Journal of General Internal Medicine

Importance Missed outpatient appointments, including no-shows and cancellations, may disrupt continuity of care and be associated with worse outcomes, but long-term system-wide patterns and clinical implications are not well characterized. Objective To characterize variation in missed appointment rates in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) over time and by geographic location, visit modality, and preexisting conditions, and to evaluate associations between missed appointment rates and adverse outcomes among veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI). Design Cohort study using VHA Corporate Data Warehouse outpatient appointment data from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2024. Setting National integrated health care system of the VHA. Participants System analysis includes all scheduled outpatient appointments with a valid status, and outcome analysis includes veterans with PTSD (n = 1 429 890) or TBI (n = 554 553), diagnosed before 2023. Exposures For system -level analyses, missed appointment rates were calculated. In outcome analyses, 2023 missed appointment rates were categorized into tertiles within the cohort and appointment type. Main Outcomes and Measures One year risks of all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization or death beginning January 1, 2024. Results Among 2,162,520,880 outpatient appointments from 2000 to 2024, 6.5% were no-shows and 25.4% were canceled. Across facilities, no-show rates ranged from 3.5% to 14.1%, patient-initiated cancellation rates from 9.7% to 26.0%, and clinic-initiated cancellation rates from 8.5% to 17.9%. In 2023, veterans with amputation, Parkinson disease, PTSD, or TBI had higher missed appointment rates than veterans without these conditions. Among veterans with PTSD, the highest no-show tertile, compared with none, was associated with higher mortality (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.84-1.98) and hospitalization or death (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08). Among veterans with TBI, the highest no-show tertile was associated with hospitalization or death (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.61-1.69). Conclusions and Relevance Missed outpatient appointments were common in the VHA and varied substantially across facilities and over time. Among veterans with PTSD or TBI, higher missed appointment rates, particularly no-shows, were associated with increased risks of hospitalization and mortality, suggesting that these patterns may help identify high-risk veterans for targeted outreach.

Purpose: High clinical workload is associated with worse patient and hospital outcomes and is a well-established driver of clinician burnout. Trainees may be particularly exposed, shouldering both clinical and educational responsibilities. Evidence-based work design offers a data-driven approach to healthcare work but relies on robust workload measurements. Trainee workload remains poorly characterized, as commonly used metrics (e.g., duty hours, patient census) overlook cognitive and contextual dimensions. This pilot evaluated the feasibility of combining survey-based and electronic health record (EHR) data to characterize internal medicine (IM) trainee workload. Methods: A pilot study was conducted including IM and Medicine-Pediatrics residents (postgraduate years 1-4) between March 31 and June 22, 2025. Participants completed daily surveys during a seven-day inpatient schedule assessing workload and work experience domains, including environment, professional fulfillment, psychological safety, autonomy, and rounding experience, using validated instruments where available. Concurrently, EHR data captured chart review, documentation, orders, and secure messaging activity. Associations between survey and EHR data were assessed. Results: Among 37 eligible residents, 28 (76%) participated in the pilot capturing 166 shifts. Trainees spent 4.4 +/- 1.6 (mean +/- SD) minutes completing daily surveys and 8.6 +/- 2.3 minutes completing the final survey. Trainees reported working 11.6 +/- 1.0 hours/day and a median census of 9.0 (IQR 6.0-11.0). NASA-TLX score was 50.8 +/- 12.6. Positive shift ratings were associated with lower NASA-TLX scores and perceived rounding length. First-to-last EHR login duration was 15 +/- 2 hours/day, and EHR data showed 204 +/- 46 active minutes/day. Login duration correlated with self-reported hours (r=0.43, p<0.0001), and notes signed correlated with self-reported team (r=0.19, p=0.013) and personal census (r=0.34, p<0.0001). Conclusions: Integrating survey-based and EHR-derived workload measures provides multidimensional insight into trainee work. This novel approach supports scalable measurement and evidence-based work design interventions to improve trainee well-being, education, and clinical efficiency.

Background Therapeutic empathy improves patient and practitioner outcomes, yet existing measures are often lengthy, conceptually inconsistent, and cannot be easily compared across respondent groups. Brief, universal measures (usable by patients, practitioners, students, and observers) are lacking. We therefore developed a universal single-item scale and conducted psychometric testing of the patient-reported version. Methods Following best-practice, we used a three-phase approach: (1) item development; (2) pre-testing the scale by obtaining expert panel feedback (n=9) and conducting cognitive interviews with stakeholders (n=35); and (3) scale validation in an international patient sample (n=521) assessing convergent, discriminant, and known-groups validity. Validation involved assessing correlations with the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure and clinical neutrality measure, and by assessing differences in scores by patient ethnicity. Results We developed two versions (pictorial and text-based) of each scale. Expert feedback and cognitive interviews confirmed content and face validity. Pictorial and text-based versions showed high convergent validity with the CARE measure (r=0.761 and r=0.838, both p<0.001), and discriminant validity with a clinical neutrality measure (r=0.131 and r=0.139, p=0.003 and p=0.001, respectively). Correlations with the CARE measure remained high (r>0.70) and statistically significant (p<0.001) across patient gender, ethnicity, and practitioner type. Ethnic minority patients rated practitioner empathy lower than White patients (pictorial p=0.057; text-based p=0.033), demonstrating known-groups validity. Patients rated doctors' empathy higher than other healthcare practitioners' (p=0.001 for both pictorial and text-based); there were no significant differences in empathy scores by patient gender. Conclusions We developed the first universal single-item therapeutic empathy measure and demonstrated validity for the patient-reported versions. The scale is brief, accessible, and applicable to clinical practice, education, and research. Further research should validate practitioner-, student-, and observer-reported versions, and assess predictive and cross-cultural validity. This robust tool can support patient-reported routine measurement of therapeutic empathy and contribute to improving patient and practitioner outcomes.

Background Persons experiencing homelessness (PEH) have a 2-3-fold greater risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality compared with domiciled counterparts. Evidence has repeatedly shown elevated chronic disease burden, reduced access to many types of care, and lower utilization of medication to control CVD risk factors in clinical settings dedicated to providing health care to PEH. There are federally funded health clinics targeting barriers to access for patient populations experiencing homelessness in place. These clinics are frequently overwhelmed and limited by their scope to primary care despite well documented burdens of co- and tri-morbid conditions. There is scarce evidence on differences between access, quality, and experiences of care delivered relative to other safety-net models. Method The 2022 Health Center Patient Survey (HCPS) was collected on behalf of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The HCPS is a nationally representative, three-staged, sample-based survey collected via 1:1 interview with clinic patients. The survey assessed sociodemographics, health conditions and behaviors, access to and utilization of care, and patients? experiences with comprehensive services they received at HRSA-funded Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), including community health centers (CHC), healthcare for the homeless (HCH) clinics, and public housing primary care (PHPC) clinics. One hundred and three unique awardees and 318 health center sites were recruited, and 4,414 patient interviews were completed. Investigators analyzed patient characteristics and multiple survey items related to AHA?s Essential 8 metrics for differences between HCH and CHC patient responses. Results HCH clinics had fewer elderly patients (~7%) than CHCs (~17%). Reported 7-day physical activity measures, average sleep below 7 hours per day, and Lifetime smoking (>100 cigarettes; OR=4.2, p<0.001) were all greatest among HCH patients. Fewer HCH patients reported ever having or recent lipid tests (both p<0.001). HCH patients were more likely to report hypertension (p=0.003) but less likely to report receiving nutrition advice (all p<0.05). HCH patients were less likely to be taking medication even if it was prescribed (p<0.001). Adjustments for differences in age or CVD history were able to explain some observed differences but increased the magnitude of other disparities. Conclusions CVD burden differs across the various HRSA funding mechanisms for clinics, as do demographics and multiple metrics of health behaviors and biomarkers of cardiovascular health. Greater disease burden in HCH patients is likely compounded by increased risk factors and underperformance in providing health education interventions.

ObjectivesAlarm fatigue is a patient safety concern in ICUs, yet no validated instrument exists to assess alarm fatigue among healthcare professionals in non-Western settings. This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt the Charite Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire (CAFQa) into Japanese and evaluate its reliability and validity among ICU nurses and physicians. MethodsThe Japanese CAFQa was cross-culturally adapted following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines, including forward translation, back-translation, expert panel review, and cognitive interviews. A multicenter cross-sectional validation study was performed across eight ICUs at five hospitals in Japan. A total of 129 participants (103 nurses and 26 physicians) completed the Japanese CAFQa, the NIOSH Brief Job Stress Questionnaire, and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability (n = 102), convergent validity, and known-groups validity were assessed. ResultsCFA confirmed the two-factor structure with acceptable fit (CFI = 0.922, RMSEA = 0.041, SRMR = 0.076), with standardized factor loadings ranging from 0.33 to 0.82. The two factors were not correlated (r = 0.05). Cronbachs alpha was 0.688 for the overall scale, 0.805 for Alarm Stress, and 0.649 for Alarm Coping. Test-retest ICCs ranged from 0.616 to 0.753. The CAFQa total score correlated with the NIOSH total (r = 0.261) and the ISI total (r = 0.338). Healthcare professionals with [&ge;]4 years of ICU experience had higher Alarm Coping scores than those with 1-3 years (median 7.0 vs 6.5), and physicians scored higher on Alarm Coping than nurses (median 8.0 vs 7.0). ConclusionsThe Japanese CAFQa demonstrated acceptable structural validity, reliability, and convergent and known-groups validity, providing the first validated tool for quantitatively measuring alarm fatigue in Japan. Implications for Clinical PracticeThe Japanese CAFQa enables ICU managers to quantify alarm fatigue at individual and unit levels, identify high-risk staff, and evaluate the effectiveness of alarm management interventions.

Background and ObjectivesPatient portals have become essential infrastructure for healthcare delivery following the 21st Century Cures Act, yet adoption remains inequitable. Understanding demographic and geographic determinants of portal activation is critical for addressing digital health disparities, particularly among neurology patients who face unique access barriers. We examined the demographic, geographic, and neighborhood-level factors associated with patient portal activation among neurology patients at multiple geographic scales in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 72,417 adult neurology patients seen at two academic medical centers sharing an electronic health record in Washington, DC (February 2021-February 2026). We examined portal activation using multivariable logistic regression and geographic analysis at four nested scales: the metropolitan catchment area, DCs eight wards, individual census tracts (via geocoded patient addresses), and individual DC residents. ResultsPortal activation was 64.7% overall. Activation varied by race/ethnicity (Non-Hispanic White 76.1%, Non-Hispanic Black 57.0%, Non-Hispanic Asian 57.6%, Hispanic 55.0%) and geography (DC Ward 2: 82.0% vs. Ward 7: 48.0%). Ward-level educational attainment (r = 0.948), broadband access (r = 0.889), and income (r = 0.811) were strongly correlated with activation. Within individual wards, Non-Hispanic White patients activated at 84-91% while Non-Hispanic Black patients activated at 48-64%, demonstrating that neighborhood resources alone do not explain disparities. DiscussionPatient portal activation is shaped by demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic factors operating at multiple levels. Persistent within-ward racial disparities indicate that geographically targeted interventions must be paired with culturally tailored approaches to achieve digital health equity.

BackgroundHigh workload among healthcare workers has increasingly been correlated with poor patient outcomes, inefficient operational and financial outcomes, and burnout. Despite growing literature exploring causes of attending physician workload, there is limited understanding of trainee-specific measures. ObjectiveWe aimed to characterize elements contributing to trainee workload and perceived challenges and satisfiers to the trainee workday as a foundation for better understanding and measuring trainee work experience. MethodsInternal Medicine and Medicine-Pediatrics residents at an academic medical center were invited to participate in focus groups discussing contributors to inpatient workload and work experience between March and April 2024. A qualitative content analysis identified key metrics of trainee workload and work experience, which were then consolidated into overarching domains. A structured, multi-round rating process ranked the perceived relevance of each metric. ResultsTwenty residents participated across six focus groups. Analysis of focus groups yielded 297 workload metrics across 28 unique domains. Seventeen domains had metrics identified as highly relevant (median 6-7; IQR < 1) including autonomy, communication, disruptions, task switching, documentation, emotional burden, patient factors, professional fulfillment, rounding, teaming, and work-life balance. ConclusionsResident physicians highlighted complex interactions between clinical factors, work design, and psychosocial dynamics that contribute to their sense of workload. This creates opportunities to develop unique measures of workload to understand the trainee experience better. Further studies are needed to capture the generalizability of these findings and the relationship between these workload domains and patient, organizational, and trainee outcomes with the aim of implementing evidence-based work design.

Importance: Physicians routinely prognosticate to guide care delivery and shared decision making, particularly when caring for patients with critical illnesses. Yet, these physician estimates are prone to inaccuracy and uncertainty. Artificial intelligence, including large language models (LLMs), show promise in supporting or improving this prognostication. However, the performance of contemporary LLMs in prognosticating for the heterogeneous population of critically ill patients remains poorly understood. Objective: To characterize and compare the performance of LLMs and physicians when predicting 6-month mortality for hospitalized adults who survived critical illness. Design: Embedded mixed methods study with elicitation and comparison of prognostic estimates and reasoning from LLMs and practicing physicians. Setting: The publicly available, deidentified Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV v2.2 dataset. Participants: We randomly selected 100 hospitalizations of adult survivors of critical illness. Four contemporary LLMs (Open AI GPT-4o, o3- and o4-mini, and DeepSeek-R1) and 7 physicians provided independent prognostic estimates for each case (1,100 total estimates; 400 LLM and 700 physician). Main outcomes and measures: For each case, LLMs and physicians used the hospital discharge summary and demographics to predict 6-month mortality (yes/no) and provide their reasoning (free text). We assessed prognostic performance using accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, and used inductive, qualitative content analysis to characterize reasonings. Results: Mean physician accuracy for predicting mortality was 70.1% (95% CI 63.7-76.4%), with sensitivity of 59.7% (95% CI 50.6-68.8%) and specificity of 80.6% (95% CI 71.7-88.2%). The top-performing LLM (OpenAI o4-mini) accuracy was 78.0% (95% CI 70.0-86.0%), with sensitivity of 80.0% (95% CI 67.4-90.2%) and specificity of 76.0% (95% CI 63.3-88.0%). The difference between mean physician and top-performing LLM accuracy was not statistically significant (p = 0.5). Qualitative analysis revealed similar patterns in LLM and physician expressed reasoning, except that physicians regularly and explicitly reported uncertainty while LLMs did not. Conclusion and Relevance: In this study, LLMs and physicians achieved comparable, moderate performance in predicting 6-month mortality after critical illness, with similar patterns in expressed reasoning. Our findings suggest LLMs could be used to support prognostication in clinical practice but also raise safety concerns due to the lack of LLM uncertainty expression.

IntroductionThere is increasing interest in the peripheral administration of vasopressors for two main reasons: (1) to expedite vasopressor initiation in patients with refractory shock and (2) to avoid the potential complications associated with central venous catheter placement. The current evidence on the use of peripheral vasopressor administration is primarily based on single-center observational studies. There are inconsistencies in the administration of peripheral vasopressors, including catheter gauge and location, monitoring practices, vasopressor concentrations, and duration of use. This has made it difficult for institutions to develop best practice guidelines. A randomized controlled trial is needed to address this knowledge gap. Methods and analysisThe Peripheral Use of Low-dose Vasopressors for Safety and Efficacy (PULSE) in the intensive care unit is a prospective, unblinded feasibility study. Eligible patients will be 18 years or older, have no existing central venous catheter or peripherally inserted central catheter and have the presence of shock requiring a minimum vasopressor dose of any of the following: norepinephrine 0.0625 mcg/kg/min, phenylephrine 0.625 mcg/kg/min, and epinephrine 0.0625 mcg/kg/min. Fifty patients will be randomized 1:1 into either the peripheral venous catheter or central venous catheter group. The primary outcome is feasibility, defined as (1) a recruitment rate of 4 participants per month, (2) a data capture rate of [&ge;]90%, and (3) a <50% conversion rate from peripheral to central access. The secondary outcomes include the safety of peripheral vasopressor use, alive and central-line-free days, the number of attempts needed to place a catheter, volume status, in-hospital mortality rate, ICU and hospital length of stay, and patient-centred important outcomes. ImplicationsThe data collected from this study will inform the design of a definitive randomized controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of protocol-driven peripheral vasopressor administration. Ethics and disseminationThis study received approval (6042888) from the Queens University Health Sciences/Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Boards. Results of this study will be presented at critical care conferences and submitted for publication. Trial registration numberNCT06920173 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06920173).

Abstract Background Between 2021 and 2022, primary care obesity management was entering the early diffusion phase of newer anti obesity pharmacotherapy, as GLP1 based treatments began reshaping expectations. However, it was unclear whether primary care clinicians and practice environments were prepared to deliver comprehensive obesity care. (1,2) Methods In 2021 to 2022, we surveyed 276 clinicians from three cohorts: an opt-in national physician panel (Cohort A), clinicians from an integrated health system (Cohort B), and clinicians from a rural accountable care organization (Cohort C). The survey, informed by formative patient and physician focus groups conducted in 2021, assessed current and desired competence, attitudes, confidence, perceived forces for change, and barriers to obesity care. Analyses were descriptive (means and standard deviations). Results Across cohorts, desired competence exceeded current competence. The largest gaps involved recommending behavioral interventions, developing comprehensive care plans, and providing ongoing obesity management support. Attitudes toward obesity care were generally favorable, while confidence that current practices reflected best practice was only moderate. Professional and personal forces for change were moderate, patient driven motivators were moderate to high, whereas social (peer/organizational) reinforcement was weak. Reported barriers extended beyond knowledge deficits to include patient engagement, competing demands, cost, and practical constraints. Conclusions At the threshold of the GLP1 era, primary care clinicians were motivated to improve obesity care but lacked consistent support to deliver comprehensive management. The relative absence of peer and organizational reinforcement suggests that readiness for change reflected not only individual knowledge and attitudes, but also the degree of peer and organizational reinforcement that supports comprehensive obesity care in routine practice.

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a cost-effective, evidence-based intervention that improves outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF), yet access remains inequitable, particularly among Medicaid enrollees. This study evaluates the state-by-state variability in Medicaid coverage for CR services and examines the implications for health equity in vulnerable populations. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional policy analysis of all 50 U.S. states to assess Medicaid coverage for outpatient CR services billed under CPT codes 93797 (without ECG monitoring) and 93798 (with ECG monitoring). Publicly available Medicaid documents were reviewed and supplemented with direct communication with state Medicaid agencies. States were categorized into full, partial/inconclusive, or no coverage. Geographic trends were visualized through heat maps and contextualized using state-level Medicaid enrollment data. Results: Marked disparities in CR coverage were identified. Only 41 states reimbursed for CPT 93797, and 43 for CPT 93798. Eight states lacked coverage for either code, predominantly in the South and Mountain West, including Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, and Utah. States with the highest Medicaid enrollment (e.g., Louisiana, Arkansas) often provided no CR coverage, compounding access barriers for high-risk, low-income populations. Conclusions: The absence of standardized Medicaid coverage for CR contributes to systemic inequities in cardiovascular care, disproportionately impacting disadvantaged communities. Aligning Medicaid policies to ensure universal CR access--particularly through tele-rehabilitation and value-based care models--could reduce hospitalizations, improve survival, and promote health equity across the U.S.

Introduction. Current best practice is for primary care physicians (PCPs) to screen patients for problematic substance use at checkups. However, this practice is not routine, is done in an unstandardized manner, and contributes to the overburdening of PCPs. Screening practices also target current, potentially problematic use behaviors, thus limiting their capacity to help patients prevent problems before they start. Recent scientific advances in identifying people at high risk for substance use problems as a means of facilitating prevention efforts have not yet been integrated into medical practice. To address these issues, our research team developed a freestanding platform called the Comprehensive Addiction Risk Evaluation System (CARES). CARES provides personalized information about genetic and behavioral/environmental risk for substance use disorder (SUD) and connects individuals to resources based on their risk profile. The present study evaluated the potential for adoption and implementation of CARES within a health care system through qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. Methods. Semi-structured interviews were developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and conducted with N=15 interviewees. Transcripts were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis. Results. Key themes included perceived need for new SUD screening tools, current SUD screening procedures and their pros/cons, openness to new ideas and clinical tools, fit of CARES with organizational goals and priorities, considerations for use of CARES with adolescent populations, anticipated patient response to CARES, barriers to implementation and uptake of CARES, changes required for implementation, and possibility for medical record integration. Interviewees generally expressed need for new screening tools and openness to using new tools, but expressed concern that existing provider burden, lack of SUD knowledge, and discomfort/stigma could stymie efforts to implement CARES. Conclusions. There is a clear need for a low-burden, easy-to-use tool for substance use screening. CARES appears to be an acceptable and feasible approach to fill this gap. These findings will be used to inform pilot implementation of CARES in a clinical care setting.

Background: The 2024-25 influenza season was the most severe in the United States (US) since 2017-18, with co-circulation of both influenza A virus subtypes (H1N1 and H3N2). Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) has varied by season, setting, and patient characteristics. Methods: Using electronic healthcare encounter data from eight US states, we evaluated influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against influenza-associated hospitalizations and emergency department or urgent care (ED/UC) encounters from October 2024-April 2025 among children aged 6 months-17 years and adults aged 18+ years. Using a test-negative, case-control design, we compared the odds of influenza vaccination between acute respiratory illness (ARI) encounters with a positive (cases) versus negative (controls) test for influenza by molecular assay, adjusting for confounders. Results: Analyses included 108,618 encounters (5,764 hospitalizations and 102,854 ED/UC encounters) among children and 309,483 encounters (76,072 hospitalizations and 233,411 ED/UC encounters) among adults. Among children across care settings, 17.0% (6,097/35,765) of cases versus 29.4% (21,449/72,853) of controls were vaccinated. Among adults, 28.2% (21,832/77,477) of cases versus 44.2% (102,560/232,006) of controls were vaccinated. VE was 51% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 41-60%) against influenza-associated hospitalizations and 54% (95% CI: 52-55%) against influenza-associated ED/UC encounters among children. VE was 43% (95% CI: 41-46%) against influenza-associated hospitalizations and 49% (95% CI: 47-50%) against influenza-associated ED/UC encounters among adults. Conclusions: Influenza vaccination provided protection against influenza-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC encounters among children and adults in the US during the severe 2024-25 influenza season. These findings support influenza vaccination as an important tool to reduce influenza-associated disease.

Background Individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness face substantial barriers to preventive eye care that are poorly addressed by standard service models. Interdisciplinary optometry-social work collaboration offers a rights-based approach to improving engagement and continuity of care. Methods A convergent mixed-methods study was conducted between February and August 2024 at a multidisciplinary community centre. Clients experiencing or at risk of homelessness received integrated optometry and social work assessment and were prioritised as high, medium, or low based on combined clinical and social risk. Social work follow-up was guided by the Triple Mandate and W-Questions framework. Quantitative data were summarised using mean (SD), median [IQR], or n (%). Qualitative case notes were analysed using content analysis with inductive coding and secondary review for consistency. Results A total of 165 clients had priority categories coded (high: 68; medium: 47; low: 154). Demographic data were available for 132 clients (60% male; mean age 49.5 years [SD 16]); 27% had not completed high school, 89% reported weekly income below AUD 1000, and 28% had vision impairment. Two hundred forty-five case-note entries were consolidated into 146 unique records. SMS (46%) and phone calls (38%) were the most documented contact methods, although only 21% of calls were answered; missed calls (13%) and disconnected numbers (7%) were common. Multi-modal contact was more frequently documented for higher-priority clients. Appointment assistance was the most recorded facilitator (71%), while rights-based supports, including interpreter and transport assistance, were infrequently documented (<=5%). Qualitative analysis identified unstable communication, reliance on informal supports, and service fragmentation as key influences on recall outcomes. Conclusion This study supports an interdisciplinary, rights-based optometry-social work model to address barriers to preventive eye care among people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Embedding structured handovers and tiered recall processes within community-based services may strengthen continuity and accountability for high-priority clients. Future implementation should evaluate outcomes related to equity of reach, service integration, and sustained engagement in care.

Religion has contributed to societal divides regarding COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. In this study, we conducted a secondary analysis of a survey of U.S. adults (N=4939) focused on how religious affiliations, beliefs, and practices impact attitudes toward genetic and genomic activities, one of which was mRNA vaccines. The dataset included large samples of participants from six religious groups in the U.S. (Black Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, Jewish, Mainline Protestant, and Muslim), as well as individuals who were atheist, agnostic, or spiritual. ANCOVA results indicated that Evangelical Protestant participants showed significantly less support for mRNA vaccines than other groups, while atheist participants were the most supportive. Muslim participants had the highest concerns, whereas atheist participants had the lowest. Regression analyses indicated the strongest predictors of support for mRNA vaccines were more spiritual community support for community health, followed by higher acceptance of evolution, more liberal political orientation, less distrust toward the healthcare system, higher frequency of attending religious activities, higher income, lower fundamentalist religious beliefs, and more spiritual community support for liberal reproductive and end of life views. The strongest predictors of concerns about mRNA vaccines were more distrust toward the healthcare system and more conservative political orientation, followed by less spiritual community support for community health, stronger beliefs about God in the body, more fundamentalist religious beliefs, and lower knowledge of genetics. The large sample size, and examination of a broad array of religious variables alongside distrust and political orientation offer new insights. These findings add to the literature on the culture wars surrounding mRNA vaccines, and can perhaps aid in future efforts to build trust and relationships between public health and religious communities.

Background: Lifestyle interventions incorporating medically-tailored meal delivery may support rapid behavior change among pregnant individuals with gestational diabetes (GDM). Purpose: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of a multicomponent lifestyle intervention for pregnant individuals with GDM. Primary outcomes included recruitment, retention, intervention receipt, and acceptability. Methods: We conducted a pilot randomized feasibility trial among pregnant individuals with GDM recruited from maternal fetal medicine clinics in the Hartford, Connecticut area. Participants were randomized to usual GDM care or the Meals4Moms intervention plus usual care. The intervention included medically-tailored meal delivery, personalized physical activity support, and multimodal education with digital tools. Participants completed a survey and three 24-hour dietary recalls at baseline and post-intervention. Meals4Moms participants also completed a semi-structured interview at follow-up. Intervention receipt was tracked by study staff. Results: Of 30 individuals approached, we screened 80% (n=24), of whom 75% (n=18/24) were eligible; we randomized 8 participants. Seventy-five percent (n=6/8) completed at least one component of the follow-up assessment (100%, n=4/4 Meals4Moms, 50%, n=2/4 Usual Care). One participant spent [&ge;]80% of her total food budget (n=1/4, 25%), and no participants completed [&ge;]80% of prescribed exercise sessions (range: 0-50%). All (n=4) Meals4Moms participants reported they would be very likely to participate in the program if they had GDM again, and 100% (n=4) would be very likely to recommend the program to a friend with GDM. Conclusions: While the Meals4Moms intervention was highly acceptable to participants, procedural refinements are needed prior to conducting a full-scale efficacy trial.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in mental health contexts, yet their detection of suicidal ideation is inconsistent, raising patient safety concerns. Objective: To evaluate whether an independent safety monitoring system improves detection of suicide risk compared with native LLM safeguards. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional evaluation using 224 paired suicide-related clinical vignettes presented in a single-turn format under two conditions (with and without structured clinical information). Native LLM safeguard responses were compared with an independent supervisory safety architecture with asynchronous monitoring. The primary outcome was detection of suicide risk requiring intervention. Results: The supervisory system detected suicide risk in 205 of 224 evaluations (91.5%) versus 41 of 224 (18.3%) for native LLM safeguards. Among 168 discordant evaluations, 166 favored the supervisory system and 2 favored the LLM (matched odds ratio {approx}83.0). Both systems detected risk in 39 evaluations, and neither in 17. Detection was highest in scenarios with explicit suicidal ideation and lower in more ambiguous presentations. Conclusions: Native LLM safeguards frequently failed to detect suicide risk in this structured evaluation. An independent monitoring approach substantially improved detection, supporting the role of external safety systems in high-risk mental health applications of LLMs.

Abstract Importance Stigma and discrimination against transgender and gender-diverse people are prevalent across many settings and may contribute to substantial health disparities. Objective To synthesize global evidence on the prevalence of stigma, discrimination, and resilience among transgender (trans) and gender-diverse adults. Data Sources A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, LILACS, and PsycInfo for articles published between January 1, 2010 and January 2, 2023. This database search was supplemented by grey literature and secondary reference searches. Article Selection Studies were eligible if they presented primary quantitative data on prevalence of stigma, discrimination, and/or resilience among trans and gender-diverse adults (aged 18 and over), with no restrictions on study design, language, or geographic region. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data using standardized forms, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Articles was used to assess risk of bias. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted for dichotomous prevalence measures using inverse variance weighting and logit transformation; non-dichotomous prevalence data were summarized descriptively. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes included prevalence estimates for various forms of stigma (anticipated, perceived, internalized, and experienced), discrimination in legal/institutional settings (housing, healthcare, employment, police/prison), and resilience. Results A total of 97 articles, with data from 72,158 unique trans and gender-diverse participants across 26 countries, met inclusion criteria. Studies showed moderate levels of anticipated stigma, perceived stigma, and internalized stigma. Meta-analyses of 36 studies provided pooled estimates of discrimination prevalence across multiple domains: 21.4% in housing (e.g., eviction, rental denial), 24.6% in healthcare (e.g., denial of care, mistreatment), 32.8% in employment (e.g., hiring bias, workplace harassment), and 39.1% in police/prison settings (e.g., profiling, mistreatment). High heterogeneity was observed across studies, reflecting regional and methodological differences. Resilience scores ranged from moderate to high, indicating variation within trans and gender-diverse communities. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis found that stigma and discrimination against trans and gender-diverse adults are pervasive globally. Variation in stigma and discrimination across settings and regions underscores the need for targeted interventions and policy reforms. Funding World Health Organization through a grant from the Elton John AIDS Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Decarceration, the process of reducing incarceration rates, is increasingly viewed as a strategy to improve population health and reduce health inequities. Yet, evidence on its health effects remains limited and may depend on how decarceration occurs. We developed a national decarceration "atlas" to characterize the mechanisms and dynamics of decarceration across more than 2,800 U.S. counties between 1999-2019. Using longitudinal county-level jail and prison data, we identified four operational types of decarceration: reduced pretrial detention, reduced jail time, reduced prison admissions, and reduced prison time. Nearly two-thirds of counties, including most rural counties, experienced at least one decarceration type during the study period. Declines typically followed periods of recent growth and were relatively modest in magnitude, with median reductions of 19% to 38% ten years after onset. The frequency and timing of decarceration types varied by urbanicity, state, and region, with many counties experiencing multiple mechanisms concurrently. Validation against documented case studies of state and local decarceration demonstrated alignment with known legislative and de facto drivers, while revealing substantial sub-state heterogeneity. This atlas provides a scalable framework and hypothesis-generating resource to support comparative studies of decarceration's heterogeneous health effects.

Social determinants of health (SDoH) are important for clinical care, but it remains unclear how much AI-captured social context is preserved after clinician editing in ambient documentation workflows. We retrospectively analyzed 75,133 paired ambient AI-drafted and clinician-finalized note sections from ambulatory care at a large academic health system. Using a rule-based NLP pipeline, we extracted 21 SDoH categories and quantified retention, deletion, and addition. SDoH appeared in 25.2% of AI drafts versus 17.2% of final notes. At the mention level, AI captured 29,991 SDoH mentions, of which 45.1% were deleted, 54.9% were retained with clinicians adding 3,583 new mentions. Insurance and marital status were most often deleted, whereas substance use and physical activity were more often retained. Deletion patterns also varied by specialty, supporting the need for specialty-aware ambient AI systems.