OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe trends in maternal pre-pregnancy hypertension among women in rural and urban areas in 2007 to 2018 in order to inform community-engaged prevention and policy strategies.
METHODS: We performed a nationwide, serial cross-sectional study using maternal data from all live births in women age 15 to 44 years between 2007 and 2018 (CDC Natality Database). Rates of pre-pregnancy hypertension were calculated per 1,000 live births overall and by urbanization status. Subgroup analysis in standard 5-year age categories was performed. We quantified average annual percentage change using Joinpoint Regression and rate ratios (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) to compare yearly rates between rural and urban areas.
RESULTS: Among 47,949,381 live births to women between 2007 and 2018, rates of pre-pregnancy hypertension per 1,000 live births increased among both rural (13.7 to 23.7) and urban women (10.5 to 20.0). Two significant inflection points were identified in 2010 and 2016, with highest annual percentage changes between 2016 and 2018 in rural and urban areas. Although absolute rates were lower in younger compared with older women in both rural and urban areas, all age groups experienced similar increases. The rate ratios of pre-pregnancy hypertension in rural compared with urban women ranged from 1.18 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.35) for ages 15 to 19 years to 1.51 (95% CI: 1.39 to 1.64) for ages 40 to 44 years in 2018.
CONCLUSIONS: Maternal burden of pre-pregnancy hypertension has nearly doubled in the past decade and the rural-urban gap has persisted.
METHODS: A simulated patient method was used to evaluate pharmacist counseling practices in Sydney, Australia. Twenty community pharmacists received three simulated patient visits concerning antidepressant adherence-related scenarios at different phases of treatment: 1) patient receiving a first-time antidepressant prescription and hesitant to begin treatment; 2) patient perceiving lack of treatment efficacy for antidepressant after starting treatment for 2 weeks; and 3) patient wanting to discontinue antidepressant treatment after 3 months due to perceived symptom improvement. The interactions were recorded and analyzed to evaluate the content of consultations in terms of information gathering, information provision including key educational messages, and treatment recommendations.
RESULTS: There was variability among community pharmacists in terms of the extent and content of information gathered and provided. In scenario 1, while some key educational messages such as possible side effects and expected benefits from antidepressants were mentioned frequently, others such as the recommended length of treatment and adherence-related messages were rarely addressed. In all scenarios, about two thirds of pharmacists explored patients' concerns about antidepressant treatment. In scenarios 2 and 3, only half of all pharmacists' consultations involved questions to assess the patient's medication use. The pharmacists' main recommendation in response to the patient query was to refer the patient back to the prescribing physician.
CONCLUSION: The majority of pharmacists provided information about the risks and benefits of antidepressant treatment. However, there remains scope for improvement in community pharmacists' counseling practice for patients on antidepressant treatment, particularly in providing key educational messages including adherence-related messages, exploring patients' concerns, and monitoring medication adherence.
METHODS: We collected data from 7954 asymptomatic subjects (age, 50-75 y) who received screening colonoscopy examinations at 14 sites in Asia. We randomly assigned 5303 subjects to the derivation cohort and the remaining 2651 to the validation cohort. We collected data from the derivation cohort on age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, drinking, body mass index, medical conditions, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. Associations between the colonoscopic findings of APN and each risk factor were examined using the Pearson χ2 test, and we assigned each participant a risk score (0-15), with scores of 0 to 3 as average risk and scores of 4 or higher as high risk. The scoring system was tested in the validation cohort. We used the Cochran-Armitage test of trend to compare the prevalence of APN among subjects in each group.
RESULTS: In the validation cohort, 79.5% of patients were classified as average risk and 20.5% were classified as high risk. The prevalence of APN in the average-risk group was 1.9% and in the high-risk group was 9.4% (adjusted relative risk, 5.08; 95% CI, 3.38-7.62; P < .001). The score included age (61-70 y, 3; ≥70 y, 4), smoking habits (current/past, 2), family history of colorectal cancer (present in a first-degree relative, 2), and the presence of neoplasia in the distal colorectum (nonadvanced adenoma 5-9 mm, 2; advanced neoplasia, 7). The c-statistic of the score was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79), and for distal findings alone was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test statistic was greater than 0.05, indicating the reliability of the validation set. The number needed to refer was 11 (95% CI, 10-13), and the number needed to screen was 15 (95% CI, 12-17).
CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN. Screening participants who undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with a score of 4 points or higher should undergo colonoscopy evaluation.