« April 2016 | Main | June 2016 »

2 posts from May 2016


Andrea LaFountain Discusses Her Recent Work: "How Patients Think: A Science-based Strategy for Patient Engagement and Population Health" (May 26th)

Listen Now

What accounts for so called patient compliance or adherence or why is it the case physicians and other providers are frequently unable to successfully engage their patients.  Why is it the case, for example, that patients adhere to highly toxic regimens of such as chemo therapy and not to more tolerable drugs such as statins.  What explains adherence or non-adherence?         

During this 22-minute conversation Dr. LaFountain explains why, using her phrase, the "epidemic of non-adherence" persists. She discusses the "importance of differentiation," the application of "cognitive profiling" or "cognitive restructuring," and provides examples using treatments for ADHD, breast cancer and diabetic patients at the Cleveland Clinic.

Dr. Andrea LaFountain is CEO of Mind Field Solutions Corporation, a firm specializing in the application of cognitive LaFountain Photoneueroscience to health behavior and patient engagement.   Prior to establishing Mind Field, she worked for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals leading consumer research and analytics for their oncology portfolio.   Before moving to the US, Dr. LaFountain was a Lecturer at The University of Liverpool.   She is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and the British Psychological Society and a scientific reviewer for the International Society of Pharmaco-economic Outcomes Research.  Dr. LaFountain earned her Ph.D. in pre-frontal cortex executive functioning at Imperial College, London.  

For information concerning Dr. LaFountain's work go to: http://www.amazon.com/How-Patients-Think-Science-Based-Engagement/dp/069266095X.


"Nature Bats Last: A Warming Earth Will Exact Adverse Health Effects But Our Responsibilities Are . . . ?" (May 25th)

In early April the White House released a report titled, "The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment."  The report, unfortunately, received limited attention in DC health care policy circles.   If you're interested in an summary of the 400 page document (though I highly recommend you read it in its entirety) and a few comments concerning the extent to which federal health care agencies and professional health care associations have been interested in the "climate penalty," please see this essay via the Altarum Institute.    

At:  http://altarum.org/health-policy-blog/nature-bats-last-a-warming-earth-will-exact-adverse-health-effects-but-our-responsibilities-are

 The White House report is at: https://health2016.globalchange.gov/