Search

Background. A critical component of shared decision making (SDM) is the role played by health care providers in distributing decision aids (DAs) and initiating SDM conversations. Existing literature indicates that decisions about designing and implementing DAs must take provider perspectives into account. However, little is known about how differences in provider attitudes across specialties may impact DA implementation and how provider attitudes may shift after DA implementation. Group Health’s Decision Aid Implementation project was carried out in six specialties using 12 video-based DAs for preference-sensitive conditions; this study focused on two of the six specialties. Design. In-depth, qualitative interviews with specialty care providers in two specialties—orthopedics and cardiology—at two time points during DA implementation. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Results. We interviewed 19 care providers in orthopedics and cardiology. All respondents believed that providing patients with accurate information on their health conditions and treatment options was important and that most patients wanted an active role in decision making. However, respondents diverged in decision-making styles and views on the practicality and appropriateness of using the DAs and SDM. For example, cardiology specialists were ambivalent about DAs for coronary artery disease because many viewed DAs and SDM as unnecessary or inappropriate for this clinical condition. Provider attitudes towards DAs and SDM were generally stable over two years. Limitations. Limitations include a lack of patient perspectives, social desirability bias, and possible selection bias. Conclusions. Successfully implementing DAs in clinical practice to promote SDM requires addressing individual provider attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of SDM by specialty. During DA development and implementation, providers should be asked for input about the specific conditions and care processes that are most appropriate for SDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses research which examines the effort of the Group Health Cooperative to spread a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) redesign to its clinics in the U.S. It determines the degree to which Group Health was able to replicate some of the changes in health care use. It reveals that patients empanelled to the clinics had 5.1% and 6.7% declines in primary care office visits in early and later stabilization years, respectively, following the implementation year.

The article presents a study which examines the openness between patients and clinicians to including a broader range of healing options into primary care. The study analyzed the focus group discussions with primary care patients and clinicians in 2008 using an immersion/crystallization approach. Results reveal that both patients and clinicians were open to including a wider variety of healing options and were concerned that services recommended be covered by insurance.

The article reports on the case study concerning the significance of reassigning patients for the medical home. Patients who are retained by their physician gain preexisting patient-doctor relationships. The reassigned patients are probably like to use the emerge department. Details on the methods, reassignment process, and study population are discussed.

Evidence suggests fetal risks are associated with cannabis use during pregnancy. Yet, insights into women's decision-making and cannabis use during pregnancy are limited. This study explored these concepts with postpartum women who used cannabis during and after pregnancy. We conducted interviews with 15 women (4 self-identifying a race other than White and 4 self-identifying Hispanic ethnicity) who: 1) lived in the Puget Sound region of Washington State, 2) reported past-year cannabis use on a routine screen, and 3) had documented pregnancy and delivery March 2015-May 2017. Semi-structured interviews asked about decision-making and cannabis use during pregnancy and postpartum. We used template analysis for coding and analysis. The key findings included that women: 1) gathered information about cannabis use during pregnancy primarily through internet searches and discussions with peers; 2) were reluctant to talk with health care providers about cannabis; 3) used cannabis while pregnant to treat health issues, including morning sickness, pain, and mental health conditions; 4) were comfortable with their decision to use cannabis while pregnant, but had questions about long-term effects; and 5) tried to mitigate transmission through breastmilk. Women decided about cannabis during pregnancy based on their experience, health symptoms, and information gathered from the internet and peers, often without guidance from their health care provider. Results point to opportunities for providers to become informed about and engage in discussion with patients about cannabis use during preconception, pregnancy, and postpartum., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: This work was supported by funding from Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute. The sponsors were not involved in the study design; collection analysis and interpretation of the data; the writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Parental concerns about vaccine safety have grown in the United States and abroad, resulting in delayed or skipped immunizations (often called "vaccine hesitancy"). To address vaccine hesitancy in Washington State, a public-private partnership of health organizations implemented and evaluated a 3-year community intervention, called the "Immunity Community." The intervention mobilized parents who value immunization and provided them with tools to engage in positive dialogue about immunizations in their communities. The evaluation used qualitative and quantitative methods, including focus groups, interviews, and pre and post online surveys of parents, to assess perceptions about and reactions to the intervention, assess facilitators and barriers to success, and track outcomes including parental knowledge and attitudes. The program successfully engaged parent volunteers to be immunization advocates. Surveys of parents in the intervention communities showed statistically significant improvements in vaccine-related attitudes: The percentage concerned about other parents not vaccinating their children increased from 81.2% to 88.6%, and the percentage reporting themselves as "vaccine-hesitant" decreased from 22.6% to 14.0%. There were not statistically significant changes in parental behaviors. This study demonstrates the promise of using parent advocates as part of a community-based approach to reduce vaccine hesitancy.

Purpose: We aimed to advance the internal and external validity of research by sharing our empirical experience and recommendations for systematically reporting contextual factors., Methods: Fourteen teams conducting research on primary care practice transformation retrospectively considered contextual factors important to interpreting their findings (internal validity) and transporting or reinventing their findings in other settings/situations (external validity). Each team provided a table or list of important contextual factors and interpretive text included as appendices to the articles in this supplement. Team members identified the most important contextual factors for their studies. We grouped the findings thematically and developed recommendations for reporting context., Results: The most important contextual factors sorted into 5 domains: (1) the practice setting, (2) the larger organization, (3) the external environment, (4) implementation pathway, and (5) the motivation for implementation. To understand context, investigators recommend (1) engaging diverse perspectives and data sources, (2) considering multiple levels, (3) evaluating history and evolution over time, (4) looking at formal and informal systems and culture, and (5) assessing the (often nonlinear) interactions between contextual factors and both the process and outcome of studies. We include a template with tabular and interpretive elements to help study teams engage research participants in reporting relevant context., Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of identifying and reporting contextual factors. Involving diverse stakeholders in assessing context at multiple stages of the research process, examining their association with outcomes, and consistently reporting critical contextual factors are important challenges for a field interested in improving the internal and external validity and impact of health care research.