Introduction. To maximize limited resources, many health promotion programs are designed to be delivered by volunteer lay leaders. But this model poses challenges to implementation in real-world settings and barriers to successfully scaling-up programs. This study examines the current lay leader training model for Walk With Ease, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–funded evidence-based arthritis program delivered at-scale. Method. Recruited volunteers (n = 106) opted into free online or in-person training and agreed to deliver one Walk With Ease program within the following year—only 49%, however, did. Using logistic regression models and qualitative interviews, we explored predictors of volunteer delivery. Results. Volunteers had higher odds of delivering programs if they trained online (odds ratio [OR] = 9.04, 95% confidence interval [CI: 2.30, 48.36]), previously taught health programs (OR = 15.52, 95% CI [3.51, 103.55]) or trained in the second year of implementation (OR = 27.08, 95% CI [2.63, 415.78]). Qualitative findings underscored that successful volunteers were readied by their previous health education experience. Conclusions. While online training modes appear effective to prepare experienced volunteers, lay leaders required additional support. This calls into question whether lay-led delivery models are suitable for scaling-up programs with limited resources. Given the many lay-led health interventions for chronic disease self-management, investing in common training and infrastructures for lay leader development could advance the quality and sustainability of real-world program delivery.

Background: This study compares postoperative pain scores and functional outcomes between liposomal bupivacaine peri-articular injection (LB-PAI) vs a single-shot adductor canal block (ACB) using bupivacaine HCl in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: This is a randomized controlled trial of 56 patients who were treated with TKA for arthritis. Patients were randomized to receive an intraoperative LB-PAI (n ¼ 27) or preoperative ACB using bupivacaine HCl (n ¼ 29). Both groups were otherwise given our institutional standard multimodal pain protocol. Data on Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, knee range of motion, postoperative ambulation distance, hospital length of stay, and opioid use were collected. The total cost of each intervention was compared at the conclusion of the study. Results: Age, gender, or body mass index was similar between groups. Compared to the ACB group, the LB-PAI group trended to lower average VAS pain scores on postoperative days 0, 1, and 2 (average difference [95% confidence interval] ¼ À0.5 [À0.7, 1.7], À1.0 [À0.1, 2.0], À0.2 [À0.8, 1.3]), and identical average VAS pain scores on postoperative days 4 and 7. These differences and all postoperative outcome measures were not statistically significant at any time point. A single 266-milligram vial of liposomal bupivacaine costs $351, and a single-shot ACB costs $893 at our institution. Conclusions: This randomized controlled trial shows similar postoperative pain control, functional outcomes, and opioid use between LB-PAI and a single-shot ACB in patients undergoing primary TKA.

Background It is not well established whether a virtual multidisciplinary care program for persons with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) can improve their knowledge about their disease, increase their interest in home dialysis therapies, and result in more planned outpatient (versus inpatient) dialysis starts. Objective We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary associations of program participation with disease knowledge, home dialysis modality preference, and outpatient dialysis initiation among persons with advanced CKD in a community-based nephrology practice. Methods In a matched prospective cohort, we enrolled adults aged 18 to 85 years with at least two estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 into the Cricket Health program and compared them with controls receiving care at the same clinic, matched on age, gender, eGFR, and presence of heart failure and diabetes. The intervention included online education materials, a virtual multidisciplinary team (nurse, pharmacist, social worker, dietician), and patient mentors. Prespecified follow-up time was nine months with extended follow-up to allow adequate time to determine the dialysis start setting. CKD knowledge and dialysis modality choice were evaluated in a pre-post survey among intervention participants. Results Thirty-seven participants were matched to 61 controls by age (mean 67.2, SD 10.4 versus mean 68.8, SD 9.5), prevalence of diabetes (54%, 20/37 versus 57%, 35/61), congestive heart failure (22%, 8/37 versus 25%, 15/61), and baseline eGFR (mean 19, SD 6 versus mean 21, SD 5 mL/min/1.73 m2), respectively. At nine-month follow-up, five patients in each group started dialysis (P=.62). Among program participants, 80% (4/5) started dialysis as an outpatient compared with 20% (1/5) of controls (OR 6.28, 95% CI 0.69-57.22). In extended follow-up (median 15.7, range 11.7 to 18.1 months), 19 of 98 patients started dialysis; 80% (8/10) of the intervention group patients started dialysis in the outpatient setting versus 22% (2/9) of control patients (hazard ratio 6.89, 95% CI 1.46-32.66). Compared to before participation, patients who completed the program had higher disease knowledge levels (mean 52%, SD 29% versus mean 94%, SD 14% of questions correct on knowledge-based survey, P<.001) and were more likely to choose a home modality as their first dialysis choice (36%, 7/22 versus 68%, 15/22, P=.047) after program completion. Conclusions The Cricket Health program can improve patient knowledge about CKD and increase interest in home dialysis modalities, and may increase the proportion of dialysis starts in the outpatient setting.

Context There are limited data regarding the experiences of and attitudes toward research participation among osteopathic medical students despite rapidly increasing enrollment and expansion of the number of osteopathic medical schools. Objective To assess first-year osteopathic medical students’ experience with research, their interest in it, their perceptions of its value, and barriers to participation. Methods An anonymous, online survey was sent to 868 medical students in the class of 2021 at 4 colleges of osteopathic medicine. The survey consisted of 14 multiple-choice items (7 of which offered the option of a written response) and 1 open-ended item that asked them to report their age. The survey remained open for 2 weeks, with 1 reminder email sent on the last day of the survey. Incomplete responses were excluded from the analysis. Results A total of 328 participants were included, for a response rate of 38%. A majority of respondents reported previous research experience (261 [79.6%]), consistent with a strong perception that research participation is important (315 [96.0%]). Fewer students (177 [54.0%]) were either currently participating in research or affirmed interest in performing research during medical school, with the highest level of interest in clinical research (259 [79.0%]) followed by basic science (166 [50.6%]). Regarding incentives that might encourage participation in research, students preferred monetary compensation (213 [64.9%]) or extra credit in courses (195 [59.5%]). A commonly reported barrier to performing research during medical school was the possibility of a negative impact on performance in coursework (289 [88.1%]). Conclusion First-year osteopathic medical students are interested in research, view research experience as valuable, and consider research experience as beneficial to future career development. This study's findings highlight opportunities for increasing student participation in research through incentives or removal of perceived barriers.