Search

BackgroundAs telemedicine plays an increasing role in health care delivery, providers are expected to receive adequate training to effectively communicate with patients during telemedicine encounters. Teach-back is an approach that verifies patients’ understanding of the health care information provided by health care professionals. Including patients in the design and development of teach-back training content for providers can result in more relevant training content. However, only a limited number of studies embrace patient engagement in this capacity, and none for remote care settings. ObjectiveWe aimed to design and evaluate the feasibility of patient-centered, telehealth-focused teach-back training for family medicine residents to promote the use of teach-back during remote visits. MethodsWe codeveloped the POTENTIAL (Platform to Enhance Teach-Back Methods in Virtual Care Visits) curriculum for medical residents to promote teach-back during remote visits. A patient participated in the development of the workshop’s videos and in a patient-provider panel about teach-back. We conducted a pilot, 2-arm cluster, nonrandomized controlled trial. Family medicine residents at the intervention site (n=12) received didactic and simulation-based training in addition to weekly cues-to-action. Assessment included pre- and postsurveys, observations of residents, and interviews with patients and providers. To assess differences between pre- and postintervention scores among the intervention group, chi-square and 1-tailed t tests were used. A total of 4 difference-in-difference models were constructed to evaluate prepost differences between intervention and control groups for each of the following outcomes: familiarity with teach-back, importance of teach-back, confidence in teach-back ability, and ease of use of teach-back. ResultsMedical residents highly rated their experience of the teach-back training sessions (mean 8.6/10). Most residents (9/12, 75%) used plain language during training simulations, and over half asked the role-playing patient to use their own words to explain what they were told during the encounter. Postintervention, there was an increase in residents’ confidence in their ability to use teach-back (mean 7.33 vs 7.83; P=.04), but there was no statistically significant difference in familiarity with, perception of importance, or ease of use of teach-back. None of the difference-in-difference models were statistically significant. The main barrier to practicing teach-back was time constraints. ConclusionsThis study highlights ways to effectively integrate best-practice training in telehealth teach-back skills into a medical residency program. At the same time, this pilot study points to important opportunities for improvement for similar interventions in future larger-scale implementation efforts, as well as ways to mitigate providers’ concerns or barriers to incorporating teach-back in their practice. Teach-back can impact remote practice by increasing providers’ ability to actively engage and empower patients by using the features (whiteboards, chat rooms, and mini-views) of their remote platform.

BackgroundThe concept of health literacy (HL) is constantly evolving, and social determinants of health (SDoH) have been receiving considerable attention in public health scholarship. Since a 1-size-fits-all approach for HL fails to account for multiple contextual factors and as a result poses challenges in improving literacy levels, there is a need to develop a deeper understanding of the current state of HL and digital health literacy (DHL) research. ObjectiveThis study examined scholars’ conceptualization and scope of work focused on HL and DHL. MethodsUsing a search string, investigators (N=2042) focusing on HL, DHL, or both were identified from the grantee websites of the National Institutes of Health RePORTER (RePORT Expenditures and Results) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The investigators were emailed a survey via Qualtrics. Survey questions examined the focus of work; whether the investigators studied HL/DHL in combination with other SDoH; the frameworks, definitions, and approaches used; and research settings. We analyzed survey data using SPSS Statistics version 28 and descriptive analysis, including frequencies and percentages, was conducted. Chi-square tests were performed to explore the association between the focus of work, settings, and age groups included in the investigators’ research. ResultsA total of 193 (9.5%) of 2042 investigators responded to the online survey. Most investigators (76/153, 49.7%) were from public health, 83/193 (43%) reported their research focused on HL alone, 46/193 (23.8%) mentioned DHL, and 64/193 (33.2%) mentioned both. The majority (133/153, 86.9%) studied HL/DHL in combination with other SDoH, 106/135 (78.5%) conducted HL/DHL work in a community setting, and 100/156 (64.1%) reported not using any specific definition to guide their work. Digital tools (89/135, 65.9%), plain-language materials (82/135, 60.7%), and visual guides (56/135, 41.5%) were the top 3 approaches used. Most worked with adults (131/139, 94.2%) and all races and ethnicities (47/121, 38.8%). ConclusionsHL and DHL research largely considered SDoH. Multiple HL tools and approaches were used that support the examination and improvement of literacy and communication surrounding health care issues.

BackgroundThe sale of loose cigarettes or bidis can undermine the purpose of requiring health warning labels (HWLs) on cigarette packs and bidi bundles by diminishing their visibility and legibility. ObjectiveThis mixed-methods study aims to examine the association between purchase behavior (loose vs pack or bundle), HWL exposure, and responses to HWLs among Indian adults who smoke. MethodsData were analyzed from the 2018-2019 India Tobacco Control Policy Survey and from 28 in-depth interviews conducted with Indian adults who smoked in 2022. The Tobacco Control Policy Survey sample included tobacco users who bought cigarettes (n=643) or bidis (n=730), either loose or in packs or bundles at their last purchase. Ordinal regression models were fit separately for cigarettes and bidis, whereby HWL variables (noticing HWLs, reading and looking closely at HWLs, forgoing a cigarette or bidi because of HWLs, thinking about health risks of smoking, and thinking about quitting smoking cigarettes or bidis because of HWLs) were regressed on last purchase (loose vs packs or bundles). In-depth interviews with participants from Delhi and Mumbai who purchased loose cigarettes in the last month were conducted, and thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview data. ResultsSurvey findings indicated that about 74.3% (478/643) of cigarette users and 11.8% (86/730) of bidi users reported having bought loose sticks at their last purchase. Those who purchased loose cigarettes (vs packs) noticed HWLs less often (estimate –0.830, 95% CI –1.197 to –0.463, P

BackgroundResearch clearly demonstrates social determinants of health (SDOH) impact health outcomes. Provider consideration of patient SDOH in prevention and treatment planning is critical for improved health care quality and health equity. Despite awareness of the connections between SDOH and improved population health, research demonstrates few providers document patient SDOH. ObjectiveThis qualitative study aimed to better understand the barriers and facilitators of SDOH assessment, documentation, and referral in different health care settings and roles. MethodsIndividual semistructured interviews were conducted with practicing health care providers in South Carolina between August 25, 2022, and September 2, 2022. Participants were recruited via community partners’ web-based newsletters or listservs using a purposive sampling design. An interview guide with 19 questions was used to explore the following research question: How do SDOH impact patient health and what are the facilitators and barriers experienced by multidisciplinary health care providers assessing and documenting patient SDOH? ResultsParticipants (N=5) included a neonatal intensive care unit registered nurse, a nurse practitioner, a certified nurse midwife, a family and preventive medicine physician, and a counselor (licensed clinical social worker) with careers spanning 12 to 32 years. Participant responses are presented according to the following 5 themes: participants’ understanding of SDOH for the patient population, assessment and documentation practices, referrals to other providers and community-based resources, barriers and facilitators of SDOH assessment and documentation, and SDOH assessment and documentation training preferences. Overall, participants were aware of the importance of including patient SDOH in assessment and intervention but noted a variety of institutional and interpersonal barriers to assessment and documentation, including time constraints, perceptions of stigma around discussion of SDOH, and limited referral protocols. ConclusionsIncentivizing inclusion of patient SDOH in health care must be facilitated from the top down, so assessment and documentation can be universally implemented in a pragmatic way that works for providers in a variety of roles and settings for the betterment of health care quality, health equity, and improved population health outcomes. Partnering with community organizations can serve to augment health care organizations’ resource and referral availability for addressing patients’ social needs.