Anderson, Timothy S, and Michael A Steinman. (2020) 2020. “Antihypertensive Prescribing Cascades As High-Priority Targets for Deprescribing.”. JAMA Internal Medicine 180 (5): 651-52. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.7082.
Publications
2020
Anderson, Timothy S, and Charlie M Wray. (2020) 2020. “Web Exclusive. Annals for Hospitalists Inpatient Notes - Inpatient Hypertension-To Treat or Tolerate?”. Annals of Internal Medicine 172 (8): HO2-HO3. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1021.
Anderson, Timothy S, Colette DeJong, Chester B Good, and Walid F Gellad. (2020) 2020. “Disclosure of Article Funding and Conflicts of Interest in High-Impact Clinical Journals.”. Journal of General Internal Medicine 35 (4): 1345-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05378-9.
Hadland, Scott E, Magdalena Cerdá, Joel J Earlywine, Maxwell S Krieger, Timothy S Anderson, and Brandon D L Marshall. (2020) 2020. “Analysis of Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing of Stimulants, 2014 Through 2018.”. JAMA Pediatrics 174 (4): 385-87. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5526.
This study examines the number and dollar amount of payments to physicians from companies marketing prescription stimulant medications.
Centor, Robert M, Timothy S Anderson, and Charlie M Wray. (2020) 2020. “Web Exclusive. Annals On Call - Hypertension in the Hospital.”. Annals of Internal Medicine 173 (3): OC1. https://doi.org/10.7326/A19-0035.
Nemeth, Julianna M, Nelie Viveiros, Kellie R Lynch, Tia Stevens Anderson, and Bonnie Fisher. (2020) 2020. “Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Coercion: Measurement Invariance in a Population-Based Sample of Male and Female High School Students.”. Journal of Family Violence 35 (6): 619-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00092-w.
PURPOSE: Though researchers have documented that adolescents are vulnerable to coercion focused on reproductive and sexual autonomy, measures to assess this type of coercion for both adolescent females and males have not been validated in a population-based sample.
METHOD: The present study used secondary data collected from high school students across Kentucky (n=16,137 from two independent samples in 2010 and 2014) to 1) determine if five items measuring adolescent reproductive and sexual coercion (ARSC) are appropriate for use among both females and males; and 2) estimate prevalence of identified ARSC factors by sex.
RESULTS: For both male and females, given measurement items, the results supported a two-factor model of ARSC comprised of 1) verbal relationship manipulation and 2) contraceptive interference. Measurement invariance by sex was also supported. Additional findings indicated the high prevalence of ARSC and its associated subscales. Approximately 4 in 10 females and 3 in 10 males reported experiencing ARSC in the previous year, with almost all of those reporting contraceptive interference also reporting verbal relationship manipulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest verbal relationship manipulation and contraceptive interference (together forming ARSC) may restrict the autonomous sexual and reproductive decision-making of both female and male adolescents.
Anderson, Timothy S, and Grace A Lin. (2020) 2020. “Testing Cascades-A Call to Move From Descriptive Research to Deimplementation Science.”. JAMA Internal Medicine 180 (7): 984-85. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1588.
Anderson, Timothy S, Michelle Odden, Joanne Penko, Dhruv S Kazi, Brandon K Bellows, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo. (2020) 2020. “Generalizability of Clinical Trials Supporting the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Guideline.”. JAMA Internal Medicine 180 (5): 795-97. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0051.
This study uses National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data to evaluate whether patients enrolled in the clinical trials that support the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline are representative of the US adult population recommended additional pharmacotherapy by the ACC/AHA guideline.
Anderson, Timothy S, Maxwell S Krieger, Brandon D L Marshall, Magdalena Cerdá, and Scott Hadland. (2020) 2020. “Financial Payments to Teaching Hospitals by Companies Marketing Opioids.”. Journal of General Internal Medicine 35 (10): 3108-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05596-1.
Anderson, Timothy S, Walid F Gellad, and Chester B Good. (2020) 2020. “Characteristics Of Biomedical Industry Payments To Teaching Hospitals.”. Health Affairs (Project Hope) 39 (9): 1583-91. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00385.
The Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires biomedical companies to report payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Despite significant attention paid to industry payments to physicians, little is known about payments to teaching hospitals, which create the potential for both benefits and institutional conflicts of interest. We examined 2018 CMS Open Payments program data to identify all nonresearch payments made by industry to teaching hospitals and determined that 91 percent of teaching hospitals received industry payments totaling $832 million in 2018. We observed substantial royalty payments, which may reflect the downstream benefits of research partnerships, as well as substantial payments for gifts and education, which raise concerns for institutional conflicts of interest. Hospital predictors of receiving payments included large bed size, major medical school affiliation, and inclusion on the U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals Honor Roll. Financial payments from industry to teaching hospitals are common and previously underrecognized. Hospitals should strengthen policies to prevent the institutional conflicts of interest that may arise from these payments while promoting beneficial industry collaborations. We also suggest that CMS reporting requirements be broadened to all hospitals to meet the Sunshine Act's goals of encouraging transparency and preventing inappropriate industry influence.