Kelly Ragan

Martha Welch, MD, spent the better part of three decades in private practice treating children with emotional, behavioral, and developmental disorders before accepting a job on the faculty of Columbia University, New York, in 1997.

She took the position, she said, with a mission: to find evidence to support what she’d observed in her practice – that parents could, by making stronger emotional connections, change the trajectory of development for preemie infants.

With that understanding, Dr. Welch created Family Nurture Intervention (FNI), which has been shown to improve the development of premature babies.

“We saw that no matter what happened to the baby, no matter how avoidant the baby might be, we’re able to overcome this with emotional expression,” Dr. Welch said.

Over the course of the intervention, families work with a specialist who helps bring mother and baby together – both physically and emotionally – until both are calm, which can initially take several hours and over time, minutes.

FNI appears to help families – especially mothers – re-establish an emotional connection often interrupted by their babies’ stressful and uncertain stay in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). In turn, both the infant and maternal nervous systems become better regulated, according to researchers.
 

Early challenges

Babies born preterm can face a range of short-term and long-term challenges, such as breathing problems due to an underdeveloped respiratory system, an increased risk of infection from an underdeveloped immune system, and learning difficulties, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Many aspects of FNI are not new: The neonatal intensive care unit has long incorporated activities such as scent cloth exchanges, talking to the baby, and skin-to-skin contact. But the approach Dr. Welch and her colleagues advocate emphasizes building a bond between the mother and the infant.

Mounting evidence shows that FNI can improve a wide range of outcomes for premature babies. In a 2021 study, for example, Dr. Welch’s group showed that FNI was associated with lower heart rates among preemies in the NICU. A 2016 study linked the intervention to reduced depression and anxiety symptoms in mothers of preterm infants. And a 2015 randomized controlled trial showed FNI improved development and behavioral outcomes in infants up to 18 months.

A new study published in Science Translational Medicine showed that the intervention led to a greater likelihood that babies had improved cognitive development later on, narrowing the developmental gap between healthy, full-term babies.

Dr. Welch and her colleagues tested to see if FNI measurably changed brain development in preterm infants who were born at 26-34 weeks of a pregnancy.

“We were blown away by the strength of the effect,” said Pauliina Yrjölä, MSc, a doctoral student and medical physicist at the University of Helsinki, who led the study on which Dr. Welch is a co-author.

Mothers in the intervention group made as much eye contact with the infants as possible and spoke with infants about their feelings.

Intimate sensory interactions between mothers and infants physically altered infants’ cortical networks in the brain and was later correlated to improved neurocognitive performance, according to the researchers.

“I was convinced there were physiological changes; I knew that from my clinical work,” Dr. Welch said. “I wanted to show it in this concrete, scientific way.”
 

Preterm babies face many hurdles

“If we can prevent problems in brain network organization to the extent that’s shown in this study and improve their outcomes, this is worth millions of dollars in terms of cost to society, schooling, health care, especially education, and families,” said Ruth Grunau, PhD, a professor in the Division of Neonatology in the department of pediatrics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who was not involved with the most recent study but has worked with Dr. Welch previously.

Babies born too early, especially before 32 weeks, have higher rates of death and disability, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

And preterm babies overall may experience breathing problems and feeding difficulties almost immediately following birth. They may also experience long-term problems such as developmental delays, vision problems, and hearing problems.

Dr. Grunau said that while many other programs and interventions have been used in the neonatal intensive care unit to help infants and mothers, the results from FNI stand out.

Ms. Yrjölä said she was surprised by the strength of the correlation as the infants continued to develop. The infants receiving the Family Nurture Intervention showed brain development close to the control group, which was infants born at full-term.

“Emotional connection is a state, not a trait – and a state can be changed,” said Dr. Welch. “And in this case, it can be changed by the parent through emotional expression.”
 

Steps clinicians can take

Dr. Welch said the approach is highly scalable, and two NICUs that participated in the FNI studies have implemented the program as standard care.

The approach is also gaining interest outside of the clinical setting, as preschool partners have expressed interest in implementing some of the methods to promote development.

Parents, family members, and teachers can use many of the FNI techniques – such as eye contact and emotional expression – to continue to develop and strengthen connection.

For clinicians who want to implement parts of the intervention on their own, Dr. Welch said doctors can observe if the baby looks at or turns toward their mother.

Clinicians can encourage mothers to express deep, emotional feelings toward the infant. Dr. Welch stressed that feelings don’t have to be positive, as many mothers with babies in the NICU have a hard time expressing positive emotions. Crying or talking about the difficulties of their childbirth experience count as expressing emotion. The important part is that the baby hears emotion, of any kind, in the mother’s voice, Dr. Welch said.

As the connection develops, it will eventually take less time for the mother and the baby to form a bond, and eventually the pair will become autonomically regulated.

“This is what gives us hope,” she said. “We affect each other in our autonomic nervous systems. It’s why this treatment works.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Pediatric Foundation, The Finnish Academy, the Juselius Foundation, Aivosäätiö, Neuroscience Center at University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital, gifts from the Einhorn Family Charitable Trust, the Fleur Fairman Family, M. D. Stephenson, and The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Martha Welch, MD, spent the better part of three decades in private practice treating children with emotional, behavioral, and developmental disorders before accepting a job on the faculty of Columbia University, New York, in 1997.

She took the position, she said, with a mission: to find evidence to support what she’d observed in her practice – that parents could, by making stronger emotional connections, change the trajectory of development for preemie infants.

With that understanding, Dr. Welch created Family Nurture Intervention (FNI), which has been shown to improve the development of premature babies.

“We saw that no matter what happened to the baby, no matter how avoidant the baby might be, we’re able to overcome this with emotional expression,” Dr. Welch said.

Over the course of the intervention, families work with a specialist who helps bring mother and baby together – both physically and emotionally – until both are calm, which can initially take several hours and over time, minutes.

FNI appears to help families – especially mothers – re-establish an emotional connection often interrupted by their babies’ stressful and uncertain stay in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). In turn, both the infant and maternal nervous systems become better regulated, according to researchers.
 

Early challenges

Babies born preterm can face a range of short-term and long-term challenges, such as breathing problems due to an underdeveloped respiratory system, an increased risk of infection from an underdeveloped immune system, and learning difficulties, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Many aspects of FNI are not new: The neonatal intensive care unit has long incorporated activities such as scent cloth exchanges, talking to the baby, and skin-to-skin contact. But the approach Dr. Welch and her colleagues advocate emphasizes building a bond between the mother and the infant.

Mounting evidence shows that FNI can improve a wide range of outcomes for premature babies. In a 2021 study, for example, Dr. Welch’s group showed that FNI was associated with lower heart rates among preemies in the NICU. A 2016 study linked the intervention to reduced depression and anxiety symptoms in mothers of preterm infants. And a 2015 randomized controlled trial showed FNI improved development and behavioral outcomes in infants up to 18 months.

A new study published in Science Translational Medicine showed that the intervention led to a greater likelihood that babies had improved cognitive development later on, narrowing the developmental gap between healthy, full-term babies.

Dr. Welch and her colleagues tested to see if FNI measurably changed brain development in preterm infants who were born at 26-34 weeks of a pregnancy.

“We were blown away by the strength of the effect,” said Pauliina Yrjölä, MSc, a doctoral student and medical physicist at the University of Helsinki, who led the study on which Dr. Welch is a co-author.

Mothers in the intervention group made as much eye contact with the infants as possible and spoke with infants about their feelings.

Intimate sensory interactions between mothers and infants physically altered infants’ cortical networks in the brain and was later correlated to improved neurocognitive performance, according to the researchers.

“I was convinced there were physiological changes; I knew that from my clinical work,” Dr. Welch said. “I wanted to show it in this concrete, scientific way.”
 

Preterm babies face many hurdles

“If we can prevent problems in brain network organization to the extent that’s shown in this study and improve their outcomes, this is worth millions of dollars in terms of cost to society, schooling, health care, especially education, and families,” said Ruth Grunau, PhD, a professor in the Division of Neonatology in the department of pediatrics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who was not involved with the most recent study but has worked with Dr. Welch previously.

Babies born too early, especially before 32 weeks, have higher rates of death and disability, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

And preterm babies overall may experience breathing problems and feeding difficulties almost immediately following birth. They may also experience long-term problems such as developmental delays, vision problems, and hearing problems.

Dr. Grunau said that while many other programs and interventions have been used in the neonatal intensive care unit to help infants and mothers, the results from FNI stand out.

Ms. Yrjölä said she was surprised by the strength of the correlation as the infants continued to develop. The infants receiving the Family Nurture Intervention showed brain development close to the control group, which was infants born at full-term.

“Emotional connection is a state, not a trait – and a state can be changed,” said Dr. Welch. “And in this case, it can be changed by the parent through emotional expression.”
 

Steps clinicians can take

Dr. Welch said the approach is highly scalable, and two NICUs that participated in the FNI studies have implemented the program as standard care.

The approach is also gaining interest outside of the clinical setting, as preschool partners have expressed interest in implementing some of the methods to promote development.

Parents, family members, and teachers can use many of the FNI techniques – such as eye contact and emotional expression – to continue to develop and strengthen connection.

For clinicians who want to implement parts of the intervention on their own, Dr. Welch said doctors can observe if the baby looks at or turns toward their mother.

Clinicians can encourage mothers to express deep, emotional feelings toward the infant. Dr. Welch stressed that feelings don’t have to be positive, as many mothers with babies in the NICU have a hard time expressing positive emotions. Crying or talking about the difficulties of their childbirth experience count as expressing emotion. The important part is that the baby hears emotion, of any kind, in the mother’s voice, Dr. Welch said.

As the connection develops, it will eventually take less time for the mother and the baby to form a bond, and eventually the pair will become autonomically regulated.

“This is what gives us hope,” she said. “We affect each other in our autonomic nervous systems. It’s why this treatment works.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Pediatric Foundation, The Finnish Academy, the Juselius Foundation, Aivosäätiö, Neuroscience Center at University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital, gifts from the Einhorn Family Charitable Trust, the Fleur Fairman Family, M. D. Stephenson, and The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Martha Welch, MD, spent the better part of three decades in private practice treating children with emotional, behavioral, and developmental disorders before accepting a job on the faculty of Columbia University, New York, in 1997.

She took the position, she said, with a mission: to find evidence to support what she’d observed in her practice – that parents could, by making stronger emotional connections, change the trajectory of development for preemie infants.

With that understanding, Dr. Welch created Family Nurture Intervention (FNI), which has been shown to improve the development of premature babies.

“We saw that no matter what happened to the baby, no matter how avoidant the baby might be, we’re able to overcome this with emotional expression,” Dr. Welch said.

Over the course of the intervention, families work with a specialist who helps bring mother and baby together – both physically and emotionally – until both are calm, which can initially take several hours and over time, minutes.

FNI appears to help families – especially mothers – re-establish an emotional connection often interrupted by their babies’ stressful and uncertain stay in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). In turn, both the infant and maternal nervous systems become better regulated, according to researchers.
 

Early challenges

Babies born preterm can face a range of short-term and long-term challenges, such as breathing problems due to an underdeveloped respiratory system, an increased risk of infection from an underdeveloped immune system, and learning difficulties, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Many aspects of FNI are not new: The neonatal intensive care unit has long incorporated activities such as scent cloth exchanges, talking to the baby, and skin-to-skin contact. But the approach Dr. Welch and her colleagues advocate emphasizes building a bond between the mother and the infant.

Mounting evidence shows that FNI can improve a wide range of outcomes for premature babies. In a 2021 study, for example, Dr. Welch’s group showed that FNI was associated with lower heart rates among preemies in the NICU. A 2016 study linked the intervention to reduced depression and anxiety symptoms in mothers of preterm infants. And a 2015 randomized controlled trial showed FNI improved development and behavioral outcomes in infants up to 18 months.

A new study published in Science Translational Medicine showed that the intervention led to a greater likelihood that babies had improved cognitive development later on, narrowing the developmental gap between healthy, full-term babies.

Dr. Welch and her colleagues tested to see if FNI measurably changed brain development in preterm infants who were born at 26-34 weeks of a pregnancy.

“We were blown away by the strength of the effect,” said Pauliina Yrjölä, MSc, a doctoral student and medical physicist at the University of Helsinki, who led the study on which Dr. Welch is a co-author.

Mothers in the intervention group made as much eye contact with the infants as possible and spoke with infants about their feelings.

Intimate sensory interactions between mothers and infants physically altered infants’ cortical networks in the brain and was later correlated to improved neurocognitive performance, according to the researchers.

“I was convinced there were physiological changes; I knew that from my clinical work,” Dr. Welch said. “I wanted to show it in this concrete, scientific way.”
 

Preterm babies face many hurdles

“If we can prevent problems in brain network organization to the extent that’s shown in this study and improve their outcomes, this is worth millions of dollars in terms of cost to society, schooling, health care, especially education, and families,” said Ruth Grunau, PhD, a professor in the Division of Neonatology in the department of pediatrics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who was not involved with the most recent study but has worked with Dr. Welch previously.

Babies born too early, especially before 32 weeks, have higher rates of death and disability, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

And preterm babies overall may experience breathing problems and feeding difficulties almost immediately following birth. They may also experience long-term problems such as developmental delays, vision problems, and hearing problems.

Dr. Grunau said that while many other programs and interventions have been used in the neonatal intensive care unit to help infants and mothers, the results from FNI stand out.

Ms. Yrjölä said she was surprised by the strength of the correlation as the infants continued to develop. The infants receiving the Family Nurture Intervention showed brain development close to the control group, which was infants born at full-term.

“Emotional connection is a state, not a trait – and a state can be changed,” said Dr. Welch. “And in this case, it can be changed by the parent through emotional expression.”
 

Steps clinicians can take

Dr. Welch said the approach is highly scalable, and two NICUs that participated in the FNI studies have implemented the program as standard care.

The approach is also gaining interest outside of the clinical setting, as preschool partners have expressed interest in implementing some of the methods to promote development.

Parents, family members, and teachers can use many of the FNI techniques – such as eye contact and emotional expression – to continue to develop and strengthen connection.

For clinicians who want to implement parts of the intervention on their own, Dr. Welch said doctors can observe if the baby looks at or turns toward their mother.

Clinicians can encourage mothers to express deep, emotional feelings toward the infant. Dr. Welch stressed that feelings don’t have to be positive, as many mothers with babies in the NICU have a hard time expressing positive emotions. Crying or talking about the difficulties of their childbirth experience count as expressing emotion. The important part is that the baby hears emotion, of any kind, in the mother’s voice, Dr. Welch said.

As the connection develops, it will eventually take less time for the mother and the baby to form a bond, and eventually the pair will become autonomically regulated.

“This is what gives us hope,” she said. “We affect each other in our autonomic nervous systems. It’s why this treatment works.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Pediatric Foundation, The Finnish Academy, the Juselius Foundation, Aivosäätiö, Neuroscience Center at University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital, gifts from the Einhorn Family Charitable Trust, the Fleur Fairman Family, M. D. Stephenson, and The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Susan Snead used to live in an apartment complex for older adults. The complex had a nice dayroom, and neighbors would knock on her door every now and then to check in.

But despite not being lonely, Ms. Snead, 89, did live alone in downtown Charleston, S.C. Eventually, that became dangerous.

“I fell a few times,” she says. “I had to call somebody to come and get me up.”

Sometimes help would come from the apartment complex’s office. Sometimes it came with a police escort.

Over time, needing to make those calls became a burden. Making and keeping appointments with her doctor, something she had to do regularly, as she has diabetes, got harder, too.

“It kind of wore me out,” she says. “Like you’re going up a hill.”

As she was beginning to accept she could no longer live alone, Ms. Snead, an Air Force veteran, learned about a program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs called Medical Foster Home.

Medical foster homes are privately owned homes in which a licensed caregiver lives with and supervises residents around the clock. Caregivers help aging veterans with activities of daily living like bathing, cooking, making and getting to appointments, getting dressed, and taking daily medication.

Caregivers can take care of up to three residents in their home at a time. While most residents are veterans, caregivers sometimes care for non-veteran residents, such as a veteran’s spouse or a caregiver’s family member.

Veterans typically pay about $1,500 to $3,000 out-of-pocket per month for the service, depending on location.

According to the VA, the concept of medical foster homes has been around since 1999, when VA hospitals across the country began reaching out to people willing to provide live-in care for veterans. The option is led by local VA hospitals, which approve caregivers and provide administrative services. There are now 517 medical foster homes, the VA says.

Much like other residential care facilities, medical foster homes get regular inspections for safety, nutrition, and more.

In 2019, Ms. Snead signed up for the program. She expected to be cared for, but she found a sense of family with her caregiver, Wilhelmina Brown, and another veteran in the home.

Ms. Brown started taking care of people – but not necessarily veterans – in 1997 when her grandmother was unable to care for herself, she says.

“My grandmama carried me to church every Sunday, she carried me to the beach – everywhere she went, she took me with her,” Ms. Brown says. As her grandmother got older, “I said, ‘I’m going to take care of her in my home.’ ”

Caring for others must come from the heart, Ms. Brown says.

She cooks her residents’ meals three times a day with dietary restrictions in mind, washes their dishes, does their laundry, remembers birthdays, and plans little parties.

“That’s my family,” Ms. Brown says.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended the world – but at the same time, it highlighted the advantages of the medical foster home model.

Home-based primary care keeps veterans out of nursing homes – something that became particularly important as COVID-19 hit nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

Caregivers in the system were also able to help veterans, often living in rural areas, pivot and adapt to telehealth during a time of crisis.

One study, published in the journal Geriatrics, set out to identify how medical foster homes were able to deliver safe, effective health care during the early stages of the pandemic.

Researchers interviewed 37 VA care providers at 16 rural medical foster home programs across the country. The interviews took place between December 2020 and February 2021. They found medical foster home caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers communicated to move office visits to the home, helped veterans navigate telehealth, advocated to get veterans vaccinated in-home, and relied on each other to fight social isolation.

Caregivers also adapted quickly to telehealth, according to Leah Haverhals, PhD, a health research scientist and communications director for the Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran Centered and Value Driven Care, who led the study.

Most veterans in the foster home program are older and find new technology difficult to use.

Caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers were largely new to the technology, too.

While the study found that most veterans and caregivers preferred in-person care, they were able to work together to make the best of telehealth.

“That speaks to the nature of the care being given, being able to pivot in a crisis like that,” Dr. Haverhals says.

If caregivers didn’t already have computers or telehealth-compatible devices, the VA provided iPads that would connect to the internet using cellular signals. According to the study, this helped to overcome connectivity issues that may have caused problems in rural areas.

Ms. Snead says Ms. Brown helped a lot with her telehealth calls.

“If we had to do things over the phone or with video, she was able to set that up to work with the person on the other end. She knows a lot about that stuff – about computers and things like that,” Ms. Snead says, adding that she hadn’t worked with computers since retirement in 1998.

Telehealth helped health care providers identify infections and quickly prescribe antibiotics to veterans in rural areas and provide other care that was more safely delivered in private homes.

“The findings from our study highlighted that when working together for the common goal of keeping vulnerable populations like veterans in MFHs [medical foster homes] safe during times of crisis, adaptation and collaboration facilitated the ongoing provision of high-quality care,” Dr. Haverhals’s group wrote. “Such collaboration has been shown to be critical in recent research in the United States on supporting older adults during the pandemic.”

Cari Levy, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a co-author of the study, specializes in palliative and telenursing home care for the VA.

Dr. Levy, who has worked for the VA for about 20 years, says how medical foster homes provided care during the pandemic carries lessons for civilian clinics. One of the most important lessons, she says, is that medical professionals will need to provide more care where people are, especially in populations that are too sick to get to the clinic.

“For years, there was all this hope that telehealth would expand,” but it took a pandemic to authorize approval from federal agencies to explode, she says. “I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn’t have telehealth. Fortunately, it was the right time to be able to flip a switch.”

Crisis aside, Dr. Levy says her dream would be for health care providers to do more home-based care. The model allows people to preserve the relational aspects of medicine, which can counteract a lot of the moral injury and burnout in the field, she says, adding:

“I see this as the kind of medicine many people intended to do when they got into medicine.”

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

Susan Snead used to live in an apartment complex for older adults. The complex had a nice dayroom, and neighbors would knock on her door every now and then to check in.

But despite not being lonely, Ms. Snead, 89, did live alone in downtown Charleston, S.C. Eventually, that became dangerous.

“I fell a few times,” she says. “I had to call somebody to come and get me up.”

Sometimes help would come from the apartment complex’s office. Sometimes it came with a police escort.

Over time, needing to make those calls became a burden. Making and keeping appointments with her doctor, something she had to do regularly, as she has diabetes, got harder, too.

“It kind of wore me out,” she says. “Like you’re going up a hill.”

As she was beginning to accept she could no longer live alone, Ms. Snead, an Air Force veteran, learned about a program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs called Medical Foster Home.

Medical foster homes are privately owned homes in which a licensed caregiver lives with and supervises residents around the clock. Caregivers help aging veterans with activities of daily living like bathing, cooking, making and getting to appointments, getting dressed, and taking daily medication.

Caregivers can take care of up to three residents in their home at a time. While most residents are veterans, caregivers sometimes care for non-veteran residents, such as a veteran’s spouse or a caregiver’s family member.

Veterans typically pay about $1,500 to $3,000 out-of-pocket per month for the service, depending on location.

According to the VA, the concept of medical foster homes has been around since 1999, when VA hospitals across the country began reaching out to people willing to provide live-in care for veterans. The option is led by local VA hospitals, which approve caregivers and provide administrative services. There are now 517 medical foster homes, the VA says.

Much like other residential care facilities, medical foster homes get regular inspections for safety, nutrition, and more.

In 2019, Ms. Snead signed up for the program. She expected to be cared for, but she found a sense of family with her caregiver, Wilhelmina Brown, and another veteran in the home.

Ms. Brown started taking care of people – but not necessarily veterans – in 1997 when her grandmother was unable to care for herself, she says.

“My grandmama carried me to church every Sunday, she carried me to the beach – everywhere she went, she took me with her,” Ms. Brown says. As her grandmother got older, “I said, ‘I’m going to take care of her in my home.’ ”

Caring for others must come from the heart, Ms. Brown says.

She cooks her residents’ meals three times a day with dietary restrictions in mind, washes their dishes, does their laundry, remembers birthdays, and plans little parties.

“That’s my family,” Ms. Brown says.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended the world – but at the same time, it highlighted the advantages of the medical foster home model.

Home-based primary care keeps veterans out of nursing homes – something that became particularly important as COVID-19 hit nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

Caregivers in the system were also able to help veterans, often living in rural areas, pivot and adapt to telehealth during a time of crisis.

One study, published in the journal Geriatrics, set out to identify how medical foster homes were able to deliver safe, effective health care during the early stages of the pandemic.

Researchers interviewed 37 VA care providers at 16 rural medical foster home programs across the country. The interviews took place between December 2020 and February 2021. They found medical foster home caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers communicated to move office visits to the home, helped veterans navigate telehealth, advocated to get veterans vaccinated in-home, and relied on each other to fight social isolation.

Caregivers also adapted quickly to telehealth, according to Leah Haverhals, PhD, a health research scientist and communications director for the Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran Centered and Value Driven Care, who led the study.

Most veterans in the foster home program are older and find new technology difficult to use.

Caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers were largely new to the technology, too.

While the study found that most veterans and caregivers preferred in-person care, they were able to work together to make the best of telehealth.

“That speaks to the nature of the care being given, being able to pivot in a crisis like that,” Dr. Haverhals says.

If caregivers didn’t already have computers or telehealth-compatible devices, the VA provided iPads that would connect to the internet using cellular signals. According to the study, this helped to overcome connectivity issues that may have caused problems in rural areas.

Ms. Snead says Ms. Brown helped a lot with her telehealth calls.

“If we had to do things over the phone or with video, she was able to set that up to work with the person on the other end. She knows a lot about that stuff – about computers and things like that,” Ms. Snead says, adding that she hadn’t worked with computers since retirement in 1998.

Telehealth helped health care providers identify infections and quickly prescribe antibiotics to veterans in rural areas and provide other care that was more safely delivered in private homes.

“The findings from our study highlighted that when working together for the common goal of keeping vulnerable populations like veterans in MFHs [medical foster homes] safe during times of crisis, adaptation and collaboration facilitated the ongoing provision of high-quality care,” Dr. Haverhals’s group wrote. “Such collaboration has been shown to be critical in recent research in the United States on supporting older adults during the pandemic.”

Cari Levy, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a co-author of the study, specializes in palliative and telenursing home care for the VA.

Dr. Levy, who has worked for the VA for about 20 years, says how medical foster homes provided care during the pandemic carries lessons for civilian clinics. One of the most important lessons, she says, is that medical professionals will need to provide more care where people are, especially in populations that are too sick to get to the clinic.

“For years, there was all this hope that telehealth would expand,” but it took a pandemic to authorize approval from federal agencies to explode, she says. “I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn’t have telehealth. Fortunately, it was the right time to be able to flip a switch.”

Crisis aside, Dr. Levy says her dream would be for health care providers to do more home-based care. The model allows people to preserve the relational aspects of medicine, which can counteract a lot of the moral injury and burnout in the field, she says, adding:

“I see this as the kind of medicine many people intended to do when they got into medicine.”

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

Susan Snead used to live in an apartment complex for older adults. The complex had a nice dayroom, and neighbors would knock on her door every now and then to check in.

But despite not being lonely, Ms. Snead, 89, did live alone in downtown Charleston, S.C. Eventually, that became dangerous.

“I fell a few times,” she says. “I had to call somebody to come and get me up.”

Sometimes help would come from the apartment complex’s office. Sometimes it came with a police escort.

Over time, needing to make those calls became a burden. Making and keeping appointments with her doctor, something she had to do regularly, as she has diabetes, got harder, too.

“It kind of wore me out,” she says. “Like you’re going up a hill.”

As she was beginning to accept she could no longer live alone, Ms. Snead, an Air Force veteran, learned about a program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs called Medical Foster Home.

Medical foster homes are privately owned homes in which a licensed caregiver lives with and supervises residents around the clock. Caregivers help aging veterans with activities of daily living like bathing, cooking, making and getting to appointments, getting dressed, and taking daily medication.

Caregivers can take care of up to three residents in their home at a time. While most residents are veterans, caregivers sometimes care for non-veteran residents, such as a veteran’s spouse or a caregiver’s family member.

Veterans typically pay about $1,500 to $3,000 out-of-pocket per month for the service, depending on location.

According to the VA, the concept of medical foster homes has been around since 1999, when VA hospitals across the country began reaching out to people willing to provide live-in care for veterans. The option is led by local VA hospitals, which approve caregivers and provide administrative services. There are now 517 medical foster homes, the VA says.

Much like other residential care facilities, medical foster homes get regular inspections for safety, nutrition, and more.

In 2019, Ms. Snead signed up for the program. She expected to be cared for, but she found a sense of family with her caregiver, Wilhelmina Brown, and another veteran in the home.

Ms. Brown started taking care of people – but not necessarily veterans – in 1997 when her grandmother was unable to care for herself, she says.

“My grandmama carried me to church every Sunday, she carried me to the beach – everywhere she went, she took me with her,” Ms. Brown says. As her grandmother got older, “I said, ‘I’m going to take care of her in my home.’ ”

Caring for others must come from the heart, Ms. Brown says.

She cooks her residents’ meals three times a day with dietary restrictions in mind, washes their dishes, does their laundry, remembers birthdays, and plans little parties.

“That’s my family,” Ms. Brown says.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended the world – but at the same time, it highlighted the advantages of the medical foster home model.

Home-based primary care keeps veterans out of nursing homes – something that became particularly important as COVID-19 hit nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

Caregivers in the system were also able to help veterans, often living in rural areas, pivot and adapt to telehealth during a time of crisis.

One study, published in the journal Geriatrics, set out to identify how medical foster homes were able to deliver safe, effective health care during the early stages of the pandemic.

Researchers interviewed 37 VA care providers at 16 rural medical foster home programs across the country. The interviews took place between December 2020 and February 2021. They found medical foster home caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers communicated to move office visits to the home, helped veterans navigate telehealth, advocated to get veterans vaccinated in-home, and relied on each other to fight social isolation.

Caregivers also adapted quickly to telehealth, according to Leah Haverhals, PhD, a health research scientist and communications director for the Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran Centered and Value Driven Care, who led the study.

Most veterans in the foster home program are older and find new technology difficult to use.

Caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers were largely new to the technology, too.

While the study found that most veterans and caregivers preferred in-person care, they were able to work together to make the best of telehealth.

“That speaks to the nature of the care being given, being able to pivot in a crisis like that,” Dr. Haverhals says.

If caregivers didn’t already have computers or telehealth-compatible devices, the VA provided iPads that would connect to the internet using cellular signals. According to the study, this helped to overcome connectivity issues that may have caused problems in rural areas.

Ms. Snead says Ms. Brown helped a lot with her telehealth calls.

“If we had to do things over the phone or with video, she was able to set that up to work with the person on the other end. She knows a lot about that stuff – about computers and things like that,” Ms. Snead says, adding that she hadn’t worked with computers since retirement in 1998.

Telehealth helped health care providers identify infections and quickly prescribe antibiotics to veterans in rural areas and provide other care that was more safely delivered in private homes.

“The findings from our study highlighted that when working together for the common goal of keeping vulnerable populations like veterans in MFHs [medical foster homes] safe during times of crisis, adaptation and collaboration facilitated the ongoing provision of high-quality care,” Dr. Haverhals’s group wrote. “Such collaboration has been shown to be critical in recent research in the United States on supporting older adults during the pandemic.”

Cari Levy, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a co-author of the study, specializes in palliative and telenursing home care for the VA.

Dr. Levy, who has worked for the VA for about 20 years, says how medical foster homes provided care during the pandemic carries lessons for civilian clinics. One of the most important lessons, she says, is that medical professionals will need to provide more care where people are, especially in populations that are too sick to get to the clinic.

“For years, there was all this hope that telehealth would expand,” but it took a pandemic to authorize approval from federal agencies to explode, she says. “I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn’t have telehealth. Fortunately, it was the right time to be able to flip a switch.”

Crisis aside, Dr. Levy says her dream would be for health care providers to do more home-based care. The model allows people to preserve the relational aspects of medicine, which can counteract a lot of the moral injury and burnout in the field, she says, adding:

“I see this as the kind of medicine many people intended to do when they got into medicine.”

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

Physicians have screened new and expectant mothers for perinatal depression for years. But what about fathers?

A new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests it’s time for health care providers to ask both parents about any mental health symptoms before and after their baby is born.

“We are screening most mothers for signs of perinatal depression,” said Kara Smythe, MD, at the department of primary care and population health and Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care at the University College London, who is the lead author of the study. “But we aren’t always asking about the relationship between them and the person helping them care for this newborn. If we don’t consider the experience of new fathers, we’re doing a disservice to everyone.”

Without screening both parents, health care providers can miss important clues to why child and parents experience adverse health outcomes post birth.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, found that for 3.18% of couples, both parents concurrently experienced depression before and following a birth. The mental illness was more common in the late postnatal period (3-12 months).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1 in 8 women experience symptoms of postpartum depression. Other sources indicate the incidence may be much higher. Findings from a mobile app using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale presented at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting in 2019 indicated more than half of the 164,237 women who used the free app reported symptoms of depression for up to a year following the birth of their baby.
 

The findings

Dr. Smythe and her team reviewed previously published observational studies on the prevalence of perinatal depression or anxiety in couples from the Ovid and Web of Science between Jan. 1, 1990, and June 8, 2021.

They ultimately included 23 studies with data from 29,286 couples. They broke the data into subgroups of persons with antenatal depression, early postnatal depression (0-12 weeks), late postnatal depression (3-13 months), and perinatal anxiety.

About 1.7% (P < .001) of couples experienced antenatal depression, and about 2.4% (P < .001) experienced early postnatal depression. About 3.2% (P < .001) experienced late postnatal depression. The data on perinatal anxiety were insufficient, they write.

The vast majority of couples included in the samples were White, heterosexual, and highly educated with a middle to high socioeconomic background. The pregnancies were reportedly wanted, if not planned. The majority of the studies – 21 – included in the analysis were from countries other than the United States.

According to the study, evidence suggests that paternal depression can lead to increased symptoms of depression in mothers during pregnancy and the following 6 months. Men reported perinatal depression at similar rates as women, and Dr. Smythe said it’s becoming clear that men experience similar struggles as they transition into fatherhood.

J. J. Parker, MD, a pediatric and internal attending physician at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and Northwestern Medicine, said the findings solidify what he has observed from his own experience as a new father and resident.

“You’re at higher risk of having depression if your partner has depression, but it’s important to see that in the numbers,” Dr. Parker told this news organization. “I think from a clinician standpoint, this demonstrates that 3% of infants are living in households where both parents are depressed, and that has major implications for the development and health of those children.”

Dr. Smythe and her colleagues found that if even one parent is experiencing a mood disorder such as depression or anxiety, the newborn can experience impaired bonding, behavioral problems, and other harms later in life.

If both parents are experiencing perinatal depression, those negative outcomes could be amplified, although Dr. Smythe said more research is needed to solidify the link.

“I think one quick takeaway for pediatricians, clinicians, and any other health care providers taking care of mothers and infants is to ask about the nonbirthing parent,” Dr. Parker said. “All clinicians can do that right away, even if the mother does not have depression.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Smythe and her colleagues report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians have screened new and expectant mothers for perinatal depression for years. But what about fathers?

A new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests it’s time for health care providers to ask both parents about any mental health symptoms before and after their baby is born.

“We are screening most mothers for signs of perinatal depression,” said Kara Smythe, MD, at the department of primary care and population health and Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care at the University College London, who is the lead author of the study. “But we aren’t always asking about the relationship between them and the person helping them care for this newborn. If we don’t consider the experience of new fathers, we’re doing a disservice to everyone.”

Without screening both parents, health care providers can miss important clues to why child and parents experience adverse health outcomes post birth.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, found that for 3.18% of couples, both parents concurrently experienced depression before and following a birth. The mental illness was more common in the late postnatal period (3-12 months).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1 in 8 women experience symptoms of postpartum depression. Other sources indicate the incidence may be much higher. Findings from a mobile app using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale presented at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting in 2019 indicated more than half of the 164,237 women who used the free app reported symptoms of depression for up to a year following the birth of their baby.
 

The findings

Dr. Smythe and her team reviewed previously published observational studies on the prevalence of perinatal depression or anxiety in couples from the Ovid and Web of Science between Jan. 1, 1990, and June 8, 2021.

They ultimately included 23 studies with data from 29,286 couples. They broke the data into subgroups of persons with antenatal depression, early postnatal depression (0-12 weeks), late postnatal depression (3-13 months), and perinatal anxiety.

About 1.7% (P < .001) of couples experienced antenatal depression, and about 2.4% (P < .001) experienced early postnatal depression. About 3.2% (P < .001) experienced late postnatal depression. The data on perinatal anxiety were insufficient, they write.

The vast majority of couples included in the samples were White, heterosexual, and highly educated with a middle to high socioeconomic background. The pregnancies were reportedly wanted, if not planned. The majority of the studies – 21 – included in the analysis were from countries other than the United States.

According to the study, evidence suggests that paternal depression can lead to increased symptoms of depression in mothers during pregnancy and the following 6 months. Men reported perinatal depression at similar rates as women, and Dr. Smythe said it’s becoming clear that men experience similar struggles as they transition into fatherhood.

J. J. Parker, MD, a pediatric and internal attending physician at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and Northwestern Medicine, said the findings solidify what he has observed from his own experience as a new father and resident.

“You’re at higher risk of having depression if your partner has depression, but it’s important to see that in the numbers,” Dr. Parker told this news organization. “I think from a clinician standpoint, this demonstrates that 3% of infants are living in households where both parents are depressed, and that has major implications for the development and health of those children.”

Dr. Smythe and her colleagues found that if even one parent is experiencing a mood disorder such as depression or anxiety, the newborn can experience impaired bonding, behavioral problems, and other harms later in life.

If both parents are experiencing perinatal depression, those negative outcomes could be amplified, although Dr. Smythe said more research is needed to solidify the link.

“I think one quick takeaway for pediatricians, clinicians, and any other health care providers taking care of mothers and infants is to ask about the nonbirthing parent,” Dr. Parker said. “All clinicians can do that right away, even if the mother does not have depression.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Smythe and her colleagues report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians have screened new and expectant mothers for perinatal depression for years. But what about fathers?

A new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests it’s time for health care providers to ask both parents about any mental health symptoms before and after their baby is born.

“We are screening most mothers for signs of perinatal depression,” said Kara Smythe, MD, at the department of primary care and population health and Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care at the University College London, who is the lead author of the study. “But we aren’t always asking about the relationship between them and the person helping them care for this newborn. If we don’t consider the experience of new fathers, we’re doing a disservice to everyone.”

Without screening both parents, health care providers can miss important clues to why child and parents experience adverse health outcomes post birth.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, found that for 3.18% of couples, both parents concurrently experienced depression before and following a birth. The mental illness was more common in the late postnatal period (3-12 months).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1 in 8 women experience symptoms of postpartum depression. Other sources indicate the incidence may be much higher. Findings from a mobile app using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale presented at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting in 2019 indicated more than half of the 164,237 women who used the free app reported symptoms of depression for up to a year following the birth of their baby.
 

The findings

Dr. Smythe and her team reviewed previously published observational studies on the prevalence of perinatal depression or anxiety in couples from the Ovid and Web of Science between Jan. 1, 1990, and June 8, 2021.

They ultimately included 23 studies with data from 29,286 couples. They broke the data into subgroups of persons with antenatal depression, early postnatal depression (0-12 weeks), late postnatal depression (3-13 months), and perinatal anxiety.

About 1.7% (P < .001) of couples experienced antenatal depression, and about 2.4% (P < .001) experienced early postnatal depression. About 3.2% (P < .001) experienced late postnatal depression. The data on perinatal anxiety were insufficient, they write.

The vast majority of couples included in the samples were White, heterosexual, and highly educated with a middle to high socioeconomic background. The pregnancies were reportedly wanted, if not planned. The majority of the studies – 21 – included in the analysis were from countries other than the United States.

According to the study, evidence suggests that paternal depression can lead to increased symptoms of depression in mothers during pregnancy and the following 6 months. Men reported perinatal depression at similar rates as women, and Dr. Smythe said it’s becoming clear that men experience similar struggles as they transition into fatherhood.

J. J. Parker, MD, a pediatric and internal attending physician at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and Northwestern Medicine, said the findings solidify what he has observed from his own experience as a new father and resident.

“You’re at higher risk of having depression if your partner has depression, but it’s important to see that in the numbers,” Dr. Parker told this news organization. “I think from a clinician standpoint, this demonstrates that 3% of infants are living in households where both parents are depressed, and that has major implications for the development and health of those children.”

Dr. Smythe and her colleagues found that if even one parent is experiencing a mood disorder such as depression or anxiety, the newborn can experience impaired bonding, behavioral problems, and other harms later in life.

If both parents are experiencing perinatal depression, those negative outcomes could be amplified, although Dr. Smythe said more research is needed to solidify the link.

“I think one quick takeaway for pediatricians, clinicians, and any other health care providers taking care of mothers and infants is to ask about the nonbirthing parent,” Dr. Parker said. “All clinicians can do that right away, even if the mother does not have depression.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Smythe and her colleagues report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults in the United States increasingly perceive electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, as “more harmful” than traditional cigarettes, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

In addition, the percentage of people who exclusively used traditional cigarettes almost doubled between 2019 and 2020 among those who perceived e-cigarettes as more harmful, jumping from 8.4% in 2019 to 16.3% in 2020.

“We were able to show that these changes in perception potentially changed behaviors on a population level,” said Priti Bandi, PhD, principal scientist at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta and lead author of the study.

Since e-cigarettes entered the U.S. market in 2006, public health experts have questioned claims from manufacturers that the products work as a harm reduction tool to help traditional cigarette smokers to quit. Public perceptions have generally been that e-cigarettes are safer for a person’s health. While the research is still emerging on the long-term health outcomes of users, public opinion has shifted since the introduction of the devices.

The new study showed a sharp change in public perception of e-cigarettes following media coverage of cases of users who presented to emergency rooms with mysterious lung symptoms in 2019. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eventually found that what are now called e-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injuries were linked to vitamin E acetate, an additive to tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products but not nicotine.

The last update from the CDC came in February 2020, shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic swept through the United States, prompting a sharp shift to investigate the new virus among both health care providers and researchers.

Dr. Bandi and colleagues gathered 2018-2020 data from a National Institutes of Health database called the Health Information National Trends Survey, a mail-based, nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of U.S. adults and their attitudes of cancer and health-related information. More than 3,000 people each year responded to questions about e-cigarettes.

The study found that the percentage of people who believed e-cigarettes to be more harmful than traditional cigarettes more than tripled from 6.8% in 2018 to 28.3% in 2020. Fewer people also viewed e-cigarettes as less harmful than traditional cigarettes, falling from 17.6% in 2018 to 11.4% in 2020. Fewer people also said they were unsure about which product was more harmful.

Among those who believed e-cigarettes were “relatively” less harmful than traditional cigarettes, use of e-cigarettes jumped from 15.3% in 2019 to 26.7% in 2020.
 

The implications

The main finding that people started smoking cigarettes when they thought e-cigarettes were more harmful should be a wake-up to public health officials and doctors who communicate health risks to patients, according to Dr. Bandi and other experts.

Messaging should be more nuanced, Dr. Bandi said. Many adults use e-cigarettes as a cessation tool, and she and other experts point to research that shows the products are, at least in the short-term, less harmful especially as a smoking cessation tool. Vapes are among the most popular tools people use when they want to quit smoking – with the majority of U.S. adults using vapes either partially or fully to quit, according to the CDC.

Some countries, such as England, are moving to allow doctors to prescribe e-cigarettes to help reduce smoking rates. United Kingdom regulatory authorities in 2021 said they’re considering allowing licensing the devices for use in smoking cessation.

“There is an absolute need for ongoing, accurate communication from public health authorities targeted toward the appropriate audiences,” Bandi said.

Ashley Brooks-Russell, PhD, MPH, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said the finding that perceptions can change behavior is good news. However, the bad news is that adults overcorrected and switched to cigarettes, which are proven to cause cancer and other health conditions.

“We’re good in public health about messaging that cigarettes are bad, that tobacco is broadly harmful,” Dr. Brooks-Russell said in an interview. “We’re really bad at talking about lesser options, like if you’re going to smoke, e-cigarettes are less harmful.” 

But other health leaders warn that e-cigarettes might produce the same adverse health outcomes, or worse, as cigarettes. The only way researchers will gain a conclusive answer is decades into a patient’s life. Until then, it’s not clear if any potential benefit from smoking cessation will outweigh the risks.

“This research should remind healthcare providers to find out what products patients are using, how much, and if those patients experience health issues later on,” said Kevin McQueen, MHA, lead respiratory director at University of Colorado Health System and president of the Colorado Respiratory Care Society.

“My concern is that while people are starting to think e-cigarettes are more dangerous, some people still think they are safe – and we don’t know how much safer they are,” he said. “And we aren’t going to know until 10, 15, 20 years from now.”

All authors were employed by the American Cancer Society at the time of the study, which receives grants from private and corporate foundations, including foundations associated with companies in the health sector for research outside of the submitted work. The authors are not funded by or key personnel for any of these grants, and their salaries are solely funded through American Cancer Society funds. No other financial disclosures were reported.

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

Adults in the United States increasingly perceive electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, as “more harmful” than traditional cigarettes, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

In addition, the percentage of people who exclusively used traditional cigarettes almost doubled between 2019 and 2020 among those who perceived e-cigarettes as more harmful, jumping from 8.4% in 2019 to 16.3% in 2020.

“We were able to show that these changes in perception potentially changed behaviors on a population level,” said Priti Bandi, PhD, principal scientist at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta and lead author of the study.

Since e-cigarettes entered the U.S. market in 2006, public health experts have questioned claims from manufacturers that the products work as a harm reduction tool to help traditional cigarette smokers to quit. Public perceptions have generally been that e-cigarettes are safer for a person’s health. While the research is still emerging on the long-term health outcomes of users, public opinion has shifted since the introduction of the devices.

The new study showed a sharp change in public perception of e-cigarettes following media coverage of cases of users who presented to emergency rooms with mysterious lung symptoms in 2019. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eventually found that what are now called e-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injuries were linked to vitamin E acetate, an additive to tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products but not nicotine.

The last update from the CDC came in February 2020, shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic swept through the United States, prompting a sharp shift to investigate the new virus among both health care providers and researchers.

Dr. Bandi and colleagues gathered 2018-2020 data from a National Institutes of Health database called the Health Information National Trends Survey, a mail-based, nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of U.S. adults and their attitudes of cancer and health-related information. More than 3,000 people each year responded to questions about e-cigarettes.

The study found that the percentage of people who believed e-cigarettes to be more harmful than traditional cigarettes more than tripled from 6.8% in 2018 to 28.3% in 2020. Fewer people also viewed e-cigarettes as less harmful than traditional cigarettes, falling from 17.6% in 2018 to 11.4% in 2020. Fewer people also said they were unsure about which product was more harmful.

Among those who believed e-cigarettes were “relatively” less harmful than traditional cigarettes, use of e-cigarettes jumped from 15.3% in 2019 to 26.7% in 2020.
 

The implications

The main finding that people started smoking cigarettes when they thought e-cigarettes were more harmful should be a wake-up to public health officials and doctors who communicate health risks to patients, according to Dr. Bandi and other experts.

Messaging should be more nuanced, Dr. Bandi said. Many adults use e-cigarettes as a cessation tool, and she and other experts point to research that shows the products are, at least in the short-term, less harmful especially as a smoking cessation tool. Vapes are among the most popular tools people use when they want to quit smoking – with the majority of U.S. adults using vapes either partially or fully to quit, according to the CDC.

Some countries, such as England, are moving to allow doctors to prescribe e-cigarettes to help reduce smoking rates. United Kingdom regulatory authorities in 2021 said they’re considering allowing licensing the devices for use in smoking cessation.

“There is an absolute need for ongoing, accurate communication from public health authorities targeted toward the appropriate audiences,” Bandi said.

Ashley Brooks-Russell, PhD, MPH, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said the finding that perceptions can change behavior is good news. However, the bad news is that adults overcorrected and switched to cigarettes, which are proven to cause cancer and other health conditions.

“We’re good in public health about messaging that cigarettes are bad, that tobacco is broadly harmful,” Dr. Brooks-Russell said in an interview. “We’re really bad at talking about lesser options, like if you’re going to smoke, e-cigarettes are less harmful.” 

But other health leaders warn that e-cigarettes might produce the same adverse health outcomes, or worse, as cigarettes. The only way researchers will gain a conclusive answer is decades into a patient’s life. Until then, it’s not clear if any potential benefit from smoking cessation will outweigh the risks.

“This research should remind healthcare providers to find out what products patients are using, how much, and if those patients experience health issues later on,” said Kevin McQueen, MHA, lead respiratory director at University of Colorado Health System and president of the Colorado Respiratory Care Society.

“My concern is that while people are starting to think e-cigarettes are more dangerous, some people still think they are safe – and we don’t know how much safer they are,” he said. “And we aren’t going to know until 10, 15, 20 years from now.”

All authors were employed by the American Cancer Society at the time of the study, which receives grants from private and corporate foundations, including foundations associated with companies in the health sector for research outside of the submitted work. The authors are not funded by or key personnel for any of these grants, and their salaries are solely funded through American Cancer Society funds. No other financial disclosures were reported.

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

Adults in the United States increasingly perceive electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, as “more harmful” than traditional cigarettes, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

In addition, the percentage of people who exclusively used traditional cigarettes almost doubled between 2019 and 2020 among those who perceived e-cigarettes as more harmful, jumping from 8.4% in 2019 to 16.3% in 2020.

“We were able to show that these changes in perception potentially changed behaviors on a population level,” said Priti Bandi, PhD, principal scientist at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta and lead author of the study.

Since e-cigarettes entered the U.S. market in 2006, public health experts have questioned claims from manufacturers that the products work as a harm reduction tool to help traditional cigarette smokers to quit. Public perceptions have generally been that e-cigarettes are safer for a person’s health. While the research is still emerging on the long-term health outcomes of users, public opinion has shifted since the introduction of the devices.

The new study showed a sharp change in public perception of e-cigarettes following media coverage of cases of users who presented to emergency rooms with mysterious lung symptoms in 2019. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eventually found that what are now called e-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injuries were linked to vitamin E acetate, an additive to tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products but not nicotine.

The last update from the CDC came in February 2020, shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic swept through the United States, prompting a sharp shift to investigate the new virus among both health care providers and researchers.

Dr. Bandi and colleagues gathered 2018-2020 data from a National Institutes of Health database called the Health Information National Trends Survey, a mail-based, nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of U.S. adults and their attitudes of cancer and health-related information. More than 3,000 people each year responded to questions about e-cigarettes.

The study found that the percentage of people who believed e-cigarettes to be more harmful than traditional cigarettes more than tripled from 6.8% in 2018 to 28.3% in 2020. Fewer people also viewed e-cigarettes as less harmful than traditional cigarettes, falling from 17.6% in 2018 to 11.4% in 2020. Fewer people also said they were unsure about which product was more harmful.

Among those who believed e-cigarettes were “relatively” less harmful than traditional cigarettes, use of e-cigarettes jumped from 15.3% in 2019 to 26.7% in 2020.
 

The implications

The main finding that people started smoking cigarettes when they thought e-cigarettes were more harmful should be a wake-up to public health officials and doctors who communicate health risks to patients, according to Dr. Bandi and other experts.

Messaging should be more nuanced, Dr. Bandi said. Many adults use e-cigarettes as a cessation tool, and she and other experts point to research that shows the products are, at least in the short-term, less harmful especially as a smoking cessation tool. Vapes are among the most popular tools people use when they want to quit smoking – with the majority of U.S. adults using vapes either partially or fully to quit, according to the CDC.

Some countries, such as England, are moving to allow doctors to prescribe e-cigarettes to help reduce smoking rates. United Kingdom regulatory authorities in 2021 said they’re considering allowing licensing the devices for use in smoking cessation.

“There is an absolute need for ongoing, accurate communication from public health authorities targeted toward the appropriate audiences,” Bandi said.

Ashley Brooks-Russell, PhD, MPH, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said the finding that perceptions can change behavior is good news. However, the bad news is that adults overcorrected and switched to cigarettes, which are proven to cause cancer and other health conditions.

“We’re good in public health about messaging that cigarettes are bad, that tobacco is broadly harmful,” Dr. Brooks-Russell said in an interview. “We’re really bad at talking about lesser options, like if you’re going to smoke, e-cigarettes are less harmful.” 

But other health leaders warn that e-cigarettes might produce the same adverse health outcomes, or worse, as cigarettes. The only way researchers will gain a conclusive answer is decades into a patient’s life. Until then, it’s not clear if any potential benefit from smoking cessation will outweigh the risks.

“This research should remind healthcare providers to find out what products patients are using, how much, and if those patients experience health issues later on,” said Kevin McQueen, MHA, lead respiratory director at University of Colorado Health System and president of the Colorado Respiratory Care Society.

“My concern is that while people are starting to think e-cigarettes are more dangerous, some people still think they are safe – and we don’t know how much safer they are,” he said. “And we aren’t going to know until 10, 15, 20 years from now.”

All authors were employed by the American Cancer Society at the time of the study, which receives grants from private and corporate foundations, including foundations associated with companies in the health sector for research outside of the submitted work. The authors are not funded by or key personnel for any of these grants, and their salaries are solely funded through American Cancer Society funds. No other financial disclosures were reported.

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