Federal Practitioner

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of environmental metals in urine are associated with poorer cognitive performance and an increased risk for dementia, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter prospective cohort study included 6303 participants from six US study centers from 2000 to 2002, with follow-up through 2018.
• Participants were aged 45-84 years (median age at baseline, 60 years; 52% women) and were free of diagnosed cardiovascular disease.
• Researchers measured urinary levels of arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, tungsten, uranium, and zinc.
• Neuropsychological assessments included the Digit Symbol Coding, Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument, and Digit Span tests.
• The median follow-up duration was 11.7 years for participants with dementia and 16.8 years for those without; 559 cases of dementia were identified during the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lower Digit Symbol Coding scores were associated with higher urinary concentrations of arsenic (mean difference [MD] in score per interquartile range [IQR] increase, –0.03), cobalt (MD per IQR increase, –0.05), copper (MD per IQR increase, –0.05), uranium (MD per IQR increase, –0.04), and zinc (MD per IQR increase, –0.03).
• Effects for cobalt, uranium, and zinc were stronger in apolipoprotein epsilon 4 allele (APOE4) carriers vs noncarriers.
• Higher urinary levels of copper were associated with lower Digit Span scores (MD, –0.043) and elevated levels of copper (MD, –0.028) and zinc (MD, –0.024) were associated with lower global cognitive scores.
• Individuals with urinary levels of the nine-metal mixture at the 95th percentile had a 71% higher risk for dementia compared to those with levels at the 25th percentile, with the risk more pronounced in APOE4 carriers than in noncarriers (MD, –0.30 vs –0.10, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“We found an inverse association of essential and nonessential metals in urine, both individually and as a mixture, with the speed of mental operations, as well as a positive association of urinary metal levels with dementia risk. As metal exposure and levels in the body are modifiable, these findings could inform early screening and precision interventions for dementia prevention based on individuals’ metal exposure and genetic profiles,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Arce Domingo-Relloso, PhD, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

Data may have been missed for patients with dementia who were never hospitalized, died, or were lost to follow-up. The dementia diagnosis included nonspecific International Classification of Diseases codes, potentially leading to false-positive reports. In addition, the sample size was not sufficient to evaluate the associations between metal exposure and cognitive test scores for carriers of two APOE4 alleles.

 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and consulting fees, editorial stipends, teaching fees, or unrelated grant funding from various sources, which are fully listed in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of environmental metals in urine are associated with poorer cognitive performance and an increased risk for dementia, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter prospective cohort study included 6303 participants from six US study centers from 2000 to 2002, with follow-up through 2018.
• Participants were aged 45-84 years (median age at baseline, 60 years; 52% women) and were free of diagnosed cardiovascular disease.
• Researchers measured urinary levels of arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, tungsten, uranium, and zinc.
• Neuropsychological assessments included the Digit Symbol Coding, Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument, and Digit Span tests.
• The median follow-up duration was 11.7 years for participants with dementia and 16.8 years for those without; 559 cases of dementia were identified during the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lower Digit Symbol Coding scores were associated with higher urinary concentrations of arsenic (mean difference [MD] in score per interquartile range [IQR] increase, –0.03), cobalt (MD per IQR increase, –0.05), copper (MD per IQR increase, –0.05), uranium (MD per IQR increase, –0.04), and zinc (MD per IQR increase, –0.03).
• Effects for cobalt, uranium, and zinc were stronger in apolipoprotein epsilon 4 allele (APOE4) carriers vs noncarriers.
• Higher urinary levels of copper were associated with lower Digit Span scores (MD, –0.043) and elevated levels of copper (MD, –0.028) and zinc (MD, –0.024) were associated with lower global cognitive scores.
• Individuals with urinary levels of the nine-metal mixture at the 95th percentile had a 71% higher risk for dementia compared to those with levels at the 25th percentile, with the risk more pronounced in APOE4 carriers than in noncarriers (MD, –0.30 vs –0.10, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“We found an inverse association of essential and nonessential metals in urine, both individually and as a mixture, with the speed of mental operations, as well as a positive association of urinary metal levels with dementia risk. As metal exposure and levels in the body are modifiable, these findings could inform early screening and precision interventions for dementia prevention based on individuals’ metal exposure and genetic profiles,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Arce Domingo-Relloso, PhD, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

Data may have been missed for patients with dementia who were never hospitalized, died, or were lost to follow-up. The dementia diagnosis included nonspecific International Classification of Diseases codes, potentially leading to false-positive reports. In addition, the sample size was not sufficient to evaluate the associations between metal exposure and cognitive test scores for carriers of two APOE4 alleles.

 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and consulting fees, editorial stipends, teaching fees, or unrelated grant funding from various sources, which are fully listed in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of environmental metals in urine are associated with poorer cognitive performance and an increased risk for dementia, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter prospective cohort study included 6303 participants from six US study centers from 2000 to 2002, with follow-up through 2018.
• Participants were aged 45-84 years (median age at baseline, 60 years; 52% women) and were free of diagnosed cardiovascular disease.
• Researchers measured urinary levels of arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, tungsten, uranium, and zinc.
• Neuropsychological assessments included the Digit Symbol Coding, Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument, and Digit Span tests.
• The median follow-up duration was 11.7 years for participants with dementia and 16.8 years for those without; 559 cases of dementia were identified during the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lower Digit Symbol Coding scores were associated with higher urinary concentrations of arsenic (mean difference [MD] in score per interquartile range [IQR] increase, –0.03), cobalt (MD per IQR increase, –0.05), copper (MD per IQR increase, –0.05), uranium (MD per IQR increase, –0.04), and zinc (MD per IQR increase, –0.03).
• Effects for cobalt, uranium, and zinc were stronger in apolipoprotein epsilon 4 allele (APOE4) carriers vs noncarriers.
• Higher urinary levels of copper were associated with lower Digit Span scores (MD, –0.043) and elevated levels of copper (MD, –0.028) and zinc (MD, –0.024) were associated with lower global cognitive scores.
• Individuals with urinary levels of the nine-metal mixture at the 95th percentile had a 71% higher risk for dementia compared to those with levels at the 25th percentile, with the risk more pronounced in APOE4 carriers than in noncarriers (MD, –0.30 vs –0.10, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“We found an inverse association of essential and nonessential metals in urine, both individually and as a mixture, with the speed of mental operations, as well as a positive association of urinary metal levels with dementia risk. As metal exposure and levels in the body are modifiable, these findings could inform early screening and precision interventions for dementia prevention based on individuals’ metal exposure and genetic profiles,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Arce Domingo-Relloso, PhD, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

Data may have been missed for patients with dementia who were never hospitalized, died, or were lost to follow-up. The dementia diagnosis included nonspecific International Classification of Diseases codes, potentially leading to false-positive reports. In addition, the sample size was not sufficient to evaluate the associations between metal exposure and cognitive test scores for carriers of two APOE4 alleles.

 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and consulting fees, editorial stipends, teaching fees, or unrelated grant funding from various sources, which are fully listed in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Laura Vater remembers sneaking into her home after 12-hour night shifts during medical training while her husband distracted their toddler. The stealthy tag-teaming effort helped her get enough undisturbed sleep before returning to an Indiana University hospital the following night to repeat the pattern.

“He would pretend to take out the trash when I pulled in,” said Vater, MD, now a gastrointestinal oncologist and assistant professor of medicine at IU Health Simon Cancer Center in Indianapolis. “I would sneak in so she [their daughter] wouldn’t see me, and then he would go back in.”

For Vater, prioritizing sleep during the day to combat sleep deprivation common among doctors-in-training on night shifts required enlisting a supportive spouse. It’s just one of the tips she and a few chief residents shared with this news organization for staying sharp and healthy during overnight rotations.

While the pace of patient rounds may slow from the frenetic daytime rush, training as a doctor after the sun goes down can be quite challenging for residents, they told this news organization. From sleep deprivation working while the rest of us slumbers to the after-effects of late-night caffeine, learning to manage night rotations requires a balance of preparation and attention to personal health while caring for others, the residents and adviser said.

Compromised sleep is one of the biggest hurdles residents have to overcome. Sleep loss comes with risks to cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, among other heath conditions, according to Medscape Medical News reports. And night shift workers  who sleep 6 or fewer hours a night have at least one sleep disorder.

Sleep deprivation associated with overnight call schedules also can worsen a resident’s mood and motivation while impairing their judgment, leading to medical errors, according to a new study published in JAMA Open Network. The study proposed shorter consecutive night shifts and naps as ways to offset the results of sleep loss, especially for interns or first-year residents. 

Residency programs recently have been experimenting with shorter call schedules.

 

Catching Zzs

Working the night shift demands a disciplined sleep schedule, said Nat deQuillfeldt, MD, a Denver Health chief resident in the University of Colorado’s internal medicine residency program.

“When I was on night admissions, I was very strict about going to sleep at 8 AM and waking at 3 PM every single day. It can be very tempting to try to stay up and spend time with loved ones, but my husband and I both prioritized my physical well-being for those weeks,” said deQuillfeldt, a PGY-4 resident. “It was especially challenging for me because I had to commute about 50 minutes each way and without such a rigid schedule I would have struggled to be on time.”

deQuillfeldt doesn’t have young children at home, a noisy community, or other distractions to interrupt sleep during the day. But it was still difficult for her to sleep while the sun was out. “I used an eye mask and ear plugs but definitely woke up more often than I would at night.”

Blackout curtains may have helped, she added.

“Without adequate sleep, your clinical thinking is not as sharp. When emergencies happen overnight, you’re often the first person to arrive and need to be able to make rapid, accurate assessments and decisions.”

As a chief resident, she chooses never to sleep during night shifts.

“I personally didn’t want to leave my interns alone or make them feel like they were waking me up or bothering me if they needed help, and I also didn’t want to be groggy in case of a rapid response or code blue.”

But napping on night shift is definitely possible, deQuillfeldt said. Between following up on overnight lab results, answering nurses’ questions, and responding to emergencies, she found downtime on night shift to eat and hydrate. She believes others can catch an hour or 2 of shut eye, even if they work in the intensive care unit, or 3-4 hours on rare quiet nights.

Vater suggests residents transitioning from daytime work to night shift prepare by trying to catch an afternoon nap, staying up later the night before the change, and banking sleep hours in advance.

When he knows he’s starting night shifts, Apurva Popat, MD, said he tries to go to sleep an hour or so later nights before to avoid becoming sleep deprived. The chief resident of internal medicine at Marshfield Clinic Health System in Marshfield, Wisconsin, doesn’t recommend sleeping during the night shift.

“I typically try not to sleep, even if I have time, so I can go home and sleep later in the morning,” said Popat, a PGY-3 resident.

To help him snooze, he uses blackout curtains and a fan to block out noise. His wife, a first-year internal medicine intern, often works a different shift, so she helps set up his sleeping environment and he reciprocates when it’s her turn for night shifts.

Some interns may need to catch a 20- to 30-minute nap on the first night shift, he said.

Popat also seeks out brighter areas of the hospital, such as the emergency department, where there are more people and colleagues to keep him alert.

 

Bypass Vending Machines

Lack of sleep makes it even more difficult to eat healthy on night shift, said Vater, who advises residents about wellness issues at IU and on social media.

“When you are sleep deprived, when you do not get enough sleep, you eat but you don’t feel full,” she said. “It’s hard to eat well on night shift. It’s harder if you go to the break room and there’s candy and junk food.”

Vater said that, as a resident, she brought a lunch bag to the hospital during night shifts. “I never had time to prep food, so I’d bring a whole apple, a whole orange, a whole avocado or nuts. It allowed me to eat more fruits and vegetables than I normally would.”

She advises caution when considering coffee to stay awake, especially after about 9 PM, which could interfere with sleep residents need later when they finish their shifts. Caffeine may help in the moment, but it prevents deep sleep, Vater said. So when residents finally get sleep after their shifts, they may wake up feeling tired, she said.

To avoid sleepiness, Popat brings protein shakes with him to night shifts. They stave off sugar spikes and keep his energy level high, he said. He might have a protein shake and fruit before he leaves home and carry his vegetarian dinner with him to eat in the early morning hours when the hospital is calm.

Eating small and frequent meals also helps ward off sleepiness, deQuillfeldt said.

 

Take the Stairs

Trying to stay healthy on night shifts, Vater also checked on patients by taking the stairs. “I’d set the timer on my phone for 30 minutes and if I got paged at 15, I’d pause the timer and reset it if I had a moment later. I’d get at least 30 minutes in, although not always continuous. I think some activity is better than none.”

Vater said her hospital had a gym, but it wasn’t practical for her because it was further away from where she worked. “Sometimes my coresidents would be more creative, and we would do squats.”

Popat tries to lift weights 2 hours before his night shift, but he also takes short walks between patients’ rooms in the early morning hours when it’s quietest. He also promotes deep breathing to stay alert.

 

Ask for a Ride

Vater urges those coming off night shifts, especially those transitioning for the first time from daytime rotations, not to drive if they’re exhausted. “Get an Uber. ... Make sure you get a ride home.”

The CU residency program covers the cost of a ridesharing service when doctors-in-training are too tired to drive home, deQuillfeldt said. “We really try to encourage people to use this to reduce the risk of car accidents.”

 

Promoting Mental Health

The residency program also links residents with primary care and mental health services. People who really struggle with shift work sleep disorder may qualify for medications to help them stay awake overnight, in addition to sleep hygiene apps and sleep aides.

“Night shifts can put a strain on mental health, especially when you’re only working, eating, and sleeping and not spending any time with family and friends,” deQuillfeldt said. “My husband works late afternoons, so we often would go weeks seeing each other for 15-20 minutes a day.”

“Sleeping when the sun is out often leads to a lack of light exposure which can compound the problem. Seeking mental health support early is really important to avoiding burnout,” she said.

She also recommended planning a fun weekend activity, trip, or celebration with friends or family after night shifts end “so you have something to look forward to…It’s so important to have a light at the end of the tunnel, which will allow you to enjoy the sense of accomplishment even more.”

For more advice on the subject, consider the American Medical Association guide to managing sleep deprivation in residency or Laura Vater’s tips for night shifts.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Laura Vater remembers sneaking into her home after 12-hour night shifts during medical training while her husband distracted their toddler. The stealthy tag-teaming effort helped her get enough undisturbed sleep before returning to an Indiana University hospital the following night to repeat the pattern.

“He would pretend to take out the trash when I pulled in,” said Vater, MD, now a gastrointestinal oncologist and assistant professor of medicine at IU Health Simon Cancer Center in Indianapolis. “I would sneak in so she [their daughter] wouldn’t see me, and then he would go back in.”

For Vater, prioritizing sleep during the day to combat sleep deprivation common among doctors-in-training on night shifts required enlisting a supportive spouse. It’s just one of the tips she and a few chief residents shared with this news organization for staying sharp and healthy during overnight rotations.

While the pace of patient rounds may slow from the frenetic daytime rush, training as a doctor after the sun goes down can be quite challenging for residents, they told this news organization. From sleep deprivation working while the rest of us slumbers to the after-effects of late-night caffeine, learning to manage night rotations requires a balance of preparation and attention to personal health while caring for others, the residents and adviser said.

Compromised sleep is one of the biggest hurdles residents have to overcome. Sleep loss comes with risks to cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, among other heath conditions, according to Medscape Medical News reports. And night shift workers  who sleep 6 or fewer hours a night have at least one sleep disorder.

Sleep deprivation associated with overnight call schedules also can worsen a resident’s mood and motivation while impairing their judgment, leading to medical errors, according to a new study published in JAMA Open Network. The study proposed shorter consecutive night shifts and naps as ways to offset the results of sleep loss, especially for interns or first-year residents. 

Residency programs recently have been experimenting with shorter call schedules.

 

Catching Zzs

Working the night shift demands a disciplined sleep schedule, said Nat deQuillfeldt, MD, a Denver Health chief resident in the University of Colorado’s internal medicine residency program.

“When I was on night admissions, I was very strict about going to sleep at 8 AM and waking at 3 PM every single day. It can be very tempting to try to stay up and spend time with loved ones, but my husband and I both prioritized my physical well-being for those weeks,” said deQuillfeldt, a PGY-4 resident. “It was especially challenging for me because I had to commute about 50 minutes each way and without such a rigid schedule I would have struggled to be on time.”

deQuillfeldt doesn’t have young children at home, a noisy community, or other distractions to interrupt sleep during the day. But it was still difficult for her to sleep while the sun was out. “I used an eye mask and ear plugs but definitely woke up more often than I would at night.”

Blackout curtains may have helped, she added.

“Without adequate sleep, your clinical thinking is not as sharp. When emergencies happen overnight, you’re often the first person to arrive and need to be able to make rapid, accurate assessments and decisions.”

As a chief resident, she chooses never to sleep during night shifts.

“I personally didn’t want to leave my interns alone or make them feel like they were waking me up or bothering me if they needed help, and I also didn’t want to be groggy in case of a rapid response or code blue.”

But napping on night shift is definitely possible, deQuillfeldt said. Between following up on overnight lab results, answering nurses’ questions, and responding to emergencies, she found downtime on night shift to eat and hydrate. She believes others can catch an hour or 2 of shut eye, even if they work in the intensive care unit, or 3-4 hours on rare quiet nights.

Vater suggests residents transitioning from daytime work to night shift prepare by trying to catch an afternoon nap, staying up later the night before the change, and banking sleep hours in advance.

When he knows he’s starting night shifts, Apurva Popat, MD, said he tries to go to sleep an hour or so later nights before to avoid becoming sleep deprived. The chief resident of internal medicine at Marshfield Clinic Health System in Marshfield, Wisconsin, doesn’t recommend sleeping during the night shift.

“I typically try not to sleep, even if I have time, so I can go home and sleep later in the morning,” said Popat, a PGY-3 resident.

To help him snooze, he uses blackout curtains and a fan to block out noise. His wife, a first-year internal medicine intern, often works a different shift, so she helps set up his sleeping environment and he reciprocates when it’s her turn for night shifts.

Some interns may need to catch a 20- to 30-minute nap on the first night shift, he said.

Popat also seeks out brighter areas of the hospital, such as the emergency department, where there are more people and colleagues to keep him alert.

 

Bypass Vending Machines

Lack of sleep makes it even more difficult to eat healthy on night shift, said Vater, who advises residents about wellness issues at IU and on social media.

“When you are sleep deprived, when you do not get enough sleep, you eat but you don’t feel full,” she said. “It’s hard to eat well on night shift. It’s harder if you go to the break room and there’s candy and junk food.”

Vater said that, as a resident, she brought a lunch bag to the hospital during night shifts. “I never had time to prep food, so I’d bring a whole apple, a whole orange, a whole avocado or nuts. It allowed me to eat more fruits and vegetables than I normally would.”

She advises caution when considering coffee to stay awake, especially after about 9 PM, which could interfere with sleep residents need later when they finish their shifts. Caffeine may help in the moment, but it prevents deep sleep, Vater said. So when residents finally get sleep after their shifts, they may wake up feeling tired, she said.

To avoid sleepiness, Popat brings protein shakes with him to night shifts. They stave off sugar spikes and keep his energy level high, he said. He might have a protein shake and fruit before he leaves home and carry his vegetarian dinner with him to eat in the early morning hours when the hospital is calm.

Eating small and frequent meals also helps ward off sleepiness, deQuillfeldt said.

 

Take the Stairs

Trying to stay healthy on night shifts, Vater also checked on patients by taking the stairs. “I’d set the timer on my phone for 30 minutes and if I got paged at 15, I’d pause the timer and reset it if I had a moment later. I’d get at least 30 minutes in, although not always continuous. I think some activity is better than none.”

Vater said her hospital had a gym, but it wasn’t practical for her because it was further away from where she worked. “Sometimes my coresidents would be more creative, and we would do squats.”

Popat tries to lift weights 2 hours before his night shift, but he also takes short walks between patients’ rooms in the early morning hours when it’s quietest. He also promotes deep breathing to stay alert.

 

Ask for a Ride

Vater urges those coming off night shifts, especially those transitioning for the first time from daytime rotations, not to drive if they’re exhausted. “Get an Uber. ... Make sure you get a ride home.”

The CU residency program covers the cost of a ridesharing service when doctors-in-training are too tired to drive home, deQuillfeldt said. “We really try to encourage people to use this to reduce the risk of car accidents.”

 

Promoting Mental Health

The residency program also links residents with primary care and mental health services. People who really struggle with shift work sleep disorder may qualify for medications to help them stay awake overnight, in addition to sleep hygiene apps and sleep aides.

“Night shifts can put a strain on mental health, especially when you’re only working, eating, and sleeping and not spending any time with family and friends,” deQuillfeldt said. “My husband works late afternoons, so we often would go weeks seeing each other for 15-20 minutes a day.”

“Sleeping when the sun is out often leads to a lack of light exposure which can compound the problem. Seeking mental health support early is really important to avoiding burnout,” she said.

She also recommended planning a fun weekend activity, trip, or celebration with friends or family after night shifts end “so you have something to look forward to…It’s so important to have a light at the end of the tunnel, which will allow you to enjoy the sense of accomplishment even more.”

For more advice on the subject, consider the American Medical Association guide to managing sleep deprivation in residency or Laura Vater’s tips for night shifts.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Laura Vater remembers sneaking into her home after 12-hour night shifts during medical training while her husband distracted their toddler. The stealthy tag-teaming effort helped her get enough undisturbed sleep before returning to an Indiana University hospital the following night to repeat the pattern.

“He would pretend to take out the trash when I pulled in,” said Vater, MD, now a gastrointestinal oncologist and assistant professor of medicine at IU Health Simon Cancer Center in Indianapolis. “I would sneak in so she [their daughter] wouldn’t see me, and then he would go back in.”

For Vater, prioritizing sleep during the day to combat sleep deprivation common among doctors-in-training on night shifts required enlisting a supportive spouse. It’s just one of the tips she and a few chief residents shared with this news organization for staying sharp and healthy during overnight rotations.

While the pace of patient rounds may slow from the frenetic daytime rush, training as a doctor after the sun goes down can be quite challenging for residents, they told this news organization. From sleep deprivation working while the rest of us slumbers to the after-effects of late-night caffeine, learning to manage night rotations requires a balance of preparation and attention to personal health while caring for others, the residents and adviser said.

Compromised sleep is one of the biggest hurdles residents have to overcome. Sleep loss comes with risks to cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, among other heath conditions, according to Medscape Medical News reports. And night shift workers  who sleep 6 or fewer hours a night have at least one sleep disorder.

Sleep deprivation associated with overnight call schedules also can worsen a resident’s mood and motivation while impairing their judgment, leading to medical errors, according to a new study published in JAMA Open Network. The study proposed shorter consecutive night shifts and naps as ways to offset the results of sleep loss, especially for interns or first-year residents. 

Residency programs recently have been experimenting with shorter call schedules.

 

Catching Zzs

Working the night shift demands a disciplined sleep schedule, said Nat deQuillfeldt, MD, a Denver Health chief resident in the University of Colorado’s internal medicine residency program.

“When I was on night admissions, I was very strict about going to sleep at 8 AM and waking at 3 PM every single day. It can be very tempting to try to stay up and spend time with loved ones, but my husband and I both prioritized my physical well-being for those weeks,” said deQuillfeldt, a PGY-4 resident. “It was especially challenging for me because I had to commute about 50 minutes each way and without such a rigid schedule I would have struggled to be on time.”

deQuillfeldt doesn’t have young children at home, a noisy community, or other distractions to interrupt sleep during the day. But it was still difficult for her to sleep while the sun was out. “I used an eye mask and ear plugs but definitely woke up more often than I would at night.”

Blackout curtains may have helped, she added.

“Without adequate sleep, your clinical thinking is not as sharp. When emergencies happen overnight, you’re often the first person to arrive and need to be able to make rapid, accurate assessments and decisions.”

As a chief resident, she chooses never to sleep during night shifts.

“I personally didn’t want to leave my interns alone or make them feel like they were waking me up or bothering me if they needed help, and I also didn’t want to be groggy in case of a rapid response or code blue.”

But napping on night shift is definitely possible, deQuillfeldt said. Between following up on overnight lab results, answering nurses’ questions, and responding to emergencies, she found downtime on night shift to eat and hydrate. She believes others can catch an hour or 2 of shut eye, even if they work in the intensive care unit, or 3-4 hours on rare quiet nights.

Vater suggests residents transitioning from daytime work to night shift prepare by trying to catch an afternoon nap, staying up later the night before the change, and banking sleep hours in advance.

When he knows he’s starting night shifts, Apurva Popat, MD, said he tries to go to sleep an hour or so later nights before to avoid becoming sleep deprived. The chief resident of internal medicine at Marshfield Clinic Health System in Marshfield, Wisconsin, doesn’t recommend sleeping during the night shift.

“I typically try not to sleep, even if I have time, so I can go home and sleep later in the morning,” said Popat, a PGY-3 resident.

To help him snooze, he uses blackout curtains and a fan to block out noise. His wife, a first-year internal medicine intern, often works a different shift, so she helps set up his sleeping environment and he reciprocates when it’s her turn for night shifts.

Some interns may need to catch a 20- to 30-minute nap on the first night shift, he said.

Popat also seeks out brighter areas of the hospital, such as the emergency department, where there are more people and colleagues to keep him alert.

 

Bypass Vending Machines

Lack of sleep makes it even more difficult to eat healthy on night shift, said Vater, who advises residents about wellness issues at IU and on social media.

“When you are sleep deprived, when you do not get enough sleep, you eat but you don’t feel full,” she said. “It’s hard to eat well on night shift. It’s harder if you go to the break room and there’s candy and junk food.”

Vater said that, as a resident, she brought a lunch bag to the hospital during night shifts. “I never had time to prep food, so I’d bring a whole apple, a whole orange, a whole avocado or nuts. It allowed me to eat more fruits and vegetables than I normally would.”

She advises caution when considering coffee to stay awake, especially after about 9 PM, which could interfere with sleep residents need later when they finish their shifts. Caffeine may help in the moment, but it prevents deep sleep, Vater said. So when residents finally get sleep after their shifts, they may wake up feeling tired, she said.

To avoid sleepiness, Popat brings protein shakes with him to night shifts. They stave off sugar spikes and keep his energy level high, he said. He might have a protein shake and fruit before he leaves home and carry his vegetarian dinner with him to eat in the early morning hours when the hospital is calm.

Eating small and frequent meals also helps ward off sleepiness, deQuillfeldt said.

 

Take the Stairs

Trying to stay healthy on night shifts, Vater also checked on patients by taking the stairs. “I’d set the timer on my phone for 30 minutes and if I got paged at 15, I’d pause the timer and reset it if I had a moment later. I’d get at least 30 minutes in, although not always continuous. I think some activity is better than none.”

Vater said her hospital had a gym, but it wasn’t practical for her because it was further away from where she worked. “Sometimes my coresidents would be more creative, and we would do squats.”

Popat tries to lift weights 2 hours before his night shift, but he also takes short walks between patients’ rooms in the early morning hours when it’s quietest. He also promotes deep breathing to stay alert.

 

Ask for a Ride

Vater urges those coming off night shifts, especially those transitioning for the first time from daytime rotations, not to drive if they’re exhausted. “Get an Uber. ... Make sure you get a ride home.”

The CU residency program covers the cost of a ridesharing service when doctors-in-training are too tired to drive home, deQuillfeldt said. “We really try to encourage people to use this to reduce the risk of car accidents.”

 

Promoting Mental Health

The residency program also links residents with primary care and mental health services. People who really struggle with shift work sleep disorder may qualify for medications to help them stay awake overnight, in addition to sleep hygiene apps and sleep aides.

“Night shifts can put a strain on mental health, especially when you’re only working, eating, and sleeping and not spending any time with family and friends,” deQuillfeldt said. “My husband works late afternoons, so we often would go weeks seeing each other for 15-20 minutes a day.”

“Sleeping when the sun is out often leads to a lack of light exposure which can compound the problem. Seeking mental health support early is really important to avoiding burnout,” she said.

She also recommended planning a fun weekend activity, trip, or celebration with friends or family after night shifts end “so you have something to look forward to…It’s so important to have a light at the end of the tunnel, which will allow you to enjoy the sense of accomplishment even more.”

For more advice on the subject, consider the American Medical Association guide to managing sleep deprivation in residency or Laura Vater’s tips for night shifts.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A drug that combines the atypical antipsychotic brexpiprazole and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline provides significantly greater relief of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms than sertraline plus placebo, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

The medication is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and if approved, will be the first pharmacologic option for PTSD in more than 20 years.

The trial met its primary endpoint of change in the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) (CAPS-5) total score at week 10 and secondary patient-reported outcomes of PTSD symptoms, anxiety, and depression.

“And what is really cool, what’s really impactful is the combination worked better than sertraline plus placebo on a brief inventory of psychosocial functioning,” study investigator Lori L. Davis, a senior research psychiatrist, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Alabama, said in an interview.

“We can treat symptoms but that’s where the rubber meets the road, in terms of are they functioning better,” added Davis, who is also an adjunct professor of psychiatry, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The findings were published online on December 18 in JAMA Psychiatry and reported in May 2024 as part of a trio of trials conducted by Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals, codevelopers of the drug.

 

Clinically Meaningful

The FDA accepted the companies’ supplemental new drug application in June with a decision on approval expected in early February 2025.

“This study provides promising results for a medication that may be an important new option for PTSD,” John Krystal, MD, director, Clinical Neuroscience Division, National Center for PTSD, US Department of Veterans Affairs, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “New PTSD treatments are a high priority.”

Currently, there are two FDA-approved medication treatments for PTSD — sertraline and paroxetine.

“They are helpful for many people, but patients are often left with residual symptoms or tolerability issues,” noted Krystal, who is also professor and chair of psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

“New medications that might address the important ‘effectiveness gap’ in PTSD could help to reduce the remaining distress, disability, and suicide risk associated with PTSD.” 

The double-blind, phase 3 trial included 416 adults aged 18-65 years with a DSM-5 diagnosis of PTSD and symptoms for at least 6 months prior to screening. Patients underwent a 1-week placebo-run in period followed by randomization to daily oral brexpiprazole 2-3 mg plus sertraline 150 mg or daily sertraline 150 mg plus placebo for 11 weeks.

Participants’ mean age was 37.4 years, 74.5% were women, and mean CAPS-5 total score was 38.4, suggesting moderate to high severity PTSD, Davis said. The average time from the index traumatic event was 4 years and three fourths had no prior exposure to PTSD prescription medications.

At week 10, the mean change in CAPS-5 score from randomization was –19.2 points in the brexpiprazole plus sertraline group and –13.6 points in the sertraline plus placebo group (95% CI, –8.79 to –2.38; P < .001).

Asked whether the 5.59-point treatment difference is clinically meaningful, Davis said there is no widely agreed definition for change in CAPS-5 total score but that a within-group reduction of more than 10-13 points is most-often cited as being clinically meaningful.

The key secondary endpoint of least square mean change in the patient-reported Brief Inventory of Psychosocial Function total score from baseline to week 12 was –33.8 with the combination vs –21.8 with sertraline plus placebo (95% CI, –19.4 to –4.62; P = .002).

“That’s clinically meaningful for me as a provider and a clinician and a researcher when you’re getting the PTSD symptom change differences in parallel with the improvement in functional outcome,” she said. “I see that as the clinically meaningful gauge.”

In terms of safety, 3.9% of the participants in the brexpiprazole/sertraline group and 10.2% of those in the sertraline/placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

In both the combination and control groups, the only treatment-emergent adverse event with an incidence of more than 10% was nausea (12.2% vs 11.7%, respectively).

At the last visit, the mean change in body weight from baseline was an increase of 1.3 kg for brexpiprazole plus sertraline vs 0 kg for sertraline alone. Rates of fatigue (6.8% vs 4.1%) and somnolence (5.4% vs 2.6%) were also higher with brexpiprazole plus sertraline.

 

A Trio of Clinical Trials

The findings are part of a larger program reported by the drug makers that includes a flexible-dose brexpiprazole phase 2 trial that met the same CAPS-5 primary endpoint and a second phase 3 trial (072 study) that did not.

“We’ve looked at that data and the sertraline/placebo response was a lot higher, so it was not due to a lack of response with the combination but due to a more robust response with the active control,” Davis said. “But we want to point out for that 072 study, there was still important separation between the combination and sertraline plus placebo on the functional outcome.”

All three trials ran for 12 weeks, so longer-term efficacy and safety data are needed, she said. Other limitations of the published phase 3 study are the patient eligibility criteria, restrictions on concomitant therapy, and lack of non-US sites, which many limit generalizability, the authors noted.

“Specifically, the exclusion of patients with a current major depressive episode is both a strength (to show a specific effect on PTSD) and a limitation (given the high prevalence of comorbid depression in PTSD),” they added.

 

Kudos, Caveats

Reached for comment, Vincent F. Capaldi, II, MD, ScM, professor and chair, department of psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, said the exclusion of these patients is a limitation but that the study was well designed and conducted in a large sample across the United States.

“The findings suggest that brexpiprazole plus sertraline is a more effective treatment for PTSD than sertraline alone,” he said. “This finding is significant for our service members, who suffer from PTSD at higher rates than the general population.”

Additionally, the significant improvement in psychosocial functioning at week 12 “is important because PTSD is known to cause significant social and occupational disability, as well as quality-of-life issues,” he said.

Capaldi pointed out, however, that the study was conducted only at US sites and did not specifically target military/veteran persons, which may limit applicability to these unique populations.

“While subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the primary analysis, the study was not powered to detect differences between subgroups,” he added. “These subgroup analyses are quite important when considering military and veteran populations.”

Further research is needed to explore whether certain traumas are more responsive to combination treatment, the efficacy of augmenting existing sertraline therapy, and the specific mechanisms of brexpiprazole driving the improved outcomes, Capaldi said.

This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, which was involved in the design, conduct, and data analysis. Davis reported receiving advisory board fees from Otsuka and Boehringer Ingelheim; lecture fees from Clinical Care Options; and grants from Alkermes, the Veterans Affairs, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Department of Defense, and Social Finance. Several coauthors are employees of Otsuka. Krystal reported serving as a consultant for Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Aptinyx, Biogen, IDEC, Bionomics, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Clearmind Medicine, Cybin IRL, Enveric Biosciences, Epiodyne, EpiVario, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Perception Neuroscience, Praxis Precision Medicines, Springcare, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Krystal also reported serving as a scientific advisory board member for several companies and holding several patents.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A drug that combines the atypical antipsychotic brexpiprazole and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline provides significantly greater relief of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms than sertraline plus placebo, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

The medication is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and if approved, will be the first pharmacologic option for PTSD in more than 20 years.

The trial met its primary endpoint of change in the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) (CAPS-5) total score at week 10 and secondary patient-reported outcomes of PTSD symptoms, anxiety, and depression.

“And what is really cool, what’s really impactful is the combination worked better than sertraline plus placebo on a brief inventory of psychosocial functioning,” study investigator Lori L. Davis, a senior research psychiatrist, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Alabama, said in an interview.

“We can treat symptoms but that’s where the rubber meets the road, in terms of are they functioning better,” added Davis, who is also an adjunct professor of psychiatry, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The findings were published online on December 18 in JAMA Psychiatry and reported in May 2024 as part of a trio of trials conducted by Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals, codevelopers of the drug.

 

Clinically Meaningful

The FDA accepted the companies’ supplemental new drug application in June with a decision on approval expected in early February 2025.

“This study provides promising results for a medication that may be an important new option for PTSD,” John Krystal, MD, director, Clinical Neuroscience Division, National Center for PTSD, US Department of Veterans Affairs, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “New PTSD treatments are a high priority.”

Currently, there are two FDA-approved medication treatments for PTSD — sertraline and paroxetine.

“They are helpful for many people, but patients are often left with residual symptoms or tolerability issues,” noted Krystal, who is also professor and chair of psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

“New medications that might address the important ‘effectiveness gap’ in PTSD could help to reduce the remaining distress, disability, and suicide risk associated with PTSD.” 

The double-blind, phase 3 trial included 416 adults aged 18-65 years with a DSM-5 diagnosis of PTSD and symptoms for at least 6 months prior to screening. Patients underwent a 1-week placebo-run in period followed by randomization to daily oral brexpiprazole 2-3 mg plus sertraline 150 mg or daily sertraline 150 mg plus placebo for 11 weeks.

Participants’ mean age was 37.4 years, 74.5% were women, and mean CAPS-5 total score was 38.4, suggesting moderate to high severity PTSD, Davis said. The average time from the index traumatic event was 4 years and three fourths had no prior exposure to PTSD prescription medications.

At week 10, the mean change in CAPS-5 score from randomization was –19.2 points in the brexpiprazole plus sertraline group and –13.6 points in the sertraline plus placebo group (95% CI, –8.79 to –2.38; P < .001).

Asked whether the 5.59-point treatment difference is clinically meaningful, Davis said there is no widely agreed definition for change in CAPS-5 total score but that a within-group reduction of more than 10-13 points is most-often cited as being clinically meaningful.

The key secondary endpoint of least square mean change in the patient-reported Brief Inventory of Psychosocial Function total score from baseline to week 12 was –33.8 with the combination vs –21.8 with sertraline plus placebo (95% CI, –19.4 to –4.62; P = .002).

“That’s clinically meaningful for me as a provider and a clinician and a researcher when you’re getting the PTSD symptom change differences in parallel with the improvement in functional outcome,” she said. “I see that as the clinically meaningful gauge.”

In terms of safety, 3.9% of the participants in the brexpiprazole/sertraline group and 10.2% of those in the sertraline/placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

In both the combination and control groups, the only treatment-emergent adverse event with an incidence of more than 10% was nausea (12.2% vs 11.7%, respectively).

At the last visit, the mean change in body weight from baseline was an increase of 1.3 kg for brexpiprazole plus sertraline vs 0 kg for sertraline alone. Rates of fatigue (6.8% vs 4.1%) and somnolence (5.4% vs 2.6%) were also higher with brexpiprazole plus sertraline.

 

A Trio of Clinical Trials

The findings are part of a larger program reported by the drug makers that includes a flexible-dose brexpiprazole phase 2 trial that met the same CAPS-5 primary endpoint and a second phase 3 trial (072 study) that did not.

“We’ve looked at that data and the sertraline/placebo response was a lot higher, so it was not due to a lack of response with the combination but due to a more robust response with the active control,” Davis said. “But we want to point out for that 072 study, there was still important separation between the combination and sertraline plus placebo on the functional outcome.”

All three trials ran for 12 weeks, so longer-term efficacy and safety data are needed, she said. Other limitations of the published phase 3 study are the patient eligibility criteria, restrictions on concomitant therapy, and lack of non-US sites, which many limit generalizability, the authors noted.

“Specifically, the exclusion of patients with a current major depressive episode is both a strength (to show a specific effect on PTSD) and a limitation (given the high prevalence of comorbid depression in PTSD),” they added.

 

Kudos, Caveats

Reached for comment, Vincent F. Capaldi, II, MD, ScM, professor and chair, department of psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, said the exclusion of these patients is a limitation but that the study was well designed and conducted in a large sample across the United States.

“The findings suggest that brexpiprazole plus sertraline is a more effective treatment for PTSD than sertraline alone,” he said. “This finding is significant for our service members, who suffer from PTSD at higher rates than the general population.”

Additionally, the significant improvement in psychosocial functioning at week 12 “is important because PTSD is known to cause significant social and occupational disability, as well as quality-of-life issues,” he said.

Capaldi pointed out, however, that the study was conducted only at US sites and did not specifically target military/veteran persons, which may limit applicability to these unique populations.

“While subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the primary analysis, the study was not powered to detect differences between subgroups,” he added. “These subgroup analyses are quite important when considering military and veteran populations.”

Further research is needed to explore whether certain traumas are more responsive to combination treatment, the efficacy of augmenting existing sertraline therapy, and the specific mechanisms of brexpiprazole driving the improved outcomes, Capaldi said.

This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, which was involved in the design, conduct, and data analysis. Davis reported receiving advisory board fees from Otsuka and Boehringer Ingelheim; lecture fees from Clinical Care Options; and grants from Alkermes, the Veterans Affairs, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Department of Defense, and Social Finance. Several coauthors are employees of Otsuka. Krystal reported serving as a consultant for Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Aptinyx, Biogen, IDEC, Bionomics, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Clearmind Medicine, Cybin IRL, Enveric Biosciences, Epiodyne, EpiVario, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Perception Neuroscience, Praxis Precision Medicines, Springcare, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Krystal also reported serving as a scientific advisory board member for several companies and holding several patents.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A drug that combines the atypical antipsychotic brexpiprazole and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline provides significantly greater relief of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms than sertraline plus placebo, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

The medication is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and if approved, will be the first pharmacologic option for PTSD in more than 20 years.

The trial met its primary endpoint of change in the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) (CAPS-5) total score at week 10 and secondary patient-reported outcomes of PTSD symptoms, anxiety, and depression.

“And what is really cool, what’s really impactful is the combination worked better than sertraline plus placebo on a brief inventory of psychosocial functioning,” study investigator Lori L. Davis, a senior research psychiatrist, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Alabama, said in an interview.

“We can treat symptoms but that’s where the rubber meets the road, in terms of are they functioning better,” added Davis, who is also an adjunct professor of psychiatry, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The findings were published online on December 18 in JAMA Psychiatry and reported in May 2024 as part of a trio of trials conducted by Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals, codevelopers of the drug.

 

Clinically Meaningful

The FDA accepted the companies’ supplemental new drug application in June with a decision on approval expected in early February 2025.

“This study provides promising results for a medication that may be an important new option for PTSD,” John Krystal, MD, director, Clinical Neuroscience Division, National Center for PTSD, US Department of Veterans Affairs, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “New PTSD treatments are a high priority.”

Currently, there are two FDA-approved medication treatments for PTSD — sertraline and paroxetine.

“They are helpful for many people, but patients are often left with residual symptoms or tolerability issues,” noted Krystal, who is also professor and chair of psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

“New medications that might address the important ‘effectiveness gap’ in PTSD could help to reduce the remaining distress, disability, and suicide risk associated with PTSD.” 

The double-blind, phase 3 trial included 416 adults aged 18-65 years with a DSM-5 diagnosis of PTSD and symptoms for at least 6 months prior to screening. Patients underwent a 1-week placebo-run in period followed by randomization to daily oral brexpiprazole 2-3 mg plus sertraline 150 mg or daily sertraline 150 mg plus placebo for 11 weeks.

Participants’ mean age was 37.4 years, 74.5% were women, and mean CAPS-5 total score was 38.4, suggesting moderate to high severity PTSD, Davis said. The average time from the index traumatic event was 4 years and three fourths had no prior exposure to PTSD prescription medications.

At week 10, the mean change in CAPS-5 score from randomization was –19.2 points in the brexpiprazole plus sertraline group and –13.6 points in the sertraline plus placebo group (95% CI, –8.79 to –2.38; P < .001).

Asked whether the 5.59-point treatment difference is clinically meaningful, Davis said there is no widely agreed definition for change in CAPS-5 total score but that a within-group reduction of more than 10-13 points is most-often cited as being clinically meaningful.

The key secondary endpoint of least square mean change in the patient-reported Brief Inventory of Psychosocial Function total score from baseline to week 12 was –33.8 with the combination vs –21.8 with sertraline plus placebo (95% CI, –19.4 to –4.62; P = .002).

“That’s clinically meaningful for me as a provider and a clinician and a researcher when you’re getting the PTSD symptom change differences in parallel with the improvement in functional outcome,” she said. “I see that as the clinically meaningful gauge.”

In terms of safety, 3.9% of the participants in the brexpiprazole/sertraline group and 10.2% of those in the sertraline/placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

In both the combination and control groups, the only treatment-emergent adverse event with an incidence of more than 10% was nausea (12.2% vs 11.7%, respectively).

At the last visit, the mean change in body weight from baseline was an increase of 1.3 kg for brexpiprazole plus sertraline vs 0 kg for sertraline alone. Rates of fatigue (6.8% vs 4.1%) and somnolence (5.4% vs 2.6%) were also higher with brexpiprazole plus sertraline.

 

A Trio of Clinical Trials

The findings are part of a larger program reported by the drug makers that includes a flexible-dose brexpiprazole phase 2 trial that met the same CAPS-5 primary endpoint and a second phase 3 trial (072 study) that did not.

“We’ve looked at that data and the sertraline/placebo response was a lot higher, so it was not due to a lack of response with the combination but due to a more robust response with the active control,” Davis said. “But we want to point out for that 072 study, there was still important separation between the combination and sertraline plus placebo on the functional outcome.”

All three trials ran for 12 weeks, so longer-term efficacy and safety data are needed, she said. Other limitations of the published phase 3 study are the patient eligibility criteria, restrictions on concomitant therapy, and lack of non-US sites, which many limit generalizability, the authors noted.

“Specifically, the exclusion of patients with a current major depressive episode is both a strength (to show a specific effect on PTSD) and a limitation (given the high prevalence of comorbid depression in PTSD),” they added.

 

Kudos, Caveats

Reached for comment, Vincent F. Capaldi, II, MD, ScM, professor and chair, department of psychiatry, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, said the exclusion of these patients is a limitation but that the study was well designed and conducted in a large sample across the United States.

“The findings suggest that brexpiprazole plus sertraline is a more effective treatment for PTSD than sertraline alone,” he said. “This finding is significant for our service members, who suffer from PTSD at higher rates than the general population.”

Additionally, the significant improvement in psychosocial functioning at week 12 “is important because PTSD is known to cause significant social and occupational disability, as well as quality-of-life issues,” he said.

Capaldi pointed out, however, that the study was conducted only at US sites and did not specifically target military/veteran persons, which may limit applicability to these unique populations.

“While subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the primary analysis, the study was not powered to detect differences between subgroups,” he added. “These subgroup analyses are quite important when considering military and veteran populations.”

Further research is needed to explore whether certain traumas are more responsive to combination treatment, the efficacy of augmenting existing sertraline therapy, and the specific mechanisms of brexpiprazole driving the improved outcomes, Capaldi said.

This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, which was involved in the design, conduct, and data analysis. Davis reported receiving advisory board fees from Otsuka and Boehringer Ingelheim; lecture fees from Clinical Care Options; and grants from Alkermes, the Veterans Affairs, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Department of Defense, and Social Finance. Several coauthors are employees of Otsuka. Krystal reported serving as a consultant for Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Aptinyx, Biogen, IDEC, Bionomics, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Clearmind Medicine, Cybin IRL, Enveric Biosciences, Epiodyne, EpiVario, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Perception Neuroscience, Praxis Precision Medicines, Springcare, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Krystal also reported serving as a scientific advisory board member for several companies and holding several patents.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outreach campaign is encouraging all eligible veterans to enroll in VA health care, aiming to connect the roughly 1 million unenrolled veterans to care.  
 

The campaign was prompted following reports of concerns from veterans about health issues—including mental health hurdles and thoughts of suicide—potentially related to repeated low-level artillery blasts, improvised explosive devices, missile launches, heavy fire, and other blast exposures.  
 

Veterans enrolled in VA health care have access to specialty screenings and services to address issues related to blast exposure. Those who served in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other specific locations are eligible for these benefits based on their deployments. They do not need to have any health conditions specifically associated with their service to be eligible. 
 

“We take veteran concerns about repeated blast exposure very seriously, and we are studying this matter urgently to learn more about potential health impacts,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said. “While we do that, we don’t want veterans to wait—they should enroll in VA health care today to get full access to primary care, mental health care, regular screenings, specialty care, and more. That’s what this outreach effort is all about: getting veterans in our care, because veterans who come to VA are proven to do better.”  
 

The campaign will consist of text messages and emails sent directly to veterans, in addition to thousands of nationwide events, advertising, and social media campaigns. It is the latest effort to appeal to more veterans and is part of the largest outreach campaign in VA history, which began when President Joseph R. Biden signed the PACT Act into law in 2022. As a result > 835,000 veterans have enrolled in VA health care (a 37% increase), > 900,000 veterans have upgraded their priority groups, making them eligible for health care with fewer copays (a record), and > 4.4 million veterans and survivors have applied for disability compensation benefits (another record).  
 

Increased enrollment benefits not only the individuals enrolled in VA health care, but those who come after.

"[W]e are constantly looking for ways to improve that care as science and research tells us about new concerns," said VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. "The more veterans who enroll, the more we can learn about the impact of blast exposure—and the better care we can ultimately provide those who served."

A new US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outreach campaign is encouraging all eligible veterans to enroll in VA health care, aiming to connect the roughly 1 million unenrolled veterans to care.  
 

The campaign was prompted following reports of concerns from veterans about health issues—including mental health hurdles and thoughts of suicide—potentially related to repeated low-level artillery blasts, improvised explosive devices, missile launches, heavy fire, and other blast exposures.  
 

Veterans enrolled in VA health care have access to specialty screenings and services to address issues related to blast exposure. Those who served in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other specific locations are eligible for these benefits based on their deployments. They do not need to have any health conditions specifically associated with their service to be eligible. 
 

“We take veteran concerns about repeated blast exposure very seriously, and we are studying this matter urgently to learn more about potential health impacts,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said. “While we do that, we don’t want veterans to wait—they should enroll in VA health care today to get full access to primary care, mental health care, regular screenings, specialty care, and more. That’s what this outreach effort is all about: getting veterans in our care, because veterans who come to VA are proven to do better.”  
 

The campaign will consist of text messages and emails sent directly to veterans, in addition to thousands of nationwide events, advertising, and social media campaigns. It is the latest effort to appeal to more veterans and is part of the largest outreach campaign in VA history, which began when President Joseph R. Biden signed the PACT Act into law in 2022. As a result > 835,000 veterans have enrolled in VA health care (a 37% increase), > 900,000 veterans have upgraded their priority groups, making them eligible for health care with fewer copays (a record), and > 4.4 million veterans and survivors have applied for disability compensation benefits (another record).  
 

Increased enrollment benefits not only the individuals enrolled in VA health care, but those who come after.

"[W]e are constantly looking for ways to improve that care as science and research tells us about new concerns," said VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. "The more veterans who enroll, the more we can learn about the impact of blast exposure—and the better care we can ultimately provide those who served."

A new US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outreach campaign is encouraging all eligible veterans to enroll in VA health care, aiming to connect the roughly 1 million unenrolled veterans to care.  
 

The campaign was prompted following reports of concerns from veterans about health issues—including mental health hurdles and thoughts of suicide—potentially related to repeated low-level artillery blasts, improvised explosive devices, missile launches, heavy fire, and other blast exposures.  
 

Veterans enrolled in VA health care have access to specialty screenings and services to address issues related to blast exposure. Those who served in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other specific locations are eligible for these benefits based on their deployments. They do not need to have any health conditions specifically associated with their service to be eligible. 
 

“We take veteran concerns about repeated blast exposure very seriously, and we are studying this matter urgently to learn more about potential health impacts,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said. “While we do that, we don’t want veterans to wait—they should enroll in VA health care today to get full access to primary care, mental health care, regular screenings, specialty care, and more. That’s what this outreach effort is all about: getting veterans in our care, because veterans who come to VA are proven to do better.”  
 

The campaign will consist of text messages and emails sent directly to veterans, in addition to thousands of nationwide events, advertising, and social media campaigns. It is the latest effort to appeal to more veterans and is part of the largest outreach campaign in VA history, which began when President Joseph R. Biden signed the PACT Act into law in 2022. As a result > 835,000 veterans have enrolled in VA health care (a 37% increase), > 900,000 veterans have upgraded their priority groups, making them eligible for health care with fewer copays (a record), and > 4.4 million veterans and survivors have applied for disability compensation benefits (another record).  
 

Increased enrollment benefits not only the individuals enrolled in VA health care, but those who come after.

"[W]e are constantly looking for ways to improve that care as science and research tells us about new concerns," said VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. "The more veterans who enroll, the more we can learn about the impact of blast exposure—and the better care we can ultimately provide those who served."

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, health care systems had been increasingly focused on expanding care delivery through clinical video telehealth (CVT) services.^1-3 These modalities offer clinicians and patients opportunities to interact without needing face-to-face visits. CVT services offer significant advantages to patients who encounter challenges accessing traditional face-to-face services, including those living in rural or underserved areas, individuals with mobility limitations, and those with difficulty attending appointments due to work or caregiving commitments.⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the expansion of CVT services to mitigate the spread of the virus.¹

Despite its evident advantages, widespread adoption of CVT has encountered resistance.² Physicians have frequently expressed concerns about the reliability and functionality of CVT platforms for scheduled encounters and frustration with inadequate training.^4-6 Additionally, there is a lack trust in the technology, as physicians are unfamiliar with reimbursement or workload capture associated with CVT. Physicians have concerns that telecommunication may diminish the intangible aspects of the “art of medicine.”⁴ As a result, the implementation of telehealth services has been inconsistent, with successful adoption limited to specific medical and surgical specialties.⁴ Only recently have entire departments within major health care systems expressed interest in providing comprehensive CVT services in response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides an appropriate setting for assessing clinician perceptions of telehealth services. Since 2003, the VHA has significantly expanded CVT services to eligible veterans and has used the VA Video Connect (VVC) platform since 2018.^7-10 Through VVC, VA staff and clinicians may schedule video visits with patients, meet with patients through virtual face-to-face interaction, and share relevant laboratory results and imaging through screen sharing. Prior research has shown increased accessibility to care through VVC. For example, a single-site study demonstrated that VVC implementation for delivering psychotherapies significantly increased CVT encounters from 15% to 85% among veterans with anxiety and/or depression.¹¹

The VA New Mexico Healthcare System (VANMHCS) serves a high volume of veterans living in remote and rural regions and significantly increased its use of CVT during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce in-person visits. Expectedly, this was met with a variety of challenges. Herein, we sought to assess physician perspectives, concerns, and attitudes toward VVC via semistructured interviews. Our hypothesis was that VA physicians may feel uncomfortable with video encounters but recognize the growing importance of such practices providing specialty care to veterans in rural areas.

METHODS

A semistructured interview protocol was created following discussions with physicians from the VANMHCS Medicine Service. Questions were constructed to assess the following domains: overarching views of video telehealth, perceptions of various applications for conducting VVC encounters, and barriers to the broad implementation of video telehealth. A qualitative investigation specialist aided with question development. Two pilot interviews were conducted prior to performing the interviews with the recruited participants to evaluate the quality and delivery of questions.

All VANMHCS physicians who provided outpatient care within the Department of Medicine and had completed ≥ 1 VVC encounter were eligible to participate. Invitations were disseminated via email, and follow-up emails to encourage participation were sent periodically for 2 months following the initial request. Union approval was obtained to interview employees for a research study. In total, 64 physicians were invited and 13 (20%) chose to participate. As the study did not involve assessing medical interventions among patients, a waiver of informed consent was granted by the VANMHCS Institutional Review Board. Physicians who participated in this study were informed that their responses would be used for reporting purposes and could be rescinded at any time.

Data Analysis

Semistructured interviews were conducted by a single interviewer and recorded using Microsoft Teams. The interviews took place between February 2021 and December 2021 and lasted 5 to 15 minutes, with a mean duration of 9 minutes. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants before the interviews. Interviewees were encouraged to expand on their responses to structured questions by recounting past experiences with VVC. Recorded audio was additionally transcribed via Microsoft Teams, and the research team reviewed the transcriptions to ensure accuracy.

The tracking and coding of responses to interview questions were conducted using Microsoft Excel. Initially, 5 transcripts were reviewed and responses were assessed by 2 study team members through open coding. All team members examined the 5 coded transcripts to identify differences and reach a consensus for any discrepancies. Based on recommendations from all team members regarding nuanced excerpts of transcripts, 1 study team member coded the remaining interviews. Thematic analysis was subsequently conducted according to the method described by Braun and Clarke.¹² Themes were developed both deductively and inductively by reviewing the direct responses to interview questions and identifying emerging patterns of data, respectively. Indicative quotes representing each theme were carefully chosen for reporting.

RESULTS

Thirteen interviews were conducted and 9 participants (69%) were female. Participating physicians included 3 internal medicine/primary care physicians (23%), 2 nephrologists (15%), and 1 (8%) from cardiology, endocrinology, hematology, infectious diseases, palliative care, critical care, pulmonology, and sleep medicine. Years of post training experience among physicians ranged from 1 to 9 years (n = 5, 38%), 10 to 19 years (n = 3, 23%), and . 20 years (n = 5, 38%). Seven participants (54%) had conducted ≥ 5 VVC visits, with 1 physician completing > 50 video visits (Table).

Using open coding and a deductive approach to thematic analysis, 5 themes were identified: (1) VVC software and internet connection issues affected implementation; (2) patient technological literacy affected veteran and physician comfort with VVC; (3) integration of supportive measures was desired; (4) CVT services may increasingly be used to enhance access to care; and (5) in-person encounters afforded unique advantages over CVT. Illustrative quotes from physicians that reflect these themes can be found in the Appendix.

Theme 1: VVC software and internet connection issues affected its implementation. Most participants expressed concern about the technical challenges with VVC. Interviewees cited inconsistencies for both patients and physicians receiving emails with links to join VVC visits, which should be generated when appointments are scheduled. Some physicians were unaware of scheduled VVC visits until the day of the appointment and only received the link via email. Such issues appeared to occur regardless whether the physicians or support staff scheduled the encounter. Poor video and audio quality was also cited as significant barriers to successful VVC visits and were often not resolvable through troubleshooting efforts by physicians, patients, or support personnel. Given the limited time allotted to each patient encounter, such issues could significantly impact the physician’s ability to remain on schedule. Moreover, connectivity problems led to significant lapses, delays in audio and video transmission, and complete disconnections from the VVC encounter. This was a significant concern for participants, given the rural nature of New Mexico and the large geographical gaps in internet service throughout the state.

Theme 2: Patient technological literacy affected veteran and physician comfort with VVC. Successful VVC appointments require high-speed Internet and compatible hardware. Physicians indicated that some patients reported difficulties with critical steps in the process, such as logging into the VVC platform or ensuring their microphones and cameras were active. Physicians also expressed concern about older veterans’ ability to utilize electronic devices, noting they may generally be less technology savvy. Additionally, physicians reported that despite offering the option of a virtual visit, many veterans preferred in-person visits, regardless of the drive time required. This appeared related to a fear of using the technology, which led veterans to believe that virtual visits do not provide the same quality of care as in-person visits.

Theme 3: Integration of supportive measures is desired. Interviewees felt that integrated VVC technical assistance and technology literacy education were imperative. First, training the patient or the patient’s caregiver on how to complete a VVC encounter using the preferred device and the VVC platform would be beneficial. Second, education to inform physicians about common troubleshooting issues could help streamline VVC encounters. Third, managing a VVC encounter similarly to standard in-person visits could allow for better patient and physician experience. For example, physicians suggested that a medical assistant or a nurse triage the patient, take vital signs, and set them up in a room, potentially at a regional VA community based outpatient clinic. Such efforts would also allow patients to receive specialty care in remote areas where only primary care is generally offered. Support staff could assist with technological issues, such as setting up the VVC encounter and addressing potential problems before the physician joins the encounter, thereby preventing delays in patient care. Finally, physicians felt that designating a day solely for CVT visits would help prevent disruption in care with in-person visits.

Theme 4: CVT services may increasingly be used to enhance access to care. Physicians felt that VVC would help patients encountering obstacles in accessing conventional in person services, including patients in rural and underserved areas, with disabilities, or with scheduling challenges.4 Patients with chronic conditions might drive the use of virtual visits, as many of these patients are already accustomed to remote medical monitoring. Data from devices such as scales and continuous glucose monitors can be easily reviewed during VVC visits. Second, video encounters facilitate closer monitoring that some patients might otherwise skip due to significant travel barriers, especially in a rural state like New Mexico. Lastly, VVC may be more efficient than in person visits as they eliminate the need for lengthy parking, checking in, and checking out processes. Thus, if technological issues are resolved, a typical physician’s day in the clinic may be more efficient with virtual visits.

Theme 5: In-person encounters afforded unique advantages over CVT. Some physicians felt in-person visits still offer unique advantages. They opined that the selection of appropriate candidates for CVT is critical. Patients requiring a physical examination should be scheduled for in person visits. For example, patients with advanced chronic kidney disease who require accurate volume status assessment or patients who have recently undergone surgery and need detailed wound inspection should be seen in the clinic. In-person visits may also be preferable for patients with recurrent admissions, or those whose condition is difficult to assess; accurate assessments of such patients may help prevent readmissions. Finally, many patients are more comfortable and satisfied with in-person visits, which are perceived as a more standard or traditional process. Respondents noted that some patients felt physicians may not focus as much attention during a VVC visit as they do during in-person visits. There were also concerns that some patients feel more motivation to come to in-person visits, as they see the VA as a place to interact with other veterans and staff with whom they are familiar and comfortable.

DISCUSSION

VANMHCS physicians, which serves veterans across an expansive territory ranging from Southern Colorado to West Texas. About 4.6 million veterans reside in rural regions, constituting roughly 25% of the total veteran population, a pattern mirrored in New Mexico.¹³ Medicine Service physicians agreed on a number of themes: VVC user-interface issues may affect its use and effectiveness, technological literacy was important for both patients and health care staff, technical support staff roles before and during VVC visits should be standardized, CVT is likely to increase health care delivery, and in-person encounters are preferred for many patients.

This is the first study to qualitatively evaluate a diverse group of physicians at a VA medical center incorporating CVT services across specialties. A few related qualitative studies have been conducted external to VHA, generally evaluating clinicians within a single specialty. Kalicki and colleagues surveyed 16 physicians working at a large home-based primary care program in New York City between April and June 2020 to identify and explore barriers to telehealth among homebound older adults. Similarly to our study, physicians noted that many patients required assistance (family members or caregivers) with the visit, either due to technological literacy issues or medical conditions like dementia.¹⁴

Heyer and colleagues surveyed 29 oncologists at an urban academic center prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar to our observations, the oncologists said telemedicine helped eliminate travel as a barrier to health care. Heyer and colleagues noted difficulty for oncologists in performing virtual physical examinations, despite training. This group did note the benefits when being selective as to which clinical issues they would handle virtually vs in person.¹⁵

Budhwani and colleagues reported that mental health professionals in an academic setting cited difficulty establishing therapeutic relationships via telehealth and felt that this affected quality of care.¹⁶ While this was not a topic during our interviews, it is reasonable to question how potentially missed nonverbal cues may impact patient assessments.

Notably, technological issues were common among all reviewed studies. These ranged from internet connectivity issues to necessary electronic devices. As mentioned, these barriers are more prevalent in rural states like New Mexico.

Limitations

All participants in this study were Medicine Service physicians of a single VA health care system, which may limit generalizability. Many of our respondents were female (69%), compared with 39.2% of active internal medicine physicians and therefore may not be representative.¹⁷ Nearly one-half of our participants only completed 1 to 4 VVC encounters, which may have contributed to the emergence of a common theme regarding technological issues. Physicians with more experience with CVT services may be more skilled at troubleshooting technological issues that arise during visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study, conducted with VANMHCS physicians, illuminated 5 key themes influencing the use and implementation of video encounters: technological issues, technological literacy, a desire for integrated support measures, perceived future growth of video telehealth, and the unique advantages of in-person visits. Addressing technological barriers and providing more extensive training may streamline CVT use. However, it is vital to recognize the unique benefits of in-person visits and consider the benefits of each modality along with patient preferences when selecting the best care venue. As health care evolves, better understanding and acting upon these themes will optimize telehealth services, particularly in rural areas. Future research should involve patients and other health care team members to further explore strategies for effective CVT service integration.

Appendix

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, health care systems had been increasingly focused on expanding care delivery through clinical video telehealth (CVT) services.^1-3 These modalities offer clinicians and patients opportunities to interact without needing face-to-face visits. CVT services offer significant advantages to patients who encounter challenges accessing traditional face-to-face services, including those living in rural or underserved areas, individuals with mobility limitations, and those with difficulty attending appointments due to work or caregiving commitments.⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the expansion of CVT services to mitigate the spread of the virus.¹

Despite its evident advantages, widespread adoption of CVT has encountered resistance.² Physicians have frequently expressed concerns about the reliability and functionality of CVT platforms for scheduled encounters and frustration with inadequate training.^4-6 Additionally, there is a lack trust in the technology, as physicians are unfamiliar with reimbursement or workload capture associated with CVT. Physicians have concerns that telecommunication may diminish the intangible aspects of the “art of medicine.”⁴ As a result, the implementation of telehealth services has been inconsistent, with successful adoption limited to specific medical and surgical specialties.⁴ Only recently have entire departments within major health care systems expressed interest in providing comprehensive CVT services in response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides an appropriate setting for assessing clinician perceptions of telehealth services. Since 2003, the VHA has significantly expanded CVT services to eligible veterans and has used the VA Video Connect (VVC) platform since 2018.^7-10 Through VVC, VA staff and clinicians may schedule video visits with patients, meet with patients through virtual face-to-face interaction, and share relevant laboratory results and imaging through screen sharing. Prior research has shown increased accessibility to care through VVC. For example, a single-site study demonstrated that VVC implementation for delivering psychotherapies significantly increased CVT encounters from 15% to 85% among veterans with anxiety and/or depression.¹¹

The VA New Mexico Healthcare System (VANMHCS) serves a high volume of veterans living in remote and rural regions and significantly increased its use of CVT during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce in-person visits. Expectedly, this was met with a variety of challenges. Herein, we sought to assess physician perspectives, concerns, and attitudes toward VVC via semistructured interviews. Our hypothesis was that VA physicians may feel uncomfortable with video encounters but recognize the growing importance of such practices providing specialty care to veterans in rural areas.

METHODS

A semistructured interview protocol was created following discussions with physicians from the VANMHCS Medicine Service. Questions were constructed to assess the following domains: overarching views of video telehealth, perceptions of various applications for conducting VVC encounters, and barriers to the broad implementation of video telehealth. A qualitative investigation specialist aided with question development. Two pilot interviews were conducted prior to performing the interviews with the recruited participants to evaluate the quality and delivery of questions.

All VANMHCS physicians who provided outpatient care within the Department of Medicine and had completed ≥ 1 VVC encounter were eligible to participate. Invitations were disseminated via email, and follow-up emails to encourage participation were sent periodically for 2 months following the initial request. Union approval was obtained to interview employees for a research study. In total, 64 physicians were invited and 13 (20%) chose to participate. As the study did not involve assessing medical interventions among patients, a waiver of informed consent was granted by the VANMHCS Institutional Review Board. Physicians who participated in this study were informed that their responses would be used for reporting purposes and could be rescinded at any time.

Data Analysis

Semistructured interviews were conducted by a single interviewer and recorded using Microsoft Teams. The interviews took place between February 2021 and December 2021 and lasted 5 to 15 minutes, with a mean duration of 9 minutes. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants before the interviews. Interviewees were encouraged to expand on their responses to structured questions by recounting past experiences with VVC. Recorded audio was additionally transcribed via Microsoft Teams, and the research team reviewed the transcriptions to ensure accuracy.

The tracking and coding of responses to interview questions were conducted using Microsoft Excel. Initially, 5 transcripts were reviewed and responses were assessed by 2 study team members through open coding. All team members examined the 5 coded transcripts to identify differences and reach a consensus for any discrepancies. Based on recommendations from all team members regarding nuanced excerpts of transcripts, 1 study team member coded the remaining interviews. Thematic analysis was subsequently conducted according to the method described by Braun and Clarke.¹² Themes were developed both deductively and inductively by reviewing the direct responses to interview questions and identifying emerging patterns of data, respectively. Indicative quotes representing each theme were carefully chosen for reporting.

RESULTS

Thirteen interviews were conducted and 9 participants (69%) were female. Participating physicians included 3 internal medicine/primary care physicians (23%), 2 nephrologists (15%), and 1 (8%) from cardiology, endocrinology, hematology, infectious diseases, palliative care, critical care, pulmonology, and sleep medicine. Years of post training experience among physicians ranged from 1 to 9 years (n = 5, 38%), 10 to 19 years (n = 3, 23%), and . 20 years (n = 5, 38%). Seven participants (54%) had conducted ≥ 5 VVC visits, with 1 physician completing > 50 video visits (Table).

Using open coding and a deductive approach to thematic analysis, 5 themes were identified: (1) VVC software and internet connection issues affected implementation; (2) patient technological literacy affected veteran and physician comfort with VVC; (3) integration of supportive measures was desired; (4) CVT services may increasingly be used to enhance access to care; and (5) in-person encounters afforded unique advantages over CVT. Illustrative quotes from physicians that reflect these themes can be found in the Appendix.

Theme 1: VVC software and internet connection issues affected its implementation. Most participants expressed concern about the technical challenges with VVC. Interviewees cited inconsistencies for both patients and physicians receiving emails with links to join VVC visits, which should be generated when appointments are scheduled. Some physicians were unaware of scheduled VVC visits until the day of the appointment and only received the link via email. Such issues appeared to occur regardless whether the physicians or support staff scheduled the encounter. Poor video and audio quality was also cited as significant barriers to successful VVC visits and were often not resolvable through troubleshooting efforts by physicians, patients, or support personnel. Given the limited time allotted to each patient encounter, such issues could significantly impact the physician’s ability to remain on schedule. Moreover, connectivity problems led to significant lapses, delays in audio and video transmission, and complete disconnections from the VVC encounter. This was a significant concern for participants, given the rural nature of New Mexico and the large geographical gaps in internet service throughout the state.

Theme 2: Patient technological literacy affected veteran and physician comfort with VVC. Successful VVC appointments require high-speed Internet and compatible hardware. Physicians indicated that some patients reported difficulties with critical steps in the process, such as logging into the VVC platform or ensuring their microphones and cameras were active. Physicians also expressed concern about older veterans’ ability to utilize electronic devices, noting they may generally be less technology savvy. Additionally, physicians reported that despite offering the option of a virtual visit, many veterans preferred in-person visits, regardless of the drive time required. This appeared related to a fear of using the technology, which led veterans to believe that virtual visits do not provide the same quality of care as in-person visits.

Theme 3: Integration of supportive measures is desired. Interviewees felt that integrated VVC technical assistance and technology literacy education were imperative. First, training the patient or the patient’s caregiver on how to complete a VVC encounter using the preferred device and the VVC platform would be beneficial. Second, education to inform physicians about common troubleshooting issues could help streamline VVC encounters. Third, managing a VVC encounter similarly to standard in-person visits could allow for better patient and physician experience. For example, physicians suggested that a medical assistant or a nurse triage the patient, take vital signs, and set them up in a room, potentially at a regional VA community based outpatient clinic. Such efforts would also allow patients to receive specialty care in remote areas where only primary care is generally offered. Support staff could assist with technological issues, such as setting up the VVC encounter and addressing potential problems before the physician joins the encounter, thereby preventing delays in patient care. Finally, physicians felt that designating a day solely for CVT visits would help prevent disruption in care with in-person visits.

Theme 4: CVT services may increasingly be used to enhance access to care. Physicians felt that VVC would help patients encountering obstacles in accessing conventional in person services, including patients in rural and underserved areas, with disabilities, or with scheduling challenges.4 Patients with chronic conditions might drive the use of virtual visits, as many of these patients are already accustomed to remote medical monitoring. Data from devices such as scales and continuous glucose monitors can be easily reviewed during VVC visits. Second, video encounters facilitate closer monitoring that some patients might otherwise skip due to significant travel barriers, especially in a rural state like New Mexico. Lastly, VVC may be more efficient than in person visits as they eliminate the need for lengthy parking, checking in, and checking out processes. Thus, if technological issues are resolved, a typical physician’s day in the clinic may be more efficient with virtual visits.

Theme 5: In-person encounters afforded unique advantages over CVT. Some physicians felt in-person visits still offer unique advantages. They opined that the selection of appropriate candidates for CVT is critical. Patients requiring a physical examination should be scheduled for in person visits. For example, patients with advanced chronic kidney disease who require accurate volume status assessment or patients who have recently undergone surgery and need detailed wound inspection should be seen in the clinic. In-person visits may also be preferable for patients with recurrent admissions, or those whose condition is difficult to assess; accurate assessments of such patients may help prevent readmissions. Finally, many patients are more comfortable and satisfied with in-person visits, which are perceived as a more standard or traditional process. Respondents noted that some patients felt physicians may not focus as much attention during a VVC visit as they do during in-person visits. There were also concerns that some patients feel more motivation to come to in-person visits, as they see the VA as a place to interact with other veterans and staff with whom they are familiar and comfortable.

DISCUSSION

VANMHCS physicians, which serves veterans across an expansive territory ranging from Southern Colorado to West Texas. About 4.6 million veterans reside in rural regions, constituting roughly 25% of the total veteran population, a pattern mirrored in New Mexico.¹³ Medicine Service physicians agreed on a number of themes: VVC user-interface issues may affect its use and effectiveness, technological literacy was important for both patients and health care staff, technical support staff roles before and during VVC visits should be standardized, CVT is likely to increase health care delivery, and in-person encounters are preferred for many patients.

This is the first study to qualitatively evaluate a diverse group of physicians at a VA medical center incorporating CVT services across specialties. A few related qualitative studies have been conducted external to VHA, generally evaluating clinicians within a single specialty. Kalicki and colleagues surveyed 16 physicians working at a large home-based primary care program in New York City between April and June 2020 to identify and explore barriers to telehealth among homebound older adults. Similarly to our study, physicians noted that many patients required assistance (family members or caregivers) with the visit, either due to technological literacy issues or medical conditions like dementia.¹⁴

Heyer and colleagues surveyed 29 oncologists at an urban academic center prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar to our observations, the oncologists said telemedicine helped eliminate travel as a barrier to health care. Heyer and colleagues noted difficulty for oncologists in performing virtual physical examinations, despite training. This group did note the benefits when being selective as to which clinical issues they would handle virtually vs in person.¹⁵

Budhwani and colleagues reported that mental health professionals in an academic setting cited difficulty establishing therapeutic relationships via telehealth and felt that this affected quality of care.¹⁶ While this was not a topic during our interviews, it is reasonable to question how potentially missed nonverbal cues may impact patient assessments.

Notably, technological issues were common among all reviewed studies. These ranged from internet connectivity issues to necessary electronic devices. As mentioned, these barriers are more prevalent in rural states like New Mexico.

Limitations

All participants in this study were Medicine Service physicians of a single VA health care system, which may limit generalizability. Many of our respondents were female (69%), compared with 39.2% of active internal medicine physicians and therefore may not be representative.¹⁷ Nearly one-half of our participants only completed 1 to 4 VVC encounters, which may have contributed to the emergence of a common theme regarding technological issues. Physicians with more experience with CVT services may be more skilled at troubleshooting technological issues that arise during visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study, conducted with VANMHCS physicians, illuminated 5 key themes influencing the use and implementation of video encounters: technological issues, technological literacy, a desire for integrated support measures, perceived future growth of video telehealth, and the unique advantages of in-person visits. Addressing technological barriers and providing more extensive training may streamline CVT use. However, it is vital to recognize the unique benefits of in-person visits and consider the benefits of each modality along with patient preferences when selecting the best care venue. As health care evolves, better understanding and acting upon these themes will optimize telehealth services, particularly in rural areas. Future research should involve patients and other health care team members to further explore strategies for effective CVT service integration.

Appendix

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, health care systems had been increasingly focused on expanding care delivery through clinical video telehealth (CVT) services.^1-3 These modalities offer clinicians and patients opportunities to interact without needing face-to-face visits. CVT services offer significant advantages to patients who encounter challenges accessing traditional face-to-face services, including those living in rural or underserved areas, individuals with mobility limitations, and those with difficulty attending appointments due to work or caregiving commitments.⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the expansion of CVT services to mitigate the spread of the virus.¹

Despite its evident advantages, widespread adoption of CVT has encountered resistance.² Physicians have frequently expressed concerns about the reliability and functionality of CVT platforms for scheduled encounters and frustration with inadequate training.^4-6 Additionally, there is a lack trust in the technology, as physicians are unfamiliar with reimbursement or workload capture associated with CVT. Physicians have concerns that telecommunication may diminish the intangible aspects of the “art of medicine.”⁴ As a result, the implementation of telehealth services has been inconsistent, with successful adoption limited to specific medical and surgical specialties.⁴ Only recently have entire departments within major health care systems expressed interest in providing comprehensive CVT services in response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides an appropriate setting for assessing clinician perceptions of telehealth services. Since 2003, the VHA has significantly expanded CVT services to eligible veterans and has used the VA Video Connect (VVC) platform since 2018.^7-10 Through VVC, VA staff and clinicians may schedule video visits with patients, meet with patients through virtual face-to-face interaction, and share relevant laboratory results and imaging through screen sharing. Prior research has shown increased accessibility to care through VVC. For example, a single-site study demonstrated that VVC implementation for delivering psychotherapies significantly increased CVT encounters from 15% to 85% among veterans with anxiety and/or depression.¹¹

The VA New Mexico Healthcare System (VANMHCS) serves a high volume of veterans living in remote and rural regions and significantly increased its use of CVT during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce in-person visits. Expectedly, this was met with a variety of challenges. Herein, we sought to assess physician perspectives, concerns, and attitudes toward VVC via semistructured interviews. Our hypothesis was that VA physicians may feel uncomfortable with video encounters but recognize the growing importance of such practices providing specialty care to veterans in rural areas.

METHODS

A semistructured interview protocol was created following discussions with physicians from the VANMHCS Medicine Service. Questions were constructed to assess the following domains: overarching views of video telehealth, perceptions of various applications for conducting VVC encounters, and barriers to the broad implementation of video telehealth. A qualitative investigation specialist aided with question development. Two pilot interviews were conducted prior to performing the interviews with the recruited participants to evaluate the quality and delivery of questions.

All VANMHCS physicians who provided outpatient care within the Department of Medicine and had completed ≥ 1 VVC encounter were eligible to participate. Invitations were disseminated via email, and follow-up emails to encourage participation were sent periodically for 2 months following the initial request. Union approval was obtained to interview employees for a research study. In total, 64 physicians were invited and 13 (20%) chose to participate. As the study did not involve assessing medical interventions among patients, a waiver of informed consent was granted by the VANMHCS Institutional Review Board. Physicians who participated in this study were informed that their responses would be used for reporting purposes and could be rescinded at any time.

Data Analysis

Semistructured interviews were conducted by a single interviewer and recorded using Microsoft Teams. The interviews took place between February 2021 and December 2021 and lasted 5 to 15 minutes, with a mean duration of 9 minutes. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants before the interviews. Interviewees were encouraged to expand on their responses to structured questions by recounting past experiences with VVC. Recorded audio was additionally transcribed via Microsoft Teams, and the research team reviewed the transcriptions to ensure accuracy.

The tracking and coding of responses to interview questions were conducted using Microsoft Excel. Initially, 5 transcripts were reviewed and responses were assessed by 2 study team members through open coding. All team members examined the 5 coded transcripts to identify differences and reach a consensus for any discrepancies. Based on recommendations from all team members regarding nuanced excerpts of transcripts, 1 study team member coded the remaining interviews. Thematic analysis was subsequently conducted according to the method described by Braun and Clarke.¹² Themes were developed both deductively and inductively by reviewing the direct responses to interview questions and identifying emerging patterns of data, respectively. Indicative quotes representing each theme were carefully chosen for reporting.

RESULTS

Thirteen interviews were conducted and 9 participants (69%) were female. Participating physicians included 3 internal medicine/primary care physicians (23%), 2 nephrologists (15%), and 1 (8%) from cardiology, endocrinology, hematology, infectious diseases, palliative care, critical care, pulmonology, and sleep medicine. Years of post training experience among physicians ranged from 1 to 9 years (n = 5, 38%), 10 to 19 years (n = 3, 23%), and . 20 years (n = 5, 38%). Seven participants (54%) had conducted ≥ 5 VVC visits, with 1 physician completing > 50 video visits (Table).

Using open coding and a deductive approach to thematic analysis, 5 themes were identified: (1) VVC software and internet connection issues affected implementation; (2) patient technological literacy affected veteran and physician comfort with VVC; (3) integration of supportive measures was desired; (4) CVT services may increasingly be used to enhance access to care; and (5) in-person encounters afforded unique advantages over CVT. Illustrative quotes from physicians that reflect these themes can be found in the Appendix.

Theme 1: VVC software and internet connection issues affected its implementation. Most participants expressed concern about the technical challenges with VVC. Interviewees cited inconsistencies for both patients and physicians receiving emails with links to join VVC visits, which should be generated when appointments are scheduled. Some physicians were unaware of scheduled VVC visits until the day of the appointment and only received the link via email. Such issues appeared to occur regardless whether the physicians or support staff scheduled the encounter. Poor video and audio quality was also cited as significant barriers to successful VVC visits and were often not resolvable through troubleshooting efforts by physicians, patients, or support personnel. Given the limited time allotted to each patient encounter, such issues could significantly impact the physician’s ability to remain on schedule. Moreover, connectivity problems led to significant lapses, delays in audio and video transmission, and complete disconnections from the VVC encounter. This was a significant concern for participants, given the rural nature of New Mexico and the large geographical gaps in internet service throughout the state.

Theme 2: Patient technological literacy affected veteran and physician comfort with VVC. Successful VVC appointments require high-speed Internet and compatible hardware. Physicians indicated that some patients reported difficulties with critical steps in the process, such as logging into the VVC platform or ensuring their microphones and cameras were active. Physicians also expressed concern about older veterans’ ability to utilize electronic devices, noting they may generally be less technology savvy. Additionally, physicians reported that despite offering the option of a virtual visit, many veterans preferred in-person visits, regardless of the drive time required. This appeared related to a fear of using the technology, which led veterans to believe that virtual visits do not provide the same quality of care as in-person visits.

Theme 3: Integration of supportive measures is desired. Interviewees felt that integrated VVC technical assistance and technology literacy education were imperative. First, training the patient or the patient’s caregiver on how to complete a VVC encounter using the preferred device and the VVC platform would be beneficial. Second, education to inform physicians about common troubleshooting issues could help streamline VVC encounters. Third, managing a VVC encounter similarly to standard in-person visits could allow for better patient and physician experience. For example, physicians suggested that a medical assistant or a nurse triage the patient, take vital signs, and set them up in a room, potentially at a regional VA community based outpatient clinic. Such efforts would also allow patients to receive specialty care in remote areas where only primary care is generally offered. Support staff could assist with technological issues, such as setting up the VVC encounter and addressing potential problems before the physician joins the encounter, thereby preventing delays in patient care. Finally, physicians felt that designating a day solely for CVT visits would help prevent disruption in care with in-person visits.

Theme 4: CVT services may increasingly be used to enhance access to care. Physicians felt that VVC would help patients encountering obstacles in accessing conventional in person services, including patients in rural and underserved areas, with disabilities, or with scheduling challenges.4 Patients with chronic conditions might drive the use of virtual visits, as many of these patients are already accustomed to remote medical monitoring. Data from devices such as scales and continuous glucose monitors can be easily reviewed during VVC visits. Second, video encounters facilitate closer monitoring that some patients might otherwise skip due to significant travel barriers, especially in a rural state like New Mexico. Lastly, VVC may be more efficient than in person visits as they eliminate the need for lengthy parking, checking in, and checking out processes. Thus, if technological issues are resolved, a typical physician’s day in the clinic may be more efficient with virtual visits.

Theme 5: In-person encounters afforded unique advantages over CVT. Some physicians felt in-person visits still offer unique advantages. They opined that the selection of appropriate candidates for CVT is critical. Patients requiring a physical examination should be scheduled for in person visits. For example, patients with advanced chronic kidney disease who require accurate volume status assessment or patients who have recently undergone surgery and need detailed wound inspection should be seen in the clinic. In-person visits may also be preferable for patients with recurrent admissions, or those whose condition is difficult to assess; accurate assessments of such patients may help prevent readmissions. Finally, many patients are more comfortable and satisfied with in-person visits, which are perceived as a more standard or traditional process. Respondents noted that some patients felt physicians may not focus as much attention during a VVC visit as they do during in-person visits. There were also concerns that some patients feel more motivation to come to in-person visits, as they see the VA as a place to interact with other veterans and staff with whom they are familiar and comfortable.

DISCUSSION

VANMHCS physicians, which serves veterans across an expansive territory ranging from Southern Colorado to West Texas. About 4.6 million veterans reside in rural regions, constituting roughly 25% of the total veteran population, a pattern mirrored in New Mexico.¹³ Medicine Service physicians agreed on a number of themes: VVC user-interface issues may affect its use and effectiveness, technological literacy was important for both patients and health care staff, technical support staff roles before and during VVC visits should be standardized, CVT is likely to increase health care delivery, and in-person encounters are preferred for many patients.

This is the first study to qualitatively evaluate a diverse group of physicians at a VA medical center incorporating CVT services across specialties. A few related qualitative studies have been conducted external to VHA, generally evaluating clinicians within a single specialty. Kalicki and colleagues surveyed 16 physicians working at a large home-based primary care program in New York City between April and June 2020 to identify and explore barriers to telehealth among homebound older adults. Similarly to our study, physicians noted that many patients required assistance (family members or caregivers) with the visit, either due to technological literacy issues or medical conditions like dementia.¹⁴

Heyer and colleagues surveyed 29 oncologists at an urban academic center prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar to our observations, the oncologists said telemedicine helped eliminate travel as a barrier to health care. Heyer and colleagues noted difficulty for oncologists in performing virtual physical examinations, despite training. This group did note the benefits when being selective as to which clinical issues they would handle virtually vs in person.¹⁵

Budhwani and colleagues reported that mental health professionals in an academic setting cited difficulty establishing therapeutic relationships via telehealth and felt that this affected quality of care.¹⁶ While this was not a topic during our interviews, it is reasonable to question how potentially missed nonverbal cues may impact patient assessments.

Notably, technological issues were common among all reviewed studies. These ranged from internet connectivity issues to necessary electronic devices. As mentioned, these barriers are more prevalent in rural states like New Mexico.

Limitations

All participants in this study were Medicine Service physicians of a single VA health care system, which may limit generalizability. Many of our respondents were female (69%), compared with 39.2% of active internal medicine physicians and therefore may not be representative.¹⁷ Nearly one-half of our participants only completed 1 to 4 VVC encounters, which may have contributed to the emergence of a common theme regarding technological issues. Physicians with more experience with CVT services may be more skilled at troubleshooting technological issues that arise during visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study, conducted with VANMHCS physicians, illuminated 5 key themes influencing the use and implementation of video encounters: technological issues, technological literacy, a desire for integrated support measures, perceived future growth of video telehealth, and the unique advantages of in-person visits. Addressing technological barriers and providing more extensive training may streamline CVT use. However, it is vital to recognize the unique benefits of in-person visits and consider the benefits of each modality along with patient preferences when selecting the best care venue. As health care evolves, better understanding and acting upon these themes will optimize telehealth services, particularly in rural areas. Future research should involve patients and other health care team members to further explore strategies for effective CVT service integration.

Appendix

An electronic nudge explaining the cardiovascular benefits of the influenza vaccine increased vaccination rates, particularly among people who had previously had a heart attack, showed the NUDGE FLU series of clinical trials.

Influenza has the potential to be a dangerous infection on its own, but it increases the risk for cardiovascular events among people with a history of heart attack, said the study’s lead author, Ankeet Bhatt, MD, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco.

“Yearly influenza vaccines help prevent influenza infection and, in patients with a heart attack, are potentially cardioprotective,” he said during his presentation at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago. The NUDGE FLU results were simultaneously published online in JAMA Cardiology.

In Denmark, where the trials were conducted, about 80% of older adults get flu shots, but only about 40% of younger adults with chronic diseases do, Bhatt reported. In the United States, about 45% of adults and 55% of children received at least one dose of the flu vaccine in the 2023/24 flu season, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

The NUDGE FLU Trials

Bhatt and his colleagues conducted three related clinical trials during the 2022/23 and 2023/24 flu seasons: NUDGE-FLU and NUDGE-FLU-2 targeted older adults, whereas NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC targeted younger adults with chronic diseases. Nearly 2 million people were involved in the three trials.

Participants were randomized to receive one of a series of different behavioral-science-informed letters, delivered through a government-run electronic communication system, or no reminder.

People who received any of the nudges had higher rates of vaccination; among heart attack survivors, there was a 1.8% improvement and among adults without a history of heart attack, there was a 1.3% improvement. But a nudge that explained the potential cardiovascular benefits of flu shots was even more effective, leading to a 3.9% increase among people with a history of heart attack and a 2% increase among those with no heart attack history.

“A simple sentence resulted in a durable improvement in the vaccination rate,” said Bhatt.

The effect was even greater among those who had not been vaccinated in the previous flu season. Among heart attack survivors, nearly 14% more people got the vaccine compared with just 1.5% more survivors who were previously vaccinated. And it was most effective among younger adults who had experienced a recent heart attack, resulting in a 26% increase.

“The impact was larger in patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction, in those who were vaccine-hesitant, and in younger people” — all groups with the most to gain from vaccination in terms of cardiovascular protection — Bhatt reported.

About 25% of people in the United States are unsure about whether to get a flu shot, said Orly Vardeny, PharmD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was not involved in the study. The fact that previously unvaccinated people were convinced by the nudges is reassuring. “That’s the group where this intervention is most likely to move the needle,” she said.

Around half of all people hospitalized for flu in the United States have cardiovascular disease, CDC data showed, so “even a small increase in the number of patients who get vaccinated has substantial public health benefits,” Vardeny said.

The NUDGE FLU series showed that nudges like this should be employed as a simple tool to improve vaccination rates, but the system would be much more difficult to implement in the United States, Bhatt said.

Denmark has a national health service and a preexisting government electronic communication system, whereas the US system is privately run and more fractured. It would be possible to make it work, he pointed out, but would take some effort.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An electronic nudge explaining the cardiovascular benefits of the influenza vaccine increased vaccination rates, particularly among people who had previously had a heart attack, showed the NUDGE FLU series of clinical trials.

Influenza has the potential to be a dangerous infection on its own, but it increases the risk for cardiovascular events among people with a history of heart attack, said the study’s lead author, Ankeet Bhatt, MD, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco.

“Yearly influenza vaccines help prevent influenza infection and, in patients with a heart attack, are potentially cardioprotective,” he said during his presentation at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago. The NUDGE FLU results were simultaneously published online in JAMA Cardiology.

In Denmark, where the trials were conducted, about 80% of older adults get flu shots, but only about 40% of younger adults with chronic diseases do, Bhatt reported. In the United States, about 45% of adults and 55% of children received at least one dose of the flu vaccine in the 2023/24 flu season, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

The NUDGE FLU Trials

Bhatt and his colleagues conducted three related clinical trials during the 2022/23 and 2023/24 flu seasons: NUDGE-FLU and NUDGE-FLU-2 targeted older adults, whereas NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC targeted younger adults with chronic diseases. Nearly 2 million people were involved in the three trials.

Participants were randomized to receive one of a series of different behavioral-science-informed letters, delivered through a government-run electronic communication system, or no reminder.

People who received any of the nudges had higher rates of vaccination; among heart attack survivors, there was a 1.8% improvement and among adults without a history of heart attack, there was a 1.3% improvement. But a nudge that explained the potential cardiovascular benefits of flu shots was even more effective, leading to a 3.9% increase among people with a history of heart attack and a 2% increase among those with no heart attack history.

“A simple sentence resulted in a durable improvement in the vaccination rate,” said Bhatt.

The effect was even greater among those who had not been vaccinated in the previous flu season. Among heart attack survivors, nearly 14% more people got the vaccine compared with just 1.5% more survivors who were previously vaccinated. And it was most effective among younger adults who had experienced a recent heart attack, resulting in a 26% increase.

“The impact was larger in patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction, in those who were vaccine-hesitant, and in younger people” — all groups with the most to gain from vaccination in terms of cardiovascular protection — Bhatt reported.

About 25% of people in the United States are unsure about whether to get a flu shot, said Orly Vardeny, PharmD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was not involved in the study. The fact that previously unvaccinated people were convinced by the nudges is reassuring. “That’s the group where this intervention is most likely to move the needle,” she said.

Around half of all people hospitalized for flu in the United States have cardiovascular disease, CDC data showed, so “even a small increase in the number of patients who get vaccinated has substantial public health benefits,” Vardeny said.

The NUDGE FLU series showed that nudges like this should be employed as a simple tool to improve vaccination rates, but the system would be much more difficult to implement in the United States, Bhatt said.

Denmark has a national health service and a preexisting government electronic communication system, whereas the US system is privately run and more fractured. It would be possible to make it work, he pointed out, but would take some effort.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An electronic nudge explaining the cardiovascular benefits of the influenza vaccine increased vaccination rates, particularly among people who had previously had a heart attack, showed the NUDGE FLU series of clinical trials.

Influenza has the potential to be a dangerous infection on its own, but it increases the risk for cardiovascular events among people with a history of heart attack, said the study’s lead author, Ankeet Bhatt, MD, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco.

“Yearly influenza vaccines help prevent influenza infection and, in patients with a heart attack, are potentially cardioprotective,” he said during his presentation at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago. The NUDGE FLU results were simultaneously published online in JAMA Cardiology.

In Denmark, where the trials were conducted, about 80% of older adults get flu shots, but only about 40% of younger adults with chronic diseases do, Bhatt reported. In the United States, about 45% of adults and 55% of children received at least one dose of the flu vaccine in the 2023/24 flu season, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

The NUDGE FLU Trials

Bhatt and his colleagues conducted three related clinical trials during the 2022/23 and 2023/24 flu seasons: NUDGE-FLU and NUDGE-FLU-2 targeted older adults, whereas NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC targeted younger adults with chronic diseases. Nearly 2 million people were involved in the three trials.

Participants were randomized to receive one of a series of different behavioral-science-informed letters, delivered through a government-run electronic communication system, or no reminder.

People who received any of the nudges had higher rates of vaccination; among heart attack survivors, there was a 1.8% improvement and among adults without a history of heart attack, there was a 1.3% improvement. But a nudge that explained the potential cardiovascular benefits of flu shots was even more effective, leading to a 3.9% increase among people with a history of heart attack and a 2% increase among those with no heart attack history.

“A simple sentence resulted in a durable improvement in the vaccination rate,” said Bhatt.

The effect was even greater among those who had not been vaccinated in the previous flu season. Among heart attack survivors, nearly 14% more people got the vaccine compared with just 1.5% more survivors who were previously vaccinated. And it was most effective among younger adults who had experienced a recent heart attack, resulting in a 26% increase.

“The impact was larger in patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction, in those who were vaccine-hesitant, and in younger people” — all groups with the most to gain from vaccination in terms of cardiovascular protection — Bhatt reported.

About 25% of people in the United States are unsure about whether to get a flu shot, said Orly Vardeny, PharmD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was not involved in the study. The fact that previously unvaccinated people were convinced by the nudges is reassuring. “That’s the group where this intervention is most likely to move the needle,” she said.

Around half of all people hospitalized for flu in the United States have cardiovascular disease, CDC data showed, so “even a small increase in the number of patients who get vaccinated has substantial public health benefits,” Vardeny said.

The NUDGE FLU series showed that nudges like this should be employed as a simple tool to improve vaccination rates, but the system would be much more difficult to implement in the United States, Bhatt said.

Denmark has a national health service and a preexisting government electronic communication system, whereas the US system is privately run and more fractured. It would be possible to make it work, he pointed out, but would take some effort.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008