Search

Public health officials promoted COVID-19 vaccines to limit burdens placed on the U.S. healthcare system and end the pandemic. People in some closed religious communities refused to vaccinate and likely acquired temporary immunity through infection. This paper compares the death rates in Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and conservative Mennonite groups to a rate estimated for the U.S. population. Approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population was immunized against COVID-19, while few in the Amish/Mennonite community were. We find divergent patterns. Once vaccines became available, excess deaths declined in the general population and remained elevated among Amish and Mennonites. Vaccination campaigns must consider and value the cultural beliefs of closed religious communities to be effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The widespread adoption of science-based prevention requires local infrastructures for prevention service delivery. Communities That Care (CTC) is a tested prevention service delivery system that enables a local coalition of community stakeholders to use a science-based approach to prevention and improve the behavioral health of young people. This paper uses data from the Community Youth Development Study (CYDS), a community-randomized trial of CTC, to examine the extent to which better internal team functioning of CTC coalitions increases the community-wide adoption of science-based prevention within 12 communities, relative to 12 matched comparison communities. Specifically, this paper examines the potential of both a direct relationship between coalition functioning and the community-wide adoption of science-based prevention and a direct relationship between functioning and the coalition capacities that ultimately enable the adoption of science-based prevention. Findings indicate no evidence of a direct relationship between four dimensions of coalition functioning and the community-wide adoption of a science-based approach to prevention, but suggest a relationship between coalition functioning and coalition capacities (building new member skills and establishing external linkages with existing community organizations) that enable science-based prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is accelerating interest in measuring and reporting the quality of care delivered by health care providers and organizations, but methods for defining the patient panels for which they are held accountable are not well defined.Objectives: To examine the potential impact of using alternative algorithms to define accountable patient populations for performance assessment.Research Design: We used administrative data regarding Community Health Center (CHC) visits in simulations of performance assessment for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.Participants: Fifteen CHC sites in the northeastern US.Measures: We used three different algorithms to define patient populations eligible for measurement of cancer screening rates and simulated center-level performance rates based on these alternative population definitions.Results: Focusing on breast cancer screening, the percentage of women aged 51-75 eligible for this measure across CHCs, if using the most stringent algorithm (requiring a visit in the assessment year plus at least one visit in the 2 years prior), ranged from 28% to 60%. Analogous ranges for cervical and colorectal cancer screening were 18-59% and 26-62%, respectively. Simulated performance data from the centers demonstrate that variations in eligible patient populations across health centers could lead to the appearance of large differences in health center performance or differences in expected rankings of CHCs when no such differences exist. For instance, when holding performance among similar populations constant, but varying the proportion of populations seen across different health centers, simulated health center adherence to screening guidelines varied by over 15% even though actual adherence for similar populations did not differ.Conclusions: Quality measurement systems, such as those being used in pay-for-performance and public reporting programs, must consider the definitions used to identify sample populations and how such populations might differ across providers, clinical practice groups, and provider systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although multiple co-occurring chronic illnesses within the same individual are increasingly common, few studies have examined the challenges of multimorbidity from the patient perspective.Objective: The aim of this study is to examine the self-management learning needs and willingness to see non-physician providers of patients with multimorbidity compared to patients with single chronic illnesses.Design: This research is designed as a cross-sectional survey.Participants: Based upon ICD-9 codes, patients from a single VHA healthcare system were stratified into multimorbidity clusters or groups with a single chronic illness from the corresponding cluster. Nonproportional sampling was used to randomly select 720 patients.Measurements: Demographic characteristics, functional status, number of contacts with healthcare providers, components of primary care, self-management learning needs, and willingness to see nonphysician providers.Results: Four hundred twenty-two patients returned surveys. A higher percentage of multimorbidity patients compared to single morbidity patients were "definitely" willing to learn all 22 self-management skills, of these only 2 were not significant. Compared to patients with single morbidity, a significantly higher percentage of patients with multimorbidity also reported that they were "definitely" willing to see 6 of 11 non-physician healthcare providers.Conclusions: Self-management learning needs of multimorbidity patients are extensive, and their preferences are consistent with team-based primary care. Alternative methods of providing support and chronic illness care may be needed to meet the needs of these complex patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Language barriers in medical care are a large and growing problem in the United States. Most research has focused on how language barriers affect patients. Less is known of the physician perspective and the efforts they are making to overcome these barriers.Objective: To learn about current approaches to communicating with limited English-proficient (LEP) patients and the associated financial and nonfinancial constraints that private practice physicians and managers perceive in providing these services.Design: Computer-assisted telephone focus groups with open-ended discussion guide.Setting: Small private practices in geographic areas that have experienced recent dramatic increases in LEP populations.Participants: Primary care physicians, specialists, and practice managers.Approach: Focus group transcripts were systematically coded using grounded theory analysis. The research team then identified common themes that arose across the groups.Results: Citing the cost, inaccessibility, and inconvenience of using professional interpreters, physicians commonly used family and friends as interpreters. Few recalled any actual experience with professional interpreters or were well-informed about the cost of their services. Physicians and office managers voiced uniform concern about how language barriers impede quality and safety of patient care and increased malpractice risk.Conclusions: Health care providers in private practice recognize the importance of overcoming language barriers. However, perceived barriers to implementing cost-effective strategies to these barriers are high. Physicians in private practice would benefit from information about how to best overcome language barriers in their practices efficiently and affordably. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]