Bianca Mulaney

All Publications

• Descriptive Study of Employee Engagement With Workplace Wellness Interventions in the UK. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine Mulaney, B., Bromley-Dulfano, R., McShane, E. K., Stepanek, M., Singer, S. J. 2021; 63 (9): 719-730

  Abstract

  OBJECTIVE: To explore sequential steps of employee engagement in wellness interventions and the impact of wellness interventions on employee health.METHODS: Using previously collected survey data from 23,667 UK employees, we tabulated intervention availability, awareness, participation, and associated health improvement and compared engagement by participation and risk status.RESULTS: Employees' awareness of wellness interventions at their workplaces was often low (mean 43.3%, range 11.6%-82.3%). Participation was highest in diet/nutrition initiatives (94.2%) and lowest in alcohol counseling and smoking cessation interventions (2.1%). Employees with health risks were less likely than lower-risk employees to report awareness, participation, and health improvements from wellness interventions addressing the relevant health concern.CONCLUSION: Employers and policymakers should consider variation in intervention engagement as they plan and implement wellness interventions. Engaging employee populations with higher health risks requires a more targeted approach.

  View details for DOI 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002219

  View details for PubMedID 34491963

• COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California. International journal of epidemiology Bendavid, E., Mulaney, B., Sood, N., Shah, S., Bromley-Dulfano, R., Lai, C., Weissberg, Z., Saavedra-Walker, R., Tedrow, J., Bogan, A., Kupiec, T., Eichner, D., Gupta, R., Ioannidis, J. P., Bhattacharya, J. 2021

  Abstract

  BACKGROUND: Measuring the seroprevalence of antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is central to understanding infection risk and fatality rates. We studied Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-antibody seroprevalence in a community sample drawn from Santa Clara County.METHODS: On 3 and 4 April 2020, we tested 3328 county residents for immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a rapid lateral-flow assay (Premier Biotech). Participants were recruited using advertisements that were targeted to reach county residents that matched the county population by gender, race/ethnicity and zip code of residence. We estimate weights to match our sample to the county by zip, age, sex and race/ethnicity. We report the weighted and unweighted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. We adjust for test-performance characteristics by combining data from 18 independent test-kit assessments: 14 for specificity and 4 for sensitivity.RESULTS: The raw prevalence of antibodies in our sample was 1.5% [exact binomial 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.0%]. Test-performance specificity in our data was 99.5% (95% CI 99.2-99.7%) and sensitivity was 82.8% (95% CI 76.0-88.4%). The unweighted prevalence adjusted for test-performance characteristics was 1.2% (95% CI 0.7-1.8%). After weighting for population demographics, the prevalence was 2.8% (95% CI 1.3-4.2%), using bootstrap to estimate confidence bounds. These prevalence point estimates imply that 53000 [95% CI 26000 to 82000 using weighted prevalence; 23000 (95% CI 14000-35000) using unweighted prevalence] people were infected in Santa Clara County by late March-many more than the 1200 confirmed cases at the time.CONCLUSION: The estimated prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that COVID-19 was likely more widespread than indicated by the number of cases in late March, 2020. At the time, low-burden contexts such as Santa Clara County were far from herd-immunity thresholds.

  View details for DOI 10.1093/ije/dyab010

  View details for PubMedID 33615345

• Concomitant Sternal Fractures: Harbinger of Worse Pulmonary Complications and Mortality in Patients With Rib Fractures. The American surgeon Choi, J. n., Mulaney, B. n., Sun, B. n., Trimble, R. n., Tennakoon, L. n., Spain, D. A., Forrester, J. D. 2021: 3134821991978

  Abstract

  Sternal and rib fractures are common concomitant injuries. However, the impact of concurrent sternal fractures on clinical outcomes of patients with rib fractures is unclear. We aimed to unveil the pulmonary morbidity and mortality impact of concomitant sternal fractures among patients with rib fractures.We identified adult patients admitted with traumatic rib fractures with vs. without concomitant sternal fractures using the 2012-2014 National Inpatient Sample (NIS). After 2:1 propensity score matching and adjustment for residual imbalances, we compared risk of pulmonary morbidity and mortality between patients with vs. without concomitant sternal fractures. Subgroup analysis in patients with flail chest assessed whether sternal fractures modify the association between undergoing surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) and pulmonary morbidity or mortality.Of 475 710 encounters of adults admitted with rib fractures, 24 594 (5%) had concomitant sternal fractures. After 2:1 propensity score matching, patients with concomitant sternal fractures had 70% higher risk (95% CI: 50-90% higher, P < 0.001) of undergoing tracheostomy, 40% higher risk (30-50% higher, P <.001) of undergoing intubation, and 20% higher risk of respiratory failure (10-30% higher, P <.001) and mortality (10-40% higher, P =.007). Subgroup analysis of 8600 patients with flail chest showed concomitant sternal fractures did not impact the association between undergoing SSRF and any pulmonary morbidity or mortality.Concomitant sternal fractures are associated with increased risk for pulmonary morbidity and mortality among patients with rib fractures. However, our findings are limited by a binary definition of sternal fractures, which encompasses heterogeneous injury patterns with likely variable clinical relevance.

  View details for DOI 10.1177/0003134821991978

  View details for PubMedID 33522281

• Pulling Back the Curtain: How Many California Hospitals Are Complying with Federal Price Transparency Rules? Baker, L., Mulaney, B., Shah, S. A., Kim, C. California Health Care Foundation. 2021
• Nationwide Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures by Flail Chest Status and Age Groups Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Choi, J., Mulaney, B., Laohavinij, W., Trimble, R., Tennakoon, L., Spain, D. A., Salomon, J. A., Goldhaber-Fiebert, J. D., Forrester, J. D. 2021

  View details for DOI 10.1097/TA.0000000000003021

• Safety of Foregoing Operation for Small Bowel Obstruction in the Virgin Abdomen: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American College of Surgeons Choi, J. n., Fisher, A. T., Mulaney, B. n., Anand, A. n., Carlos, G. n., Stave, C. D., Spain, D. A., Weiser, T. G. 2020

  Abstract

  Our objective was to assess the safety of foregoing surgery in patients without abdominopelvic surgery history presenting with small bowel obstruction (SBO). Classic dogma has counseled early surgical intervention for small bowel obstruction (SBO) in the virgin abdomen - patients without abdominopelvic surgery history - given their presumed higher risk of malignant or potentially catastrophic etiologies compared to those who underwent prior abdominal operations. The term virgin abdomen was coined before widespread use of computed tomography, which now elucidates many SBO etiologies. Despite recent efforts to re-evaluate clinical management standards, the prevalence of SBO etiologies in the virgin abdomen and the current management landscape (non-operative vs operative) in these patients remain unclear. Our random-effects meta-analysis of six studies including 442 patients found the prevalence of malignant etiologies in patients without abdominopelvic surgery history presenting with SBO varied from 7.7% [95% CI:3.0-14.1] to 13.4% [95% CI:7.6-20.3] on sensitivity analysis. Most malignant etiologies were not suspected prior to surgery. De novo adhesions (54%) were the most common etiology. Over half of patients underwent a trial of non-operative management, which often failed. Subgroups of patients likely have variable risk profiles for underlying malignant etiologies, yet no study had consistent follow-up data and we did not find convincing evidence that foregoing operative management altogether in this population can be generally recommended.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.06.010

  View details for PubMedID 32574687

• The COVID-19 Pandemic as an Opportunity for Operational Innovation at 2 Student-Run Free Clinics. Journal of primary care & community health Ruiz Colón, G. D., Mulaney, B. n., Reed, R. E., Ha, S. K., Yuan, V. n., Liu, X. n., Cao, S. n., Ambati, V. S., Hernandez, B. n., Cáceres, W. n., Charon, M. n., Singh, B. n. ; 12: 2150132721993631

  Abstract

  The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent county shelter-in-place order forced the Cardinal Free Clinics (CFCs), Stanford University's 2 student-run free clinics, to close in March 2020. As student-run free clinics adhering to university-guided COVID policies, we have not been able to see patients in person since March of 2020. However, the closure of our in-person operations provided our student management team with an opportunity to innovate. In consultation with Stanford's Telehealth team and educators, we rapidly developed a telehealth clinic model for our patients. We adapted available telehealth guidelines to meet our patient care needs and educational objectives, which manifested in 3 key innovations: reconfigured clinic operations, an evidence-based social needs screen to more effectively assess and address social needs alongside medical needs, and a new telehealth training module for student volunteers. After 6 months of piloting our telehealth services, we believe that these changes have made our services and operations more robust and provided benefit to both our patients and volunteers. Despite an uncertain and evolving public health landscape, we are confident that these developments will strengthen the future operations of the CFCs.

  View details for DOI 10.1177/2150132721993631

  View details for PubMedID 33615883