Sampling methods for the study of pneumococcal carriage: A systematic review

Streptococcus pneumoniae is an important pathogen worldwide. Accurate sampling of S. pneumoniae carriage is central to surveillance studies before and following conjugate vaccination programmes to combat pneumococcal disease. Any bias introduced during sampling will affect downstream recovery and typing. Many variables exist for the method of collection and initial processing, which can make inter-laboratory or international comparisons of data complex. In February 2003, a World Health Organisation working group published a standard method for the detection of pneumococcal carriage for vaccine trials to reduce or eliminate variability. We sought to describe the variables associated with the sampling of S. pneumoniae from collection to storage in the context of the methods recommended by the WHO and those used in pneumococcal carriage studies since its publication. A search of published literature in the online PubMed database was performed on the 1st June 2012, to identify published studies that collected pneumococcal carriage isolates, conducted after the publication of the WHO standard method. After undertaking a systematic analysis of the literature, we show that a number of differences in pneumococcal sampling protocol continue to exist between studies since the WHO publication. The majority of studies sample from the nasopharynx, but the choice of swab and swab transport media is more variable between studies. At present there is insufficient experimental data that supports the optimal sensitivity of any standard method. This may have contributed to incomplete adoption of the primary stages of the WHO detection protocol, alongside pragmatic or logistical issues associated with study design. Consequently studies may not provide a true estimate of pneumococcal carriage. Optimal sampling of carriage could lead to improvements in downstream analysis and the evaluation of pneumococcal vaccine impact and extrapolation to pneumococcal disease control therefore further in depth comparisons would be of value.     

Providing Mental Health Services in the Primary Care Setting: the Experiences and Perceptions of General Practitioners at a New York City Clinic

Mental illness is a significant cause of disability worldwide, including here in the United States. Given the shortage of trained mental health professionals, a significant portion of patients needing care are managed in the primary care setting. Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), for example, are seeking to improve the quality of care for this vulnerable population, but many are facing significant challenges relating to integration of new services. We sought to elucidate barriers faced by primary care practitioners (PCPs)—physicians, physician trainees and nurse practitioners—at a New York primary care clinic, which impede delivery of optimal care to those suffering from mental illness. The study was conducted with 32 PCPs in 2016–2017 at Mount Sinai Internal Medicine Associates in New York City. For the quantitative component of the study, a 54-item questionnaire was devised to assess their attitude, behavior and confidence in managing psychiatric patients. For the qualitative component, data was obtained from 3 open-ended questions. Responses were coded for salient themes. Analysis revealed a range of difficulties faced by PCPs. Overall, participants felt that the need to integrate mental health care into primary care was important, however they reported significant barriers in terms of lack of time, lack of resources, low confidence in treating more complex mental health conditions and difficulties with referring patient to mental health specialists. Despite a growing body of evidence that integration of mental health services in primary care leads to improved outcomes, addressing barriers to care will be key to ensuring feasibility of integration measures.