Search

Background Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45–70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification. Results Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve “cancer outcomes” by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%). Conclusions Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.

Background: Addressing the critical public health crisis of substance use disorder (SUD), this study evaluates the accuracy of SUD treatment search tools, such as FindTreatment.gov, to connect patients with appropriate care. Methods: To ensure geographic diversity, we randomly selected one state from four distinct US regions (Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, Ohio) and then randomly selected counties of varying sizes (one large, two medium, three small) within each state using a random number generator. Contact information for practices was extracted from the tools and validated through phone calls. The primary outcome measures were exact accuracy rate (wherein all information was accurate) and functional accuracy rate (wherein enough information was provided to facilitate care establishment). Results: A total of 697 practices from within ten SUD treatment search tools were assessed. Accuracy of the ten SUD treatment search tools varied considerably, with exact accuracy rates ranging from 9.1 % to 76.0 % (mean: 56.0 %) and functional accuracy rates from 50.0 % to 92.0 % (mean: 82.8 %). National tools exhibited higher accuracy for both exact accuracy rate (66.3 % v. 49.0 %; p = 0.2864) and functional accuracy rate (83.8 % v. 82.2 %; p = 0.9148) than state tools, while privately funded tools demonstrated higher accuracy for both exact accuracy rates (66.8 % v. 48.9 %; p = 0.2008) and functional accuracy rates (83.8 % v. 82.2 %; p = 0.9148), but none of these differences were statistically significant. Conclusions: This study found that SUD treatment search tools commonly list inaccurate information, underscoring the need for systematic improvements in data management and validation practices.

Abstract Background The preferences of autism stakeholders regarding the top priorities for future autism research are largely unknown. Objective This study had two objectives: First, to examine what autism stakeholders think new research investments should be and the attributes of investment that they consider important, and second, to explore the feasibility, acceptability and outcomes of two prioritization exercises among autism stakeholders regarding their priorities for future research in autism. Design This was a prospective stakeholder‐engaged iterative study consisting of best–worst scaling (BWS) and direct prioritization exercise. Setting and Participants A national snowball sample of 219 stakeholders was included: adults with autism, caregivers, service providers and researchers. Main Outcome Measures The main outcomes measures were attributes that participants value in future research investments, and priority research investments for future research. Results Two hundred and nineteen participants completed the exercises, of whom 11% were adults with autism, 58% were parents/family members, 37% were service providers and 21% were researchers. Among stakeholders, the BWS exercises were easier to understand than the direct prioritization, less frequently skipped and yielded more consistent results. The proportion of children with autism affected by the research was the most important attribute for all types of stakeholders. The top three priorities among future research investments were (1) evidence on which child, family and intervention characteristics lead to the best/worst outcomes; (2) evidence on how changes in one area of a child's life are related to changes in other areas; and (3) evidence on dietary interventions. Priorities were similar for all stakeholder types. Conclusions The values and priorities examined here provide a road map for investigators and funders to pursue autism research that matters to stakeholders. Patient or Public Contribution Stakeholders completed a BWS and direct prioritization exercise to inform us about their priorities for future autism research.

Abstract Background Unhealthy alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable deaths in the USA and is associated with many societal and health problems. Less than a third of people who visit primary care providers in the USA are asked about or ever discuss alcohol use with a health professional. Methods/design This study is an adaptive, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the effect of primary care practice facilitation and telehealth services on evidence-based screening, counseling, and pharmacotherapy for unhealthy alcohol use in small-to-medium-sized primary care practices. Study participants will include primary care practices in North Carolina with 10 or fewer providers. All enrolled practices will receive a practice facilitation intervention that includes quality improvement (QI) coaching, electronic health record (EHR) support, training, and expert consultation. After 6 months, practices in the lower 50th percentile (based on performance) will be randomized to continued practice facilitation or provision of telehealth services plus ongoing facilitation for the next 6 months. Practices in the upper 50th percentile after the initial 6 months of intervention will continue to receive practice facilitation alone. The main outcome measures include the number (and %) of patients in the target population who are screened for unhealthy alcohol use, screen positive, and receive brief counseling. Additional measures include the number (and %) of patients who receive pharmacotherapy for AUD or are referred for AUD services. Sample size calculations determined that 35 practices are needed to detect a 10% increase in the main outcome (percent screened for unhealthy alcohol use) over 6 months. Discussion A successful intervention would significantly reduce morbidity among adults from unhealthy alcohol use by increasing counseling and other treatment opportunities. The study will produce important evidence about the effect of practice facilitation on uptake of evidence-based screening, counseling, and pharmacotherapy for unhealthy alcohol use when delivered on a large scale to small and medium-sized practices. It will also generate scientific knowledge about whether embedded telehealth services can improve the use of evidence-based screening and interventions for practices with slower uptake. The results of this rigorously conducted evaluation are expected to have a positive impact by accelerating the dissemination and implementation of evidence related to unhealthy alcohol use into primary care practices. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04317989 . Registered on March 23, 2020.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought widespread change to health care practice and research. With heightened stress in the general population, increased unhealthy alcohol use, and added pressures on primary care practices, comes the need to better understand how we can continue practice-based research and address public health priorities amid the ongoing pandemic. The current study considers barriers and facilitators to conducting such research, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, within the context of recruiting practices for the STop UNhealthy (STUN) Alcohol Use Now trial. The STUN trial uses practice facilitation to implement screening and interventions for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care practices across the state of North Carolina. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 15 practice coaches to discuss their recruitment experiences before and after recruitment was paused due to the pandemic. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. Results: Pandemic-related barriers, including challenges in staffing, finances, and new COVID-19-related workflows, were most prominent. Competing priorities, such as quality improvement measures, North Carolina's implementation of Medicaid managed care, and organizational structures hampered recruitment efforts. Coaches also described barriers specific to the project and to the topic of alcohol. Several facilitators were identified, including the rising importance of behavioral health due to the pandemic, as well as existing relationships between practice coaches and practices. Conclusions: Difficulty managing competing priorities and obstacles within existing practice infrastructure inhibit the ability to participate in practice-based research and implementation of evidence-based practices. Lessons learned from this trial may inform strategies to recruit practices into research and to gain buy-in from practices in adopting evidence-based practices more generally. Plain Language Summary What is known: Unhealthy alcohol use is a significant public health issue, which has been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Screening and brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use is an evidence-based practice shown to help reduce drinking-related behaviors, yet it remains rare in practice. What this study adds: Using a qualitative approach, we identify barriers and facilitators to recruiting primary care practices into a funded trial that uses practice facilitation to address unhealthy alcohol use. We identify general insights as well as those specific to the COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers are primarily related to competing priorities, incentives, and lack of infrastructure. Facilitators are related to framing of the project and the anticipated level and type of resources needed to address unhealthy alcohol use especially as the pandemic wanes. Implications: Our findings provide information on barriers and facilitators to recruiting primary care practices for behavioral health projects and to implementing these activities. Using our findings, we provide a discussion of suggestions for conducting these types of projects in the future which may be of interest to researchers, practice managers, and providers.

Background: Depression concomitant with chronic medical conditions is common and burdensome in primary care. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of practice-based interventions for improving depression and chronic medical outcomes. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception to June 11, 2012. Study Selection, Appraisal, and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently selected, extracted data from, and rated the quality of trials and systematic reviews. Strength of evidence (SOE) was graded using established criteria. Results: Twenty-four published articles reported data from 12 studies, all at least 6 months long. All studies compared a form of collaborative care with usual or enhanced usual care. Studies evaluated adults with arthritis, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, HIV, or multiple medical conditions. Meta-analyses found that intervention recipients achieved greater improvement than controls in depression symptoms, response, remission, and depression-free days (moderate SOE); satisfaction with care (moderate SOE); and quality of life (moderate SOE). Few data were available on outcomes for chronic medical conditions. Meta-analyses revealed that patients with diabetes receiving collaborative care exhibited no difference in diabetes control compared with control groups (change in HbA1c: weighted mean difference 0.13, 95% confidence interval = −0.22 to 0.48 at 6 months; 0.24, 95% confidence interval = −0.14 to 0.62 at 12 months; low SOE). The only study to use HbA1c as a predefined outcome measure and a “treat-to-target” intervention for diabetes as well as depression, TEAMcare, reported significant reductions in HbA1c (7.42 vs 7.87 at 6 months; 7.33 vs 7.81 at 12 months; overall P < .001). Limitations: Few relevant trials reported on medical outcomes. Conclusions: Collaborative care interventions improved outcomes for depression and quality of life in primary care patients with varying medical conditions. Few data were available on medical outcomes. Future studies of concomitant depression and chronic medical conditions should consider measures of medical outcomes as primary outcomes.

Purpose. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening have not considered the value of patient time despite consensus recommendations to do so. The authors sought to estimate the amount and value of patient time required for screening colonoscopy. Methods. Patients who were scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were recruited from a university endoscopy center. Participants completed a time diary for the screening colonoscopy process, including time spent in preparation, travel, waiting, colonoscopy, and recovery. The authors defined several time intervals and estimated their value. The primary time interval of interest, called occupied time, included preparation, travel, waiting, the colonoscopy procedure, and on-site recovery. Time was valued at the 2005 average wage rate. The authors performed sensitivity analyses to test other time intervals and wage rates. They then incorporated patient time costs into a previously published cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening to examine their impact. Results. One hundred ten subjects completed the study. The sample was 57% female, 85% Caucasian, and 90% insured (40% Medicare, 4% Medicaid). The mean occupied time was 23.2 hours, worth $432 at the average wage rate. The authors estimate that including patient time costs in cost-effectiveness analysis would increase the cost per life-year saved with screening colonoscopy by 68%, from $13,100 to $22,000. Sensitivity analyses showed that the increase could range from 17% to 224% depending on the time interval valued. Conclusions. Patient time constitutes an important cost in colonoscopy screening and should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundTelehealth has become widely used as a novel way to provide outpatient care during the COVID-19 pandemic, but data about telehealth use in primary care remain limited. Studies in other specialties raise concerns that telehealth may be widening existing health care disparities, requiring further scrutiny of trends in telehealth use. ObjectiveOur study aims to further characterize sociodemographic differences in primary care via telehealth compared to in-person office visits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine if these disparities changed throughout 2020. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study in a large US academic center with 46 primary care practices from April-December 2019 to April-December 2020. Data were subdivided into calendar quarters and compared to determine evolving disparities throughout the year. We queried and compared billed outpatient encounters in General Internal Medicine and Family Medicine via binary logic mixed effects regression model and estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. We used sex, race, and ethnicity of the patient attending each encounter as fixed effects. We analyzed socioeconomic status of patients in the institution’s primary county based on the patient’s residence zip code. ResultsA total of 81,822 encounters in the pre–COVID-19 time frame and 47,994 encounters in the intra–COVID-19 time frame were analyzed; in the intra–COVID-19 time frame, a total of 5322 (11.1%) of encounters were telehealth encounters. Patients living in zip code areas with high utilization rate of supplemental nutrition assistance were less likely to use primary care in the intra–COVID-19 time frame (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.98; P=.006). Encounters with the following patients were less likely to be via telehealth compared to in-person office visits: patients who self-identified as Asian (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.86) and Nepali (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.19-0.72), patients insured by Medicare (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.88), and patients living in zip code areas with high utilization rate of supplemental nutrition assistance (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99). Many of these disparities persisted throughout the year. Although there was no statistically significant difference in telehealth use for patients insured by Medicaid throughout the whole year, subanalysis of quarter 4 found encounters with patients insured by Medicaid were less likely to be via telehealth (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.97; P=.03). ConclusionsTelehealth was not used equally by all patients within primary care throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically by patients who self-identified as Asian and Nepali, insured by Medicare, and living in zip code areas with low socioeconomic status. As the COVID-19 pandemic and telehealth infrastructure change, it is critical we continue to reassess the use of telehealth. Institutions should continue to monitor disparities in telehealth access and advocate for policy changes that may improve equity.

Richard A Hansen1, Gerald Gartlehner2, Aaron P Webb1, Laura C Morgan3, Charity G Moore4, Daniel E Jonas31School of Pharmacy, 3Cecil G Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 2Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Danube University, Krems, Austria; 4Center for Research on Health Care Data Center; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USAAbstract: Pharmacologic treatments for Alzheimer’s disease include the cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine. We reviewed their evidence by searching MEDLINE®, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 through 2007 (July) for placebo-controlled and comparative trials assessing cognition, function, behavior, global change, and safety. Thirty-three articles on 26 studies were included in the review. Meta-analyses of placebo-controlled data support the drugs’ modest overall benefits for stabilizing or slowing decline in cognition, function, behavior, and clinical global change. Three open-label trials and one double-blind randomized trial directly compared donepezil with galantamine and rivastigmine. Results are conflicting; two studies suggest no differences in efficacy between compared drugs, while one study found donepezil to be more efficacious than galantamine, and one study found rivastigmine to be more efficacious than donepezil. Adjusted indirect comparison of placebo-controlled data did not find statistically significant differences among drugs with regard to cognition, but found the relative risk of global response to be better with donepezil and rivastigmine compared with galantamine (relative risk = 1.63 and 1.42, respectively). Indirect comparisons also favored donepezil over galantamine with regard to behavior. Across trials, the incidence of adverse events was generally lowest for donepezil and highest for rivastigmine.Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease, cholinesterase inhibitor, donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, systematic review, meta-analysis, indirect comparison