Search

Introduction Over the last few decades, Latino migration to the U.S.has re-shaped the ethnic composition of the country, and influencedthe meaning of “ethnic” and “racial” identity. The purpose of thisqualitative study was to explore the definition and meaning of beingLatino and how this may guide the development of interventions topromote their health. Methods Twenty-six Latino immigrants living in Kansas completeda socio-demographic survey and semi-structured interviews to assessand explore personal immigration experiences and perspectives onthe meaning of being Latino in the U.S. Results Participant reports were grouped into eight themes on Latinoidentity that were organized by geographic origin, family roots/ties,and acculturation. Immigration experiences were described as bothpositive and negative with most participants experiencing discriminationand loneliness, but also reports of improved quality of life.Further, most participants reported a strong sense of Latinidad; thatLatino immigrant communities in the U.S. are interdependent andsupportive of each other. Conclusions The experience of being a member of a minority groupmight contribute to the development of a cohesive sense of Latinoidentity as participants acculturate to the U.S. while preserving asense of attachment to their culture of origin. Future interventionsshould be sensitive to migration experiences as they might influencechanges in health behaviors.

Introduction. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of deathin the United States. Under the Affordable Care Act, Kansas Medicaidcovers all seven FDA-approved smoking cessation therapies.However, it is estimated only 3% of Kansas Medicaid smokers usetreatment compared to the national estimate of 10%. The objectiveis to determine systemic barriers in place that prevent optimal utilizationof Medicaid smoking cessation benefits among KU MedicalCenter Internal Medicine patients. Methods. For this quality improvement project, a population of 169Kansas Medicaid smokers was identified who had been seen at the KUInternal Medicine Clinic from January 1, 2015 - February 16, 2016.Phone surveys were completed with 62 individuals about smokingstatus, interest in using smoking cessation treatment options, andawareness of Medicaid coverage of treatment. Results. Of the 62 respondents, 24 (39%) were prescribed pharmacotherapyand 41 (66%) were interested in using smoking cessationtreatment. There were eight who had quit smoking. Of the remaining54 smokers, 31 (57%) were unaware that Medicaid would coverpharmacotherapy. Of 24 participants who received a prescription forpharmacotherapy, 13 (54%) were able to fill the prescription at no costusing the Medicaid benefit. Conclusion. The majority of respondents were interested in usingsmoking cessation treatment, yet three main barriers existed to usingMedicaid smoking cessation benefits: physicians not prescribingtreatment to patients, patients not aware of Medicaid coverage, andinadequate pharmacy filling. Improved physician and patient awarenessof Medicaid coverage will facilitate more patients receivingsmoking cessation therapy and ultimately quitting smoking.KS J Med 2017;10(4):88-91.

Introduction. Smokefree for Kansas Kids is a program designedto train pediatric clinic staff to assess for tobaccoexposure and provide brief smoking cessation interventionsto caregivers and patients. The purpose of this studywas to evaluate the impact of this program and improvefuture tobacco intervention efforts in pediatric clinics. Methods. Eighty-six pediatric physicians and staff attendedat least one of three training sessions. A randomsample of pediatric medical records was selected pre-intervention(n = 49) and post-intervention (n = 150). Electronicmedical records were reviewed to assess for documentationof tobacco use intervention implemented in the clinic. Results. Of the 199 pediatric clinic visits reviewed, 197 metthe study criteria. All but one visit documented an assessmentof tobacco exposure. Among children exposed to tobacco (n= 42), providers were more likely to discuss tobacco use withcaregivers post-intervention (35.7%) compared to pre-intervention(7.1%; p < 0.05). One in five caregivers in the postinterventiongroup were advised to quit (21.4%) compared tothe pre-intervention group (7.1%). In the post-interventiongroup, 14.3% were referred to the state quitline compared tono referrals in the pre-intervention group. The difference inrates for providing advice and referral between pre-interventionand post-intervention were not statistically significant. Conclusions. Implementation of the Smoke Free for Kansas Kidsintervention was associated with modest improvements in clinictobacco intervention efforts, but many patients still failed toreceive optimal assessments or interventions. Additional effortsmay be needed to enhance this program. KS J Med 2017;10(1):7-11.

Introduction Smokefree for Kansas Kids is a program designed to train pediatric clinic staff to assess for tobacco exposure and provide brief smoking cessation interventions to caregivers and patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of this program and improve future tobacco intervention efforts in pediatric clinics. Method Eighty-six pediatric physicians and staff attended at least one of three training sessions. A random sample of pediatric medical records was selected pre-intervention (n = 49) and post-intervention (n = 150). Electronic medical records were reviewed to assess for documentation of tobacco use intervention implemented in the clinic. Results Of the 199 pediatric clinic visits reviewed, 197 met the study criteria. All but one visit documented an assessment of tobacco exposure. Among children exposed to tobacco (n = 42), providers were more likely to discuss tobacco use with caregivers post-intervention (35.7%) compared to pre-intervention (7.1%; p < 0.05). One in five caregivers in the post-intervention group were advised to quit (21.4%) compared to the pre-intervention group (7.1%). In the post-intervention group, 14.3% were referred to the state quitline compared to no referrals in the pre-intervention group. The difference in rates for providing advice and referral between pre-intervention and post-intervention were not statistically significant. Conclusions Implementation of the Smoke Free for Kansas Kids intervention was associated with modest improvements in clinic tobacco intervention efforts, but many patients still failed to receive optimal assessments or interventions. Additional efforts may be needed to enhance this program.

Background. Primary care physicians care for many chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) patients, yet rarely utilize the Pain Medication Agreement (PMA) and the random Urine Drug Screen (UDS) as tools to monitor for adherence to therapy. We surveyed family medicine residents to describe their preparation for CNCP management, characterize their clinical encounters with CNCP patients, and document their current management practices. Methods . Family Medicine residents in a large academic medical center were surveyed about CNCP management using a 30-item instrument. This instrument was modified from previously conducted surveys. Univariate data were characterized by response rate. Results . Of the 24 residents who completed the survey, 54% perceived their residency training in CNCP management to be good and 96% of them rated patient care as a useful modality for preparation for CNCP management. When asked to characterize their encounters with CNCP patients, 59% of resident physicians perceived that visits with CNCP patients take longer. Only 25% found the care of CNCP patients rewarding and only a third of residents were as confident managing CNCP as diabetes. While all residents reported that the PMA was helpful when managing CNCP, only two residents reported having ordered a random UDS on all of their patients within the last six months. Conclusions . Although residents perceive the management of CNCP negatively, they reported good preparation for CNCP management. In addition, residents reported high utilization of the PMA. Use of the random UDS was surprisingly low. Further study is warranted to determine which educational modalities are linked to utilization of CNCP management strategies and what barriers and biases prevent adoption of the random UDS. KJM 2011; 4(1):1-5.