June 2018 Pulmonary Case of the Month

Lewis J. Wesselius, MD

Department of Pulmonary Medicine

Mayo Clinic Arizona

Scottsdale, AZ USA

History of Present Illness

The patient is a 53-year-old man who presented in January 2018 for a second opinion on interstitial lung disease first diagnosed in 2011. He lives in Los Angeles and had one year of increasing dyspnea on exertion prior to diagnosis. He had an outside surgical lung biopsy and was treated with prednisone, then started on azathioprine and the prednisone tapered. He was followed regularly and had limited progression over next 7 years.  However, recently he had increasing shortness of breath.

Past Medical History, Social History, Family History

He has no significant past medical history. He is a nonsmoker and denies any significant occupational exposures.

Physical Examination

Physical examination was unremarkable without rales or clubbing.

Which of the following should be obtained at this time? (Click on the correct answer to proceed to the second of five pages)

1. Prior chest x-rays, CT scans, pulmonary function testing and lung biopsy
2. Repeat CT scan, pulmonary function testing
3. Rheumatological serologies
4. 1 and 3
5. All of the above

Cite as: Wesselius LJ. June 2018 pulmonary case of the month. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2018;16(6):296-303. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc063-18 PDF 

May 2018 Pulmonary Case of the Month

Kenneth K. Sakata, MD

Department of Pulmonary Medicine

Mayo Clinic Arizona

Scottsdale, AZ USA

History of Present Illness

A 70-year-old man was referred because of new anemia and a heme-positive stool. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was performed which revealed gastritis. Ascites developed and a chest x-ray noted a left pleural effusion. He was managed with weekly high-volume thoracentesis and paracentesis. He was referred to pulmonary medicine.

Past Medical History, Social History and Family History

He has a history of coronary artery disease having undergone coronary bypass grafting in 2016. He also has type 2 diabetes mellitus managed by diet and recently diagnosed orthostasis. He smokes about ½ pack of cigarettes per day but does not drink alcohol. He denies any inhalational exposures. He is Native American and works as a judge. There is no family history of any similar disorders.

Physical Examination

• No acute distress
• Slight bruise to left eye
• No lymphadenopathy
• Decreased breath sounds on left
• Protuberant distended abdomen
• Significant left leg edema
• Discoloration of a few nails

A point of contact ultrasound is performed (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Image from the point of contact ultrasound.

What should be done next? (Click on the correct answer to proceed to the second of seven pages)

1. Needle biopsy of pleural mass
2. Thoracentesis
3. Thoracic surgery consultation for video-assisted thorascopic surgery (VATS)
4. 1 and 3
5. All of the above

Cite as: Sakata KK. May 2018 pulmonary case of the month. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2018;16(5):237-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc059-18 PDF 

Tobacco Company Campaign Contributions and Congressional Support of Tobacco Legislation

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Phoenix Pulmonary and Critical Care Research and Education Foundation

Gilbert, AZ USA

Abstract

Although it is widely held that campaign contributions influence Congressional support for legislation, the impact of these contributions is unclear. Three bills involving tobacco regulation were introduced into the 2017-8 Congress and were co-sponsored in both the House of Representatives and Senate. One was pro-tobacco (HR564/S294-Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2017) and two were anti-tobacco (HR4273/S2100-Tobacco to 21 Act, HR2878/S1341-Children Don't Belong on Tobacco Farms Act). The association between tobacco political action committee (PAC) campaign contributions with sponsorship of these bills was examined. Tobacco PAC contributions to sponsors of pro-tobacco HR564/S294 were significantly larger [$18218, 95% confidence interval (CI) $15077-$21359, p<0.01] than to non-sponsors ($8730, 95% CI, $6959-$10501). Sponsors of the anti-tobacco HR4273/S2100 received significantly smaller contributions ($2114, 95% CI $0-$4833, p<0.01) than non-sponsors ($12048, 95% CI, $10289-$13707). Similarly, sponsors of the anti-tobacco HR2878/S1341 also received significantly smaller contributions ($2500, 95% CI $0-$5284, p<0.01) than non-sponsors ($12097, 95% CI $10429-$13765). These data demonstrate a significant correlation between campaign contributions and legislative support of pro- and anti-tobacco legislation.

Introduction

Previously, it has been shown tobacco contributions influence state legislators in terms of tobacco control policy-making and support by Southwest US Members of Congress of The Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2015 (HR 662/S 441, aka the "Cigar Bill") (1,2). Although it is widely held that campaign contributions influence elected legislators, Powell (3) notes "political scientists have had great difficulty determining whether and how much influence contributions have on the legislative process". Studies have been inconsistent, with some demonstrating a linkage between campaign contributions and influence while others do not, suggesting that there are other influences in addition to contributions. Powell (3) has pointed out that the influence of donations is likely to occur early in the legislative process, such as during sponsorship for legislation or by directing that funds should be spent on a specific project (earmarks).

During the current 115^th Congress, the pro-tobacco “The Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act” was reintroduced (HR564/S294) (4). In addition, two anti-tobacco bills were introduced (HR4273/S2100 and HR2878/S1341) (4). Tobacco PAC contributions were examined for their association with sponsorship of these bills.

Methods

Tobacco Bills

The website Congress.Gov (4) was searched with the key word tobacco. Three bills were identified that had reached sufficient maturity to be introduced into the House of Representatives and the Senate and had co-sponsors listed in both the House and Senate. One was the pro-tobacco (HR564/S294-Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2017) and two were anti-tobacco (HR4273/S2100-Tobacco to 21 Act, HR2878/S1341-Children Don't Belong on Tobacco Farms Act) (Table 1).

Table 1. Tobacco related legislation introduced during the 115^th session of Congress.

Sponsors and cosponsors were identified as listed on Congress.Gov.

Campaign Contributions

Tobacco company political action committee (PAC) contributions to members of Congress were obtained from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids website (5). Contributions from the years listed (2006-18) were summed and no effort was made to separate recent from more past contributions.

Statistics

The relationship between sponsorship of the tobacco-related bills and tobacco PAC campaign contributions was done by Fisher's exact test using a 2X2 contingency table. Amounts of campaign contributions were expressed as means with 95% confidence intervals. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to calculate comparisons of the amounts of campaign contributions.

Results

Tobacco PAC Contributions

Sixty-five percent of the members of Congress have received a tobacco PAC contribution since 2006 (Appendix 1). The average reported was $11,637. Ten members received over $80,000, of which the largest was to Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)($124,022); all but three were from what is referred to as the deep South. Over $6 million was donated in total; 82% of the donations went to Republicans.

Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2017 (HR564/S294)

Ninety-four percent of the members of Congress who cosponsored the pro-tobacco "Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2017 (aka Cigar Bill)" had received tobacco PAC campaign contributions (Appendix 2). In contrast, 53% of who were not cosponsors had received contributions (p<0.01 by Fisher's Exact Test). Furthermore, the amount of contributions was larger for those who had cosponsored the bill larger ($18218, 95% CI $15077-$21359) than non-sponsors ($8730, 95% CI, $6959-$10501, p<0.01 by Mann-Whitney U test).

Tobacco to 21 Act (HR4273/S2100)

Eighty-two percent of the members of Congress who cosponsored the anti-tobacco " Tobacco to 21 Act" had not received tobacco PAC campaign contributions (Appendix 3). In contrast, 35% of who were not cosponsors had not received contributions (p<0.01 by Fisher's Exact Test). Furthermore, the amount of contributions was smaller for those who had cosponsored the bill ($2114, 95% CI $0-$4833) than non-sponsors ($12048, 95% CI, $10289-$13707, p<0.01 by Mann-Whitney U test).

Children Don't Belong on Tobacco Farms Act (HR2878/S1341) 

Data were similar with the anti-tobacco “Children Don't Belong on Tobacco Farms Act”. Seventy-eight percent of the members of Congress who sponsored the bill had not received tobacco PAC campaign contributions (Appendix 4). Thirty-five percent of the members of Congress who had not cosponsored the bill did not receive contributions (p<0.01 by Fisher's Exact Test). Furthermore, the amount of contributions was smaller for those who had cosponsored the bill ($2500, 95% CI $0-$5284) than non-sponsors ($12097, 95% CI $10429-$13765), p<0.01 by Mann-Whitney U test).

Discussion

This manuscript shows an association between tobacco PAC campaign contributions and sponsorship of both pro- and anti-tobacco legislation. More members of Congress who supported the pro-tobacco “Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2017” had received tobacco PAC campaign contributions and the contributions were larger compared to those not sponsoring the legislation. The data was the opposite for the anti-tobacco “Tobacco to 21 Act” and “Children Don't Belong on Tobacco Farms Act”. The percentage of the members of Congress who had not received tobacco PAC contributions was higher for those who sponsored the legislation compared to those who did not. Taken together these data suggest an influence of campaign contributions on the sponsoring of tobacco legislation in the US Congress.

The data in this manuscript confirms and extends the previous observations that tobacco contributions to state legislators and Southwest Members of Congress influence support of tobacco legislation (1,2).  The Southwest US is not a major tobacco growing or manufacturing region (7). Furthermore, tobacco consumption tends to be low in Southwest US (7). The Southwest is a good area to study the influence of campaign contributions because of the lack of confounding influences from a constituency that makes a living by tobacco growing or manufacturing or has a high prevalence of smokers. Reexamination of the correlation between tobacco PAC contributions and Congressional sponsorship of the "Cigar Bill" shows similar results with the data in 2016 (1, Appendix 1). The present study shows that association occurred in Congress as a whole and extended to anti-smoking legislation.

The title of HR564/S294 is deceiving. The “Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act” is titled to conjure up images of small businesses hand-rolling premium cigars. However, many of the cigars affected by the legislation are not the large, thick, and expensive ones manufactured with fine tobacco but rather small, thin, cheap cigars that are often flavored (8).

There is no doubt that smoking tobacco is harmful including cigars where the risk can be as high as or exceed those of cigarette smoking (9). Cigarette consumption in the United States is decreasing, compelling US tobacco companies to search for new markets (10). The cigar market, especially the flavored cigar market, represents one strategy to increase tobacco consumption and profits. Flavored cigar use is increasing in US middle and high school students (11). Therefore, tobacco companies support of the "Cigar Bill" is not surprising. By removing regulation, the tobacco companies can increase advertising to children and grow the candy-flavored cigar market (8).

The amount of money donated by the tobacco PACs is quite large and would seem to exceed anything that anti-tobacco smoking organizations could muster. Sixty-five percent of the members of Congress have received contributions totaling over 6 million dollars since 2006. The influence of these contributions may make regulation of tobacco quite difficult.

This manuscript has several limitations. Receiving tobacco PAC contributions and sponsoring pro-tobacco legislation does not necessarily represent cause and effect. It seems likely that tobacco companies would be more likely to support legislators that they perceive as sympathetic. It also seems likely that the tobacco PACs would be less likely to donate to supporters of anti-tobacco legislation.

References

1. Monardi F, Glantz SA. Are tobacco industry campaign contributions influencing state legislative behavior? Am J Public Health. 1998 Jun;88(6):918-23. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Robbins RA. Tobacco company campaign contributions and congressional support of the cigar bill. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(4):187-90. [CrossRef]
3. Powell LW. The influence of campaign contributions on legislative policy. The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 2013;11(3):339-55. [CrossRef]
4. Congress.gov. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/ (accessed 3/26/18).
5. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Tobacco company political action committee (PAC) contributions to Federal candidates. Available at: https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/what-we-do/us/tobacco-campaign-contributions  (accessed 3/26/18).
6. Statistica. Statistics and facts about the tobacco industry. Available at: http://www.statista.com/topics/1593/tobacco/ (accessed 3/26/18).
7. Campaign for tobacco-free kids. Key state-specific tobacco-related data & rankings. Available at: https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0176.pdf (accessed 3/26/18).
8. American Thoracic Society. ATS Joins Letter Opposing Cigar Exemption. October, 2017. Available at: https://news.thoracic.org/washington-letter/2017/ats-joins-letter-opposing-cigar-exemption.php (accessed 3/26/18).
9. Chang CM, Corey CG, Rostron BL, Apelberg BJ. Systematic review of cigar smoking and all cause and smoking related mortality. BMC Public Health. 2015 Apr 24;15:390. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Centers for Disease Control. Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults in the United States. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm (accessed 3/26/18).
11. King BA, Tynan MA, Dube SR, Arrazola R. Flavored-little-cigar and flavored-cigarette use among U.S. middle and high school students. J Adolesc Health. 2014 Jan;54(1):40-6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cite as: Robbins RA. Tobacco company campaign contributions and congressional support of tobacco legislation. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2018;16(4):232-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc053-18 PDF 

Social Media: A Novel Engagement Tool for Miners in Rural New Mexico

Shreya Wigh¹

William Cotton Jarrell, CMSP³

Elizabeth Kocher, MPH¹

Roger Karr²

Xin Wang, MS¹

Akshay Sood, MD, MPH^1,2

¹University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center School of Medicine

Albuquerque, NM, USA

²Miners Colfax Medical Center

Raton, NM, USA

³Peabody New Mexico Services

Grants, NM, USA

Abstract

Background: New Mexico miners usually live in rural areas. As compared to urban areas, rural areas in the United States demonstrate a lower use of the Internet and lower adoption of new technologies such as the smartphone and social media. Our study objective was to examine the use of these technologies among miners in rural New Mexico. Our long-term goal is to utilize these technologies to increase our program’s engagement with miners to provide medical screening and education services. Methods: We anonymously surveyed 212 miners at two town hall meetings in rural New Mexico communities, predominantly Hispanic and American Indian, in 2017. We then compiled that data in a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database and performed a statistical analysis using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS). IRB approval was obtained. Results: 60.8% of the 212 surveyed miners reported using social media. Among social media users, 88.4% reported using Facebook.  Most miners expressed willingness to use social media to keep in contact with other miners (51.2% overall) or to receive information about our miners’ program services (53.9% overall); and social media users were more likely to do so than non-users (p<0.001 for both analyses). Additionally, 79.7% of miners who owned a smartphone utilized it for texting. Conclusions: A majority of miners in rural New Mexico report use of social media and express willingness to use social media to network with other miners and with our program. The adoption of these communication technologies by rural New Mexico miners in our study is comparable or superior to that reported by rural Americans overall. It is possible to utilize this newer technology to increase program engagement with miners.

Introduction

New Mexico miners usually live in rural and medically underserved areas and suffer from multiple chronic diseases, particularly dust related lung diseases or pneumoconiosis. Rural counties in northern New Mexico have among the highest mortality rates for silicosis and pneumoconiosis, including coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, in the United States (1). To address this challenge, Miners’ Colfax Medical Center and the University of New Mexico have partnered in a federally funded medical screening program for rural miners.  As compared to urban areas, those who live in rural areas reportedly have a lower use of the Internet and are less willing to adopt new communication technologies such as the smartphone and social media (2). We have previously published that the primary source of information about miners’ health related activities for attendees at our miners’ health screening programs are traditional routes of communication such as a relative, friend, and community newspaper or flyer (3). Traditional media is, however, a one-way communication system that doesn’t create program engagement or work towards promoting word-of-mouth - the hallmark of social media (4). Our programs could utilize social media to promote awareness, encourage miner engagement, and increase the spread of accurate health messaging among New Mexico miners. Serving older, less educated, poorer, racial/ethnic minority, miners living in geographically remote and medically underserved rural areas of New Mexico may however affect the use and effectiveness of this communication tool.

The objective of our study was to examine the use of Internet-based smartphone and social media technology among miners in rural New Mexico. We hypothesized a low usage rate of these novel communication technologies among rural miners in New Mexico. Our long-term goal is to use these technologies to increase bidirectional engagement with miners with our federally funded Black Lung and Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Programs that currently provide medical screening, health care, and education services to coal and uranium miners in New Mexico.

Methods

Study design: This is a cross sectional survey of 212 miners, mostly coal miners, at two town hall meetings held in rural and medically underserved communities of Grants and Socorro, New Mexico, in 2017. These communities are predominantly American Indian and Hispanic respectively. The town hall meetings were held in conjunction with mobile health screening clinics for miners.

Survey creation: We created a survey on the use of the smartphone and social media, which asked construct-specific questions with either Yes/No responses or multiple choices. Examples of questions included whether miners would be willing to use social media to stay in touch with the mining community and if they had access to a computer with internet. The questions were formatted for an eighth-grade vocabulary, since our previous studies have shown that 57.2% of New Mexico miners do not complete high school education (3).

Survey administration: The paper copy of the survey was given to miners to fill out during the town hall meeting by the mine safety officer, on a voluntary and anonymous basis.

Analytic and database strategy: We compiled the survey data into a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database. We compared characteristics between social media users with social media non-users. Statistical analysis included an analysis of frequency distributions and Chi-square test, using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS 13.0, Cary, NC). A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We obtained human Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for research exempt status (HRPO 14-058). The study was sponsored by Health Resource Services and Administration (HRSA) and Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

Results

60.8% of the 212 miners surveyed reported using social media. Among the social media users, 88.4% reported using Facebook, 27.9% reported using Instagram, and 26.4% reported using Snapchat.  Social media users reported utilizing the technology for an average of 47.9 ± 134.3 (SD) minutes daily, for approximately 6.0 ± 4.4 (SD) years. Most miners expressed willingness to use social media to keep in contact with other miners (51.2% overall) or to receive information about our miners’ program services (53.9% overall); and social media users were more likely to do so than non-users (p<0.001 for both analyses, Table 1).

Table 1. Difference in characteristics between self-reported social media users and nonusers, among rural miners in New Mexico.

86.3% of the miners surveyed also reported possessing a smart phone (93.8% versus 74.7% of the social media users and non-users respectively; p<0.001). 79.7% of miners owning a smartphone utilized it for texting (91.5% versus 61.5% of social media users versus nonusers respectively; p<0.001).

94.3% of rural miners reported having access to the Internet. Social media users were more likely to report having Internet access via computer or via phone than non-users (p = 0.08 and <0.001 respectively, Table 1). 24.0% of all miners however reported poor Internet connection as a challenge, and as compared to nonusers, social media users were more likely to report this challenge (p=0.01). 13.2% of all miners complained of the high expense of the Internet and the social media user status did not predict this characteristic (p=0.67). There was also no difference between the two groups with respect to the reported difficulty in navigating social media sites (p=0.32).

Discussion

Based on our results, we conclude that the majority of miners in rural New Mexico use Internet-based smartphone and social media technologies and are willing to use social media to network with other miners or programs that deliver health services to miners. We found that Facebook was the most popular social media site. The adoption of these communication technologies by rural New Mexico miners in our study is comparable or superior to that reported by rural Americans overall. This suggests that it is possible to use smartphone texting and social media technology to increase bidirectional program engagement with miners in rural New Mexico.

In 2017, the proportion of US population with a social media profile was variably estimated at 69-81% (5-7). Rural Americans in the US were approximately 8% less likely to use social media than urban Americans (2). The market leader in social media was Facebook, used by 68% and 79% of all and online American adults respectively (7). In our study, 60.8% of the rural miners reported using social media and 53.8% reported using Facebook, which is comparable to that reported in other US rural communities. In 2017, the proportion of American adults who owned a smartphone was 83%, 78%, and 65% for urban, suburban, and rural locations respectively (8). In comparison, 86.3% of rural miners in our study reported possessing a smartphone, indicating a higher level of smartphone possession than that reported by rural Americans overall. In 2017-2018, 89% of all American adults used the Internet (9). In an earlier survey from November 2016, 81% of rural Americans used the Internet, as compared to 89% of urban Americans (10). 63% of rural Americans had a broadband Internet connection at home, 10 percentage points less likely than Americans overall (10). In comparison, 94.3% of rural New Mexico miners in our study reported having access to the Internet, indicating a higher level of Internet access than that reported by rural Americans overall. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, we found that rural New Mexico miners in our study reported adoption of newer communication technologies at a level that was comparable or superior to that reported by rural Americans overall.

Racial/ethnic and health status-related disparities exist with respect to Internet access in the U.S. (9). However, among those with Internet access, these characteristics do not affect their social media use (11). New Internet-based technologies including smartphone and social media, may be changing the communication pattern throughout the U.S. and the world but this change has not been well studied, particularly in rural areas (11).  Potential overarching benefits of social media for health communication are (1) increased interactions with others, (2) more available, shared, and tailored information, (3) increased accessibility and widening access to health information, (4) peer/social/emotional support, (5) public health surveillance, and (6) potential to influence health policy (12). Our findings indicate that social media can similarly be used for health communication purposes among rural miners in New Mexico. Our HRSA-funded miners’ health and benefits programs in New Mexico have established a social media platform to provide rural miners with information on our clinical programs, research, education and other interventions as well as to provide opportunities for bidirectional engagement between the program and miners as well as among miners themselves. Our program has also launched a social media literacy campaign for miners, with the help of a rural mine safety officer.

Currently there is a limited amount of literature evaluating the use of social media for sustained engagement of diverse communities in health promotion (13,14). For instance, the Youth Voices Research Group has reported creating novel opportunities to engage young people to explore health topics ranging from tobacco use, food security, mental health, and navigation of health services, by combining social organizing with arts-informed methods for creative expression, using information technology (14). Creating opportunities for engagement alone is however insufficient. The information exchanged needs to be monitored for quality and reliability, users’ confidentiality and privacy need to be maintained (12), and its impact evaluated. Use of social media in health promotion in underserved populations, such as indigenous populations in Australia, is associated with limited evidence of benefit (15). Online social network health behavior interventions are reported to have small effect sizes, often statistically nonsignificant, with high participant attrition and low fidelity (16). It is therefore necessary for our program to critically evaluate the role and effectiveness of these new technologies in health promotion and health care for our population of rural miners.

The strength of our study includes inclusion of miners from rural and predominantly Hispanic and American Indian communities. Limitations of our study include small sample size and lack of information on individual demographic characteristics. Although our study was limited to New Mexico, our findings may be generalizable to other rural and medically underserved areas of the United States outside of New Mexico.

Conclusions

Most miners in rural New Mexico have Internet access, use smartphones and social media, and are willing to use social media to network with other miners or programs that deliver health services to miners. Rural New Mexico miners in our study report adoption of newer communication technologies at a level that is comparable or superior to that reported by rural Americans overall. This study provides preliminary information on a potential and novel way in which rural mining communities and miners’ health and benefits programs can engage with each other to promote miners’ health by assisting in clinical programs, research, education and other interventions. Miners’ program may consider interactive blogging, photograph elicitation, and video documentaries, alongside real-world social media projects, to promote this engagement. Potential barriers in rural miners include low social media literacy and poor Internet connection. Low social media literacy can however be addressed by targeted education of miners. Emerging areas of research include evaluating the effectiveness of the use of smartphones and social networking platforms such as Facebook, in building effective interventions for health promotion and providing healthcare for miners in rural communities.

Acknowledgments

SW, WCJ, EK, RK, KW, AS made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; SW, WCJ, EK, RK, KW, AS made substantial contributions to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work. SW, WCJ, EK, RK, KW, AS made substantial contribution towards drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content. SW, WCJ, EK, RK, KW, AS provided the final approval of the version to be published. SW, WCJ, EK, RK, KW, AS agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

References

1. Dwyer-Lindgren L, Bertozzi-Villa A, Stubbs RW, et al. Trends and Patterns of Differences in Chronic Respiratory Disease Mortality Among US Counties, 1980-2014. JAMA. 2017;318(12):1136-49. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Perrin A. Social Networking Usage: 2005-2015. Pew Research Center. 2015. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/2015/Social-Networking-Usage-2005-2015/, last accessed on March 28, 2018.
3. Evans K, Lerch S, Boyce TW, et al. An innovative approach to enhancing access to medical screening for miners using a mobile clinic with telemedicine capability. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2016;27(4A):62-72. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Hausman A. Social media versus traditional media. 2014. Available at https://www.hausmanmarketingletter.com/social-media-versus-traditional-media/, accessed on January 9, 2018.
5. Statistica – The Statistics Portal. Percentage of U.S. population with a social media profile from 2008 to 2017. 2018. Available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/273476/percentage-of-us-population-with-a-social-network-profile/, accessed on March 28, 2018.
6. Perrin A. Social Media Fact Sheet. Pew Research Center. 2018. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/, last accessed on March 28, 2018.
7. Perrin A. Social Media Update 2016. Pew Research Center. 2016. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/, last accessed on March 28, 2018. 2016.
8. Statistica – The Statistics Portal. Share of adults in the United States who owned a smartphone from 2011 to 2017, by location. 2018. Available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/195003/percentage-of-us-smartphone-owners-by-geographic-location/; accessed on March 28, 2018. 2018.
9. Perrin A. Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet. Pew Research Center. 2018. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/, last accessed on March 28, 2018.
10. Perrin A. Digital gap between rural and non-rural America persists. 2017. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/19/digital-gap-between-rural-and-nonrural-america-persists/, last accessed on March 28, 2018.
11. Chou WY, Hunt YM, Beckjord EB, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Social media use in the United States: implications for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(4):e48. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(4):e85. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Yonker LM, Zan S, Scirica CV, Jethwani K, Kinane TB. "Friending" teens: systematic review of social media in adolescent and young adult health care. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(1):e4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Norman CD, Yip AL. eHealth promotion and social innovation with youth: using social and visual media to engage diverse communities. Studies in health technology and informatics. 2012;172:54-70. [PubMed]
15. Brusse C, Gardner K, McAullay D, Dowden M. Social media and mobile apps for health promotion in Australian Indigenous populations: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(12):e280. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Maher CA, Lewis LK, Ferrar K, Marshall S, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Vandelanotte C. Are health behavior change interventions that use online social networks effective? A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e40. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cite as: Wigh S, Jarrell WC, Kocher E, Karr R, Wang X, Sood A. Social media: A novel engagement tool for miners in rural New Mexico. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2018;16(4):206-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc017-18 PDF

April 2018 Pulmonary Case of the Month

Ashely L. Garrett, MD

Mayo Clinic Arizona

Scottsdale, AZ USA

History of Present Illness

A 74-year-old woman with known chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presented to emergency department on 2/4/18 with dyspnea. She had been hospitalized at another hospital from 12/29/17 - 1/30/18 for a COPD exacerbation and health care associated pneumonia described as a cavitary pneumonia. She was treated with various doses of systemic steroids and antibiotics. Her course was complicated by atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response. She eventually was discharged to a skilled nursing facility.

Past Medical History, Social History and Family History

She has a known history of COPD with an FEV1 of 22% of predicted and is on 2L/min of O2 by nasal cannula. There is also a history of:

• Hypertension.
• Hypercholesterolemia.
• Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, not on anticoagulation.
• Right 4 mm PICA aneurysm

She lives in rural Kingman, AZ with some dust and outdoor bird exposure.

Family history is noncontributory.

Medications

• Alprazolam 0.25 mg p.o. b.i.d.
• Symbicort two puffs inhaled b.i.d.
• Diltiazem 120 mg p.o. q.12h
• Disopyramide 150 mg p.o. q.6h
• Furosemide 20 mg p.o. daily
• Levalbuterol 0.31 mg q.6 days p.r.n.
• Meperidine 50 mg p.r.n. pain
• Metoprolol succinate 12.5 mg p.o. b.i.d
• Prednisone 10 mg p.o. daily

Physical Examination

• Vitals: BP 110/65 mm Hg, P 130 irregular beats/min, T 37° C, Respirations 20 breaths/min
• General: Appears in mild respiratory distress
• Lungs: Distant breath sounds
• Heart: Irregular rhythm with distant tones
• Abdomen: no organomegaly, masses or tendernesses
• Extremities:  No edema

Which of the following should be done at this time? (Click on the correct answer to proceed to the second of six pages)

1. Arterial blood gases (ABGs)
2. Chest x-ray
3. Electrocardiogram
4. 1 and 3
5. All of the above

Cite as: Garrett AL. April 2018 pulmonary case of the month. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2018;16(4):174-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc050-18 PDF