. The high ranking of common and serious vaccine side effects suggests that, when the efficacy of 2 vaccines is comparable, safety is a key decision-making factor.

PMID:39412841 | DOI:10.2196/57242

JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 1;7(10):e2437241. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.37241.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:39412813 | DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.37241

JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 1;7(10):e2437233. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.37233.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Overdose is the leading cause of death among people experiencing homelessness (PEH), but engagement in medication treatment is low in this population. Shelter-based buprenorphine may be a strategy for increasing initiation and retention on lifesaving medications.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate clinical outcomes and conduct an economic analysis of statewide shelter-based opioid treatment in Massachusetts.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation study in Massachusetts used a cohort state-transition simulation model. Two cohorts were modeled starting in 2013, including (1) a closed cohort of a fixed population of PEH with history of high-risk opioid use over their lifetimes and (2) an open cohort in which membership could change over time, allowing assessment of population-level trends over a 10-year period. Data analysis occurred from January 2023 to April 2024.

EXPOSURES: Model exposures included (1) no shelter-based buprenorphine (status quo) and (2) offering buprenorphine in shelters statewide.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included overdose deaths, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and health care and modified societal perspective costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on key parameters.

RESULTS: In the closed cohort analysis of 13 800 PEH (mean [SD] age, 40.4 [13.1] years; 8749 male [63.4%]), shelter-based buprenorphine was associated with an additional 65.4 person-weeks taking buprenorphine over an individual’s lifetime compared with status quo. Shelter-based buprenorphine was cost saving when compared with the status quo, with a discounted lifetime cost savings from the health sector perspective of $1300 per person, and 0.2 additional discounted QALYs per person and 0.9 additional life-years per person. In the population-level simulation, 254 overdose deaths were averted over the 10-year period with the shelter-based buprenorphine strategy compared with the status quo (a 9.2% reduction of overdose deaths among PEH in Massachusetts). Overdose-related and other health care utilization undiscounted costs decreased by $3.0 million and $66.4 million, respectively. Shelter-based opioid treatment generated $44.7 million in additional medication and clinical costs, but saved $69.4 million in overdose and other health costs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this economic evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes among PEH, shelter-based buprenorphine was associated with fewer overdose deaths and was cost saving. These findings suggest that broad rollout of shelter-based buprenorphine may be an important tool in addressing the overdose crisis.

PMID:39412807 | DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.37233

JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 1;7(10):e2439080. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.39080.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: The China National Drug Administration (NMPA) established the breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) in 2020 to encourage the accelerated development of drugs for the prevention and treatment of diseases that are life-threatening. However, the differences between BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs regarding clinical benefit, regulatory approval, and price are unclear.

OBJECTIVES: To compare BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs in clinical benefit (defined as efficacy and safety), novelty, time to approval, and average monthly treatment price.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study analyzes the original indication of BTD and non-BTD novel cancer drugs approved by the NMPA between July 8, 2020, and July 8, 2024. Data on efficacy, safety, regulatory approval, and price of cancer drugs were extracted from pivotal clinical trials based on review reports published by the NMPA, peer-reviewed articles or meeting reports, and winning bid prices for cancer drugs in the Chinese provincial-level centralized procurement process.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was the efficacy and safety associated with BTD vs non-BTD cancer drugs, including progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), duration of response, serious adverse events, grade 3 or higher adverse events, and treatment-related deaths. In addition, the time to approval, novelty, and initial and latest average monthly treatment prices were evaluated, as well as the average annual reduction rate (AARR; the sum of the reduction rates divided by the number of years for the monthly treatment price) for these cancer drugs.

RESULTS: Between July 2020 and July 2024, 18 BTD (36%) and 32 non-BTD (64%) cancer drugs were approved by the NMPA. The median (IQR) clinical development time for BTD drugs was significantly shorter than for non-BTD drugs (5.6 [95% CI, 4.3-7.3] vs 6.6 [95% CI, 6.0-8.5] years; P = .02). No significant differences were observed in PFS (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.38-0.52] vs HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.40-0.65]; P = .20), PFS gained (median [IQR], 5.4 [3.9-7.0] vs 2.7 [2.6-5.9] months; P = .77), RR (58% [95% CI, 45%-74%] vs 59% [95% CI, 51%-69%]; P = .85), and duration of response (median [IQR], 18.0 [15.0-21.6] vs 11.1 [7.4-17.4] months; P = .09) between BTD and non-BTD drugs. The rates of serious adverse events (37% [95% CI, 26%-52%] vs 32% [95% CI, 27%-36%]; P = .45), adverse events grade 3 or higher (64% [95% CI, 53%-77%] vs 55% [95% CI, 45%-68%]; P = .31), and treatment-related deaths (2% [95% CI, 1%-4%] vs 1% [95% CI, 1%-2%]; P = .10) were similar between BTD and non-BTD drugs. BTD drugs are more likely to be first-in-class drugs (5 of 18 [28%] vs 1 of 32 [3%]; P = .02). Differences in the median (IQR) initial ($5665 [$3542-$9321] vs $3361 [$2604-$5474]; P = .06) and latest ($5665 [$1553-$9321] vs $2145 [$1318-$4276]; P = .18) average monthly treatment prices for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were not significant. The median (IQR) AARRs for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were 15.2% (0%-46.9%) and 19.8% (1.0%-42.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that BTD has facilitated faster time to market for cancer drugs and improved novelty, but the price of treatment is relatively higher. There was no significant difference on comparative efficacy and safety.

PMID:39412805 | DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.39080

JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 1;7(10):e2439629. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.39629.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: In the US, there are more than 1.5 million adults living with congenital heart disease (CHD). The Congenital Heart Initiative (CHI) is a digital, online, patient-empowered registry that was created to advance multicenter research and improve clinical care by gathering patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with CHD.

OBJECTIVE: To report the initial findings of the PROs for adults with CHD from the first 3 years of the CHI.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The CHI was launched nationally on December 7, 2020, as an observational cohort (survey) study. Data were collected virtually through December 31, 2023, and stored on Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant cloud-based servers with restricted access. Adults with CHD were recruited through email, social media, general advertising through advocacy organizations, and targeted outreach (telephone and in-clinic recruitment) by clinical centers.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Demographics and validated survey tools on quality of life, mental health, physical activity, and health care utilization were collected at baseline and every 4 months. Descriptive statistics were used to understand the associations between various factors, including the complexity of heart defects, physical activity levels, mental health comorbidities, and socioeconomic and health care access variables. All categorical variables were analyzed using χ2 or Fischer exact test as appropriate.

RESULTS: By December 31, 2023, the CHI had enrolled 4558 participants (2530 female [56%]) with a mean (SD) age of 38.5 (13.9) years, representing all 50 states. Approximately 88% of participants (3998 participants) completed at least 1 electronic visit as of December 31, 2023. The most prevalent CHD anatomy included tetralogy of Fallot (883 participants [22%]), transposition of great arteries (452 participants [11%]), and coarctation of the aorta (429 participants [11%]). Approximately 88% of participants (3998 participants) reported at least 1 comorbidity, with arrhythmia (1300 participants [33%]) as the most common cardiac comorbidity and mood disorder (1326 participants [35%]) as the most common noncardiac comorbidity. Among female participants, 45% (1147 participants) reported having had a pregnancy, with 38% (967 participants) resulting in biological children. Participants with complex CHD were less likely than those with moderate CHD to meet recommended physical activity guidelines (χ22 = 15.9; n = 3320; P < .001), a factor that was more pronounced among female participants. Overall health-related quality of life was rated as good or better by 84% of participants who completed the quality of life PROs (2882 participants), with no difference by CHD complexity.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of adults living with CHD, many patients reported mood disorders, but most reported good health-related quality of life. The CHI, the largest registry of adults with CHD, is poised to facilitate multicenter research with the goal of improving clinical outcomes for all adults with CHD.

PMID:39412804 | DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.39629

JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 1;7(10):e2439727. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.39727.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Investigating racial and ethnic discrimination in medical education is crucial for addressing disparities and fostering an inclusive environment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how racial and ethnic discrimination in medical school is associated with personal and professional identity formation (PPIF) by race and ethnicity.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cross-sectional study used deidentified data on 37 610 medical students who matriculated in 2014 or 2015 and took the Association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire (GQ) between 2016 and 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from September 1 to November 20, 2023.

EXPOSURES: Experiences of racial and ethnic discrimination were assessed through responses to 3 GQ questions about denial of opportunities, offensive remarks or names, and lower evaluations or grades due to race or ethnicity.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Personal and professional development were measured as 2 separate outcomes using 2 GQ statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale (where 1 indicated strongly disagree and 5 indicated strongly agree): “My medical school has done a good job fostering and nurturing my development as a person” and “My medical school has done a good job fostering and nurturing my development as a physician.” Variables of personal and professional development were both dichotomized.

RESULTS: Of 37 610 medical students, 18 200 (48.4%) were female, and 19 410 (51.6%) were male; 2458 (6.5%) were African American or Black, 7801 (20.7%) were Asian, 2430 (6.5%) were Hispanic, 21 380 (56.9%) were White, 2404 (6.4%) were multiracial, and 1137 (3%) were other race or ethnicity. Most respondents attested that their medical school fostered their personal (27 272 [72.5%]) and professional (34 560 [91.9%]) development. African American or Black students reported the lowest rates of personal (1603 of 2458 [65.2%]) and professional (2182 of 2458 [88.8%]) development, and experienced lower likelihoods of personal (adjusted risk ratio [ARR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.86-0.93]) and professional (ARR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.97]) development than White students. Racial discrimination was inversely associated with development, with the highest PPIF rates among those never experiencing discrimination (personal, 25 089 of 33 508 [74.9%]; and professional, 31 257 of 33 508 [93.3%]). Those experiencing isolated discrimination (personal: ARR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.80-0.87]; professional: ARR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.91-0.95]) and recurrent discrimination (personal: ARR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.60-0.66]; professional: ARR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.80-0.84]) had relatively lower likelihoods of PPIF. African American or Black students experienced the highest rate of recurrent discrimination (543 of 2458 [22.1%]). No significant PPIF risk differences were found for other racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine without discrimination compared with White students without discrimination, but all groups with recurrent discrimination had relatively lower PPIF risk.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of US medical students, racial and ethnic discrimination was associated with lower PPIF across all racial and ethnic groups compared with White students without such experiences. African American or Black students disproportionately faced this discrimination. Systemic changes in medical education are needed to combat discrimination and ensure equity in holistic student development.

PMID:39412803 | DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.39727