Search

Introduction: Previously, a web-based, patient-facing decision aid for lung cancer screening, shouldiscreen.com, was developed and evaluated. An initial evaluation was completed before the Medicare coverage decision and recruited a nondiverse sample of mostly former smokers, limiting the understanding of the potential effectiveness of the tool among diverse populations. This study evaluates shouldiscreen.com among African Americans in Metro Detroit.Methods: Using insights obtained from participatory workshops in this population, content changes to shouldiscreen.com were implemented, and this modified version was evaluated with a before-after study. Measures included knowledge of lung cancer screening, decisional conflict, and concordance between individual preference and screening eligibility. Surveys occurred between April and July 2018. Participants were contacted 6 months after the survey to assess subsequent screening behaviors. Analysis took place in 2019.Results: Data were collected from 74 participants aged 45-77 years, who were current/former smokers with no history of lung cancer. The average knowledge score increased by 25% from 5.7 (SD=1.94) before to 7.1 (SD=2.30) after (out of 13 points). Decisional conflict was halved between before and after. Concordance between individual preference and eligibility for screening increased from 22% (SD=41) to 35% (SD=47). Half of the participants felt uncomfortable answering surveys electronically and requested paper versions.Conclusions: The use of the tool led to small improvements in lung cancer screening knowledge and increased concordance with current recommendations. Additional design modifications and modes of information delivery of these decision aids should be considered to increase their efficacy in helping populations with lower educational attainment and computer literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Communities That Care, refined and tested for more than 25years, offers a step-by-step coalition-based approach to promote well-being and prevent risk behaviors among youth. Communities That Care guides coalitions to identify and prioritize underlying risk and protective factors; set specific, measurable community goals; adopt tested, effective prevention programs to target selected factors; and implement chosen programs with fidelity. Communities That Care has been implemented in a variety of communities, but has only recently begun to be systematically evaluated in diverse, urban communities.Methods: This paper presents a process evaluation of Communities That Care implementation within a Midwestern ethnically diverse, urban community. In-depth surveys of 25 black male youth aged 8-14years and their caregivers were conducted to determine the degree to which coalition-selected priorities aligned with the experience of black families. Implementation and survey data were collected in 2014-2017 and analyzed in 2017-2018.Results: Roughly 30% of youth reported ever being bullied or bullying someone else on school property; this aligned with the coalition's decision to focus on positive social skills and bullying prevention. Additional data aligned with the coalition's intent to expand its community action plan to encompass other priorities, including family transitions and mobility. For example, roughly one third of caregivers went on welfare and one third of families moved to a new home or apartment in the past year.Conclusions: In communities whose residents have experienced historical and current inequities, an effective community prevention plan may need to address structural as well as social determinants of well-being among youth and their families.Supplement Information: This article is part of a supplement entitled African American Men's Health: Research, Practice, and Policy Implications, which is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared decision making is a process in which patients are involved as active partners with the clinician in clarifying acceptable medical options and in choosing a preferred course of clinical care. Shared decision making offers a way of individualizing recommendations, according to patients'' special needs and preferences, when some patients may benefit from an intervention but others may not. This paper clarifies how the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) envisions the application of shared decision making in the execution of screening and chemoprevention. Unlike conventional USPSTF reports, this paper is neither a systematic review nor a formal recommendation. Instead, it is a concept paper that includes a commentary on the current thinking and evidence regarding shared decision making.Although the USPSTF does not endorse a specific style of decision making, it does encourage informed and joint decisions. This means that patients should be informed about preventive services before they are performed, and that the patient–clinician partnership is central to decision making. The USPSTF suggests that clinicians inform patients about preventive services for which there is clear evidence of net benefit, and, if time permits, about other services with high visibility or special individual importance. Clinicians should make sure that balanced, evidence-based information about the service (including the potential benefits and harms, alternatives, and uncertainties) is available to the patient if needed. For preventive services for which the balance of potential benefits and harms is a close call, or for which the evidence is insufficient to guide a decision for or against screening, clinicians should additionally assist patients in determining whether individual characteristics and personal preferences favor performing or not performing the preventive service.The USPSTF believes that clinicians generally have no obligation to initiate discussion about services that have either no benefit or net harm. Nonetheless, clinicians should be prepared to explain why these services are discouraged and should consider a proactive discussion for services with high visibility or special individual importance or for services for which new evidence has prompted withdrawal of previous recommendations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Rising rates of childhood obesity over the past 2 decades have spurred a number of public- and private-sector initiatives aimed at halting or even reversing this trend. Recognizing common interests in this issue, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIH, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation began conversations about creating a formal collaboration aimed at accelerating efforts to address childhood obesity by coordinating research agendas and providing support for evidence-building activities. The National Collaborative on Childhood Obesity Research (NCCOR) was launched in February 2009, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture joined in 2010. Using the model provided by other previously successful collaborations, such as the Youth Tobacco Cessation Collaborative, NCCOR has emphasized several principles suggested by Petrovich as key elements for successful partnerships: (1) delineate a common purpose by identifying key knowledge gaps in the field; (2) create a shared identity around that common purpose; (3) develop structures for democratic and respectful collaboration so as to strategically coordinate efforts for maximum national impact; (4) identify effective leaders capable of articulating challenges in the field and inspiring a commitment of minds and the resolve to address identified needs; (5) facilitate continuous knowledge exchange and synthesis to keep the field informed; and (6) support assessment of progress and feedback loops for ensuring continual progress. This paper examines how NCCOR has used these principles to help build the field of research, evaluation, and surveillance for childhood obesity prevention and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: PurposeTo calculate the cost structure of a suite of immunization improvement interventions recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).: MethodsA determination was made of the cost to clinics and agencies that implement a suite of CDC-recommended practice improvement interventions to fully immunize a child for diphtheria–tetanus–attenuated pertussis (DTaP), inactivated poliovirus (IPV), and measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccines. Patient data were collected through chart analysis of 16-month-old children in clinics participating in this study''s interventions between May 1997 and August 2000. The study began on October 1, 1996, and was funded for 5 years (until September 30, 2002).: ResultsStudy calculations suggest that an additional $0.013/per patient per month would be needed to cover these activities.: ConclusionsIdentifiable cost structures are associated with the practice improvement strategies recommended by the CDC. The method of implementation may be as important as the interventions themselves. Present compensation for immunization may not actually cover the cost of service provision, and it is unlikely to cover the costs of practice improvement, as described in this paper. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]