To better understand how the public defines ‘healthy’ foods and to determine whether the public considers sustainability, implicitly and explicitly, in the context of healthy eating.

We conducted a content analysis of public comments submitted to the US FDA in 2016 and 2017 in response to an invitation for feedback on use of the term ‘healthy’ on food labels. The analysis explored the ways in which commenters’ definitions of ‘healthy’ aligned with the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and whether their definitions considered sustainability.

The US Government’s Regulations.gov website.

All 1125 unique comments from individuals and organisations.

Commenters’ definitions of ‘healthy’ generally mirrored the recommendations that the Dietary Guidelines for Americans put forth to promote a ‘healthy eating pattern’. Commenters emphasised the healthfulness of fruit, vegetables, whole grains, fish and other minimally processed foods and the need to limit added sugars, sodium, saturated and trans fats and other ingredients sometimes added during processing. One-third of comments (n 374) incorporated at least one dimension of sustainability, mainly the environmental dimension. Commenters who mentioned environmental considerations primarily expressed concerns about synthetic chemicals and genetic modification. Less than 20 % of comments discussed social or economic dimensions of sustainability, and less than 3 % of comments (n 30) used the word ‘sustainability’ explicitly.

This novel analysis provides new information about the public’s perceptions of ‘healthy’ foods relative to nutrition and sustainability considerations. The findings can be used to advance policy discussions regarding nutrition labelling and guidance.

On 3–4 October 2022, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences hosted the Third Annual United States (US) Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD). The purpose of this article is to reflect on the event within the broader context of the international WHPCD theme: “healing hearts and communities.” We describe lessons learned in anticipation of the fourth annual conference to be held on 3–4 October 2023.

Description of the third annual event, conference planning team reflection, and attendee evaluation responses.

The Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care globally. Since 2020, the conference has attracted an increasing number of attendees from around the world. Two primary aims continue to guide the event: community building and wisdom sharing. Fifty-two interprofessional palliative care experts, advocates, patients, and caregivers provided 13 unique interactive sessions. Four hundred and fifty-eight multidisciplinary registrants from at least 17 countries joined the program. Free registration for colleagues in low- and middle-income countries, students and trainees, and individuals experiencing financial hardship remains a cornerstone of inclusion and equitable access to the event.

The US WHPCD celebration provides a virtual platform that offers opportunities for scientific dissemination and collective reflection on hospice and palliative care delivery amid significant local and global changes in clinical practice, research, policy and advocacy, and population health. We remain committed to ensuring an internationally relevant, culturally diverse, and multidisciplinary agenda that will continue to draw increased participation worldwide during future annual events.

Text message-delivered interventions for chronic disease self-management have potential to reduce health disparities, yet limited research has explored implementing these interventions into clinical care. We partnered with safety net clinics to evaluate a texting intervention for type 2 diabetes called REACH (Rapid Encouragement/Education And Communications for Health) in a randomized controlled trial. Following evaluation, we explored potential implementation determinants and recommended implementation strategies.

We interviewed clinic staff (n = 14) and a subset of intervention participants (n = 36) to ask about REACH’s implementation potential. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as an organizing framework, we coded transcripts and used thematic analysis to derive implementation barriers and facilitators. We integrated the CFIR-ERIC (Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change) Matching Tool, interview feedback, and the literature to recommend implementation strategies.

Implementation facilitators included low complexity, strong evidence and quality, available clinic resources, the need for a program to support diabetes self-management, and strong fit between REACH and both the clinics’ existing workflows and patients’ needs and resources. The barriers included REACH only being available in English, a lack of interoperability with electronic health record systems, patients’ concerns about diabetes stigma, limited funding, and high staff turnover. Categories of recommended implementation strategies included training and education, offering flexibility and adaptation, evaluating key processes, and securing funding.

Text message-delivered interventions have strong potential for integration in low-resource settings as a supplement to care. Pursuing implementation can ensure patients benefit from these innovations and help close the research to practice gap.

On October 5–6, 2021, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences hosted the 2nd Annual United States (US) Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD). The purpose of this article is to describe the event within the broader context of the international WHPCD theme: “Leave No One Behind — Equity in Access to Palliative Care.” We reflect on lessons learned in anticipation of the 3rd annual conference to be held October 3–4, 2022.

Description of the 2nd annual event, conference planning team reflection, and attendee evaluation responses.

The Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care around the world. The 2021 US-based innovative virtual conference featured 37 interprofessional hospice and palliative care specialists and patient and family caregiver speakers across 11 diverse sessions with a focus on health equity and COVID-19 considerations. Two primary aims continue to guide the event: community building and wisdom sharing at the intersection of art and science. 278 registrants from at least 14 countries and 21 different states across the US joined the program, which served as a global debriefing for hospice and palliative care workers from diverse settings, contexts, and disciplines.

The US WHPCD Celebration creates a virtual coming together for collective reflection on hospice and palliative care delivery amid vast changes in clinical practice, research, and policy, both locally and globally. In addition, our goal to ensure an internationally relevant, culturally inclusive, and multidisciplinary agenda will continue to draw increased participation worldwide during future annual events.

Approximately 70% of patients with bipolar disorder (BPD) are initially misdiagnosed, resulting in significantly delayed diagnosis of 7–10 years on average. Misdiagnosis and diagnostic delay adversely affect health outcomes and lead to the use of inappropriate treatments. As depressive episodes and symptoms are the predominant symptom presentation in BPD, misdiagnosis as major depressive disorder (MDD) is common. Self-rated screening instruments for BPD exist but their length and reliance on past manic symptoms are barriers to implementation, especially in primary care settings where many of these patients initially present. We developed a brief, pragmatic bipolar I disorder (BPD-I) screening tool that not only screens for manic symptoms but also includes risk factors for BPD-I (eg, age of depression onset) to help clinicians reduce the misdiagnosis of BPD-I as MDD.

Existing questionnaires and risk factors were identified through a targeted literature search; a multidisciplinary panel of experts participated in 2 modified Delphi panels to select concepts thought to differentiate BPD-I from MDD. Individuals with self-reported BPD-I or MDD participated in cognitive debriefing interviews (N=12) to test and refine item wording. A multisite, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted to evaluate the screening tool’s predictive validity. Participants with clinical interview-confirmed diagnoses of BPD-I or MDD completed a draft 10-item screening tool and additional questionnaires/questions. Different combinations of item sets with various item permutations (eg, number of depressive episodes, age of onset) were simultaneously tested. The final combination of items and thresholds was selected based on multiple considerations including clinical validity, optimization of sensitivity and specificity, and pragmatism.

A total of 160 clinical interviews were conducted; 139 patients had clinical interview-confirmed BPD-I (n=67) or MDD (n=72). The screening tool was reduced from 10 to 6 items based on item-level analysis. When 4 items or more were endorsed (yes) in this analysis sample, the sensitivity of this tool for identifying patients with BPD-I was 0.88 and specificity was 0.80; positive and negative predictive values were 0.80 and 0.88, respectively. These properties represent an improvement over the Mood Disorder Questionnaire, while using >50% fewer items.

This new 6-item BPD-I screening tool serves to differentiate BPD-I from MDD in patients with depressive symptoms. Use of this tool can provide real-world guidance to primary care practitioners on whether more comprehensive assessment for BPD-I is warranted. Use of a brief and valid tool provides an opportunity to reduce misdiagnosis, improve treatment selection, and enhance health outcomes in busy clinical practices.

AbbVie Inc.

The appropriate activation and effective utilization of air-medical transport (AMT) services is an important skill for emergency medicine physicians in the United States.Previous studies have demonstrated variability with regards to emergency medical services (EMS) experience during residency training. This study was designed to evaluate the nature and extent of AMT training of the emergency medicine residency programs in the United States.

An identity-unlinked survey of the program directors of all Accreditation Committee for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved emergency medicine residency programs was conducted.The survey focused on EMS and AMT resident training opportunities and was conducted in two phases (1999 and 2006) using near-identical methodologies.

Response rates of 82% and 84% were achieved in 1999 and 2006, respectively. Percentages of programs offering AMT experiences were similar between the two study phases (76% in 1999 and 65% in 2006). The roles of residents during AMT experiences ranged widely between observer-only, active team member, and medical director/team leader in both 1999 and 2006. Compared to those in 1999, programs in 2006 demonstrated a greater frequency of EMS rotations being provided earlier, by year of training during emergency medicine residency. Residencies located in non-metropolitan centers only were slightly more likely to offer AMT training than were those in metropolitan locations.

A majority of emergency medicine residency programs offer AMT experience that includes both scene responses and inter-facility transports. The role of residents during AMT training varies widely, as does the timing of their experiences during residency. The geographical locations of programs do not appear to impact the availability of AMT training.

Conflicts, social unrest, and disasters can significantly affect the ability of a healthcare system to provide for the needs of its citizens. The collapse of the primary healthcare system in Serbia is a model of the effects that civil unrest can have on the health of a population. However, with improving social and political conditions, focus now can be turned towards the greatly needed development and reorganization of the primary healthcare system in Serbia.

Due to the complexity of health-system reform in the post-conflict/post-disaster setting, attempts to restructure health services are fraught with pitfalls that often are unanticipated because of inadequate preliminary assessments. A multimodal assessment involving quantitative and qualitative methodologies may provide a more robust mechanism to identify key programmatic priorities and critical barriers for appropriate and sustainable health-system interventions. The purpose of this study is to describe a multimodal assessment using primary healthcare in post-conflict Serbia as a model.

Integrated quantitative and qualitative methodologies—system characterization and observation, focus group discussions, free-response questionnaires, and Q-methodology—were used to identify needs, problems, and potential barriers to primary healthcare development in Serbia. Participants included primary healthcare providers and administrators from 13 institutions throughout Belgrade.

Demographic data indicate a well-established infrastructure of primary health centers and stations. However, focus group discussions and free-response questionnaires reveal significant impediments to delivery of care: (1) Inadequate equipment, supplies, and medications; (2) Poor financial investment; (3) Discouraging worker salaries; (4) Few opportunities for professional development; and (5) Little emphasis on or respect for primary healthcare. Q-methodology of provider perceptions and opinions supports these concerns, shows remarkable consensus among participants, and provides further insights toward system development by grouping respondents into distinctive types.

This study identified the critical needs and barriers to development of primary healthcare in Serbia. This combined methodology may serve as a model for future health system assessments in the post-conflict and post-disaster settings.