Motivational interviewing for maternal Immunizations: Intervention development

Background and ObjectiveVaccine uptake during pregnancy remains low. Our objectives were to describe 1) development and adaptation of a clinician communication training intervention for maternal immunizations and 2) obstetrics and gynecology (ob-gyn) clinician and staff perspectives on the intervention and fit for the prenatal care context.MethodsDesign of the Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunizations (MI4MI) intervention was based on similar communication training interventions for pediatric settings and included presumptive initiation of vaccine recommendations (“You’re due for two vaccines today”) combined with motivational interviewing (MI) for hesitant patients. Interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with ob-gyn clinicians and staff in five Colorado clinics including settings with obstetric physicians, certified nurse midwives (CNMs), and clinician-trainees. Participants were asked about adapting training to the ob-gyn setting and their implementation experiences. Feedback was incorporated through iterative changes to training components.ResultsInterview and focus group discussion results from participants before (n = 3), during (n = 11) and after (n = 25) implementation guided intervention development and adaptation. Three virtual, asynchronous training components were created: a video and two interactive modules. This virtual format was favored due to challenges attending group meetings; however, participants noted opportunities to practice skills through role-play were lacking. Training modules were adapted to include common challenging vaccine conversations and live-action videos. Participants liked interactive training components and use of adult learning strategies. Some participants initially resisted the presumptive approach but later found it useful after applying it in their practices. Overall, participants reported that MI4MI training fit well with the prenatal context and recommended more inclusion of non-clinician staff.ConclusionsMI4MI training was viewed as relevant and useful for ob-gyn clinicians and staff. Suggestions included making training more interactive, and including more complex scenarios and non-clinician staff.     

Multiomic analysis reveals conservation of cancer-associated fibroblast phenotypes across species and tissue of origin

1. Download : Download high-res image (241KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of resectable acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas-propensity score matching analysis with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BackgroundSurgical resection is recommended for patients with resectable acinar cell carcinoma (ACC). The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of resectable ACC in comparison to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).MethodA retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who consecutively underwent radical resection with pathologically confirmed ACC and PDAC from December 2011 to December 2018. Clinicopathologic characteristics and follow-up information were analyzed. A 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to minimize the bias between ACC and PDAC.ResultsA total of 26 patients with ACC and 1351 with PDAC were included. Compared to PDAC, ACC tended to be larger (4.5 vs. 3.0 cm; p < 0.001) and more frequently located in the pancreatic body/tail (61.5% vs. 36.6%, p = 0.009), with lower total bilirubin levels, lower neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) levels and lower carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels. There was no difference in postoperative morbidities in patients with ACC and PDAC. The median OS and RFS were longer in ACC when compared to PDAC (OS: 43.5 mo vs. 19.0 mo, p = 0.004; RFS: 24.5 mo vs. 11.6 mo, p = 0.023). After the 1:3 PSM, ACC remained to be a better histological type for OS (p = 0.024), but had comparable RFS with PDAC (p = 0.164).ConclusionPatients with ACC after radical resection had better OS than that with PDAC. However, ACC is also an aggressive tumor with a similar trend of RFS with PDAC after the matching, necessitating the multidisciplinary treatment for resectable ACC disease.     

Survival analysis of crown margin repair: A retrospective study in a dental school setting

BackgroundRepairing crowns with defective margins is minimally invasive and cost-effective compared with replacement. The authors’ objectives were to examine the survival trajectory of crown margin repairs and to determine the factors associated with survival.MethodsRecords of adult patients from January 2008 through August 2019 were reviewed for crown margin repairs completed at University of Iowa College of Dentistry. A total of 1,002 crown margin repairs were found. Each repair was followed through the end of study in 2019 or until an event (for example, additional repair, endodontic treatment, crown replacement, or extraction). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to study the relationship between selected covariates and time to event.ResultsDuring the follow-up period, 32.8% of the repairs needed reintervention. In the final model, repair material was the only significant covariate. No difference was found between the survival of repairs done with resin-modified glass ionomer and amalgam. However, the repairs done with resin-based composite and conventional glass ionomer were more likely (1.5 times: 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.10 times; and 2 times: 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.73 times, respectively) to need reintervention than were those done with amalgam.ConclusionsMedian survival time of crown margin repairs was 5.1 years (95% CI, 4.48 to 5.72 years). Median survival times for amalgam, resin-modified glass ionomer, resin-based composite, and glass ionomer repair materials were 5.7 years (95% CI, 4.80 to 6.25 years), 5.3 years (95% CI, 4.73 to 6.34 years), 3.2 years (95% CI, 2.51 to 6.19 years), and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.53 to 3.62 years), respectively.Practical ImplicationsWhen considering crown margin repairs, resin-modified glass ionomer or amalgam is preferable to resin-based composite or glass ionomer.