Search

Background: Financial incentives may improve health behaviors. We tested the impact of offering financial incentives for mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completion annually for 3 years., Methods: Patients, ages 50 to 64 years, not up-to-date with screening were randomized to receive either a mailed FIT outreach ( n = 6,565), outreach plus $5 ( n = 1,000), or $10 ( n = 1,000) incentive for completion. Patients who completed the test were reinvited using the same incentive the following year, for 3 years. In year 4, patients who returned the kit in all preceding 3 years were reinvited without incentives. Primary outcome was FIT completion among patients offered any incentive versus outreach alone each year. Secondary outcomes were FIT completion for groups offered $5 versus outreach alone, $10 versus outreach alone, and $5 versus $10., Results: Year 1 FIT completion was 36.9% with incentives versus 36.2% outreach alone ( P = 0.59) and was not statistically different for $10 (34.6%; P = 0.31) or $5 (39.2%; P = 0.070) versus outreach alone. Year 2 completion was 61.6% with incentives versus 60.8% outreach alone ( P = 0.75) and not statistically different for $10 or $5 versus outreach alone. Year 3 completion was 79.4% with incentives versus 74.8% outreach alone ( P = 0.080), and was higher for $10 (82.4%) versus outreach alone ( P = 0.033), but not for $5 versus outreach alone. Completion was similar across conditions in year 4 (no incentives)., Conclusions: Offering small incentives did not increase FIT completion relative to standard outreach., Impact: This was the first longitudinal study testing the impact of repeated financial incentives, and their withdrawal, on FIT completion., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions experience significant challenges managing their health. The six core functions of patient-centered communication (PCC)-fostering healing relationships, exchanging information, responding to emotions, managing uncertainty, making decisions, and enabling patient self-management-represent a central component to facilitating a survivor's confidence to manage their health that has not been investigated in cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions., Method: Nationally representative data across two iterations of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were merged with combined replicate weights using the jackknife replication method. Adjusted linear regression examined the association between PCC and health self-efficacy in a sample of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors and by multiple chronic conditions., Results: 53.9% reported that providers did not always respond to their emotions and 48.9% reported that they could not always rely on their providers to help them manage uncertainty. In the adjusted linear regression models, there was a significant positive association between PCC and health self-efficacy (β = 0.2, p = 0.01) for the entire sample. However, the association between PCC and health self-efficacy was attenuated in cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions (β = 0.1, p = 0.53)., Conclusion: PCC alone is not enough to improve a cancer survivor's confidence in their ability to manage their health in the presence of multiple chronic conditions., Implications for Cancer Survivors: Cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions need ongoing support, in addition to PCC, that render them prepared to manage their health after cancer.

Background: For colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to improve survival, patients with an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) must follow-up with a diagnostic colonoscopy. Adherence to follow-up is low and patient-level barriers for suboptimal adherence have yet to be explored., Objective: To characterize barriers for non-completion of diagnostic colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT reported by under- and uninsured patients receiving care in a safety-net health system., Design: A longitudinal, cohort study of CRC screening outreach to 8565 patients using mailed FIT kits. Patients with abnormal FIT results received telephonic navigation to arrange for a no-cost diagnostic colonoscopy., Patients: Adults aged 50-64 years receiving care at a North Texas safety-net health system., Approach: Descriptive analyses characterized the patient sample and reasons for lack of follow-up after abnormal FIT over the 3-year outreach program. Thematic qualitative analyses characterized reasons for lack of follow-up with a colonoscopy after the abnormal FIT., Key Results: Of 689 patients with an abnormal FIT, 45% (n = 314) did not complete a follow-up colonoscopy. Among the 314 non-completers, 184 patients reported reasons for not completing a follow-up colonoscopy included health insurance-related challenges (38%), comorbid conditions (37%), social barriers such as transportation difficulties and lack of social support (29%), concerns about FIT/colonoscopy process (12%), competing life priorities (12%), adverse effects of bowel preparation (3%), and poor health literacy (3%). Among the 314 non-completers, 131 patients did not report a barrier, as 51% reported that that had completed a previous colonoscopy in the past 10 years, 10% refused with no reason, and 10% were never reached by phone., Conclusions: Future studies aimed at improving FIT screening and subsequent colonoscopy rates need to address the unique needs of patients for effective and sustainable screening programs., Trial Registration: NCT01946282.

Background: The growing numbers of cancer survivors challenge delivery of high-quality survivorship care by healthcare systems. Innovative ways to improve care coordination for patients with cancer and multiple chronic conditions ("complex cancer survivors") are needed to achieve better care outcomes, improve patient experience of care, and lower cost. Our study, Project CONNECT, will adapt and implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies, shown to be effective for primary care conditions, among complex cancer survivors. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to: 1) Implement a system-level EHR-driven intervention for 500 complex cancer survivors at Parkland; 2) Test effectiveness of the strategies on system- and patient-level outcomes measured before and after implementation; and 3) Elucidate system and patient factors that facilitate or hinder implementation and result in differences in experiences of care coordination between complex patients with and without cancer., Methods: Project CONNECT is a quasi-experimental implementation study among 500 breast and colorectal cancer survivors with at least one of the following chronic conditions: diabetes, hypertension, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart disease. We will implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies in a large, county integrated safety-net health system: 1) an EHR-driven registry to facilitate patient transitions between primary and oncology care; 2) co-locating a nurse practitioner trained in care coordination within a complex care team; 3) and enhancing teamwork through coaching. Segmented regression analysis will evaluate change in system-level (i.e. composite care quality score) and patient-level outcomes (i.e. self-reported care coordination). To evaluate implementation, we will merge quantitative findings with structured observations and physician and patient interviews., Discussion: This study will result in an evaluation toolkit identifying key model elements, barriers, and facilitators that can be used to guide care coordination interventions in other safety-net settings. Because Parkland is a vanguard of safety-net healthcare nationally, findings will be widely applicable as other safety-nets move toward increased integration, enhanced EHR capability, and experience with growing patient diversity. Our proposal recognizes the complexity of interventions and scaffolds evidence-based strategies together to meet the needs of complex patients, systems of care, and service integration., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02943265 . Registered 24 October 2016.

Background: Burnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown., Objective: To examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices., Design: Cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015-6/19/2017., Setting: Sample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services., Participants: 10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices., Main Measure: Burnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure., Key Results: Burnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.10-1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2-5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.42; 95%CI, 1.16-1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.03-1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff., Conclusions: Burnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout.

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) are a key tool for primary care practice. However, EHR functionality is not keeping pace with the evolving informational and decision-support needs of behavioral health clinicians (BHCs) working on integrated teams., Objective: Describe workflows and tasks of BHCs working with integrated teams, identify their health information technology needs, and develop EHR tools to address them., Method: A mixed-methods, comparative-case study of six community health centers (CHCs) in Oregon, each with at least one BHC integrated in their primary care team. We observed clinical work and conducted interviews to understand workflows and clinical tasks, aiming to identify how effectively current EHRs supported integrated care delivery, including transitions, documentation, information sharing, and decision making. We analyzed these data and employed a user-centered design process to develop EHR tools addressing the identified needs., Results: BHCs used the primary care EHR for documentation and communication with other team members, but the EHR lacked the functionality to fully support integrated care. Needs include the ability to: (1) automate and track paper-based screening; (2) document behavioral health history; (3) access patient social and medical history relevant to behavioral health issues, and (4) rapidly document and track progress on goals. To meet these needs, we engaged users and developed a set of EHR tools called the BH e-Suite., Conclusion: Integrated primary care teams, and particularly BHCs, have unique information needs, workflows and tasks. These needs can be met and supported by the EHR with a moderate level of modification.

Objective: Little is known about cervical cancer screening and results patterns among HIV-infected (HIV+) women in real-world healthcare settings. We characterized two periods of screening opportunity., Design: Retrospective cohort., Setting: US safety-net healthcare system in Dallas County, Texas., Participants: We analyzed data from electronic medical records (EMR) of 1490 HIV+ women receiving care 2010-2014., Main Outcome Measures: At baseline, we categorized a woman's Pap status 15 months prior to index date as under-screened (vs. screened), and cytology result (normal vs. abnormal). Then, we examined screening completion and results, and colposcopy uptake and results after an abnormal screen, in the subsequent 15-month period., Results: More than half of women (56%) had no evidence of a Pap test (i.e. under-screened) at baseline. Under-screened women were more likely to be older (50-64 years), have diabetes, and unknown viral load; they were less likely to be Black, Hispanic, have Medicaid, recently pregnant, have a HIV clinic visit, or a CD4 cell count at least 200 cells/μl. Nearly half of under-screened women (46%, n = 383) remained under-screened in the subsequent 15 months. Among women under-screened at baseline who later completed screening and follow-up during the study period, 21 high-grade dysplasia and three cancers were diagnosed. Overall, 40% of women did not receive colposcopy when needed, with most failures to follow-up occurring in women who were under-screened at baseline., Conclusion: Most HIV+ women receiving care in a safety-net system did not receive sufficient screening for cervical cancer and remained at exceptionally high risk of developing high-grade dysplasia.

The colorectal cancer (CRC) screening process involves multiple interfaces (communication exchanges and transfers of responsibility for specific actions) among primary care and gastroenterology providers, laboratory, and administrative staff. After a retrospective electronic health record (EHR) analysis discovered substantial clinic variation and low CRC screening prevalence overall in an urban, integrated safety-net system, we launched a qualitative analysis to identify potential quality improvement targets to enhance fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completion, the system's preferred screening modality. Here, we report examination of organization-, clinic-, and provider-level interfaces over a three-year period (December 2011-October 2014). We deployed in parallel 3 qualitative data collection methods: (1) structured observation (90+ hours, 10 sites); (2) document analysis ( n  > 100); and (3) semi-structured interviews ( n  = 41) and conducted iterative thematic analysis in which findings from each method cross-informed subsequent data collection. Thematic analysis was guided by a conceptual model and applied deductive and inductive codes. There was substantial variation in protocols for distributing and returning FIT kits both within and across clinics. Providers, clinic and laboratory staff had differing access to important data about FIT results based on clinical information system used and this affected results reporting. Communication and coordination during electronic referrals for diagnostic colonoscopy was suboptimal particularly for co-morbid patients needing anesthesia clearance. Our multi-level approach elucidated organizational deficiencies not evident by quantitative analysis alone. Findings indicate potential quality improvement intervention targets including: (1) best-practices implementation across clinics; (2) detailed communication to providers about FIT results; and (3) creation of EHR alerts to resolve pending colonoscopy referrals before they expire.

Previous research shows that patients in integrated health systems experience fewer racial disparities compared with more traditional healthcare systems. Little is known about patterns of racial/ethnic disparities between safety-net and non safety-net integrated health systems.We evaluated racial/ethnic differences in body mass index (BMI) and the Charlson comorbidity index from 3 non safety-net- and 1 safety-net integrated health systems in a cross-sectional study. Multinomial logistic regression modeled comorbidity and BMI on race/ethnicity and health care system type adjusting for age, sex, insurance, and zip-code-level incomeThe study included 1.38 million patients. Higher proportions of safety-net versus non safety-net patients had comorbidity score of 3+ (11.1% vs. 5.0%) and BMI ≥35 (27.7% vs. 15.8%). In both types of systems, blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites to have higher BMIs. Whites were more likely than blacks or Hispanics to have higher comorbidity scores in a safety net system, but less likely to have higher scores in the non safety-nets. The odds of comorbidity score 3+ and BMI 35+ in blacks relative to whites were significantly lower in safety-net than in non safety-net settings.Racial/ethnic differences were present within both safety-net and non safety-net integrated health systems, but patterns differed. Understanding patterns of racial/ethnic differences in health outcomes in safety-net and non safety-net integrated health systems is important to tailor interventions to eliminate racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care.

Background: Population outreach strategies are increasingly used to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The influence of primary care on cancer screening in this context is unknown., Objective: To assess associations between primary care provider (PCP) visits and receipt of CRC screening and colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical (FIT) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT)., Design: Population-based cohort study., Participants: A total of 968,072 patients ages 50-74 years who were not up to date with CRC screening in 2011 in four integrated healthcare systems (three with screening outreach programs using FIT kits) in the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium., Measures: Demographic, clinical, PCP visit, and CRC screening data were obtained from electronic health records and administrative databases. We examined associations between PCP visits in 2011 and receipt of FIT/FOBT, screening colonoscopy, or flexible sigmoidoscopy (CRC screening) in 2012 and follow-up colonoscopy within 3 months of a positive FIT/FOBT in 2012. We used multivariable logistic regression and propensity score models to adjust for confounding., Results: Fifty-eight percent of eligible patients completed a CRC screening test in 2012, most by FIT. Those with a greater number of PCP visits had higher rates of CRC screening at all sites. Patients with ≥1 PCP visit had nearly twice the adjusted-odds of CRC screening (OR = 1.88, 95 % CI: 1.86-1.89). Overall, 79.6 % of patients with a positive FIT/FOBT completed colonoscopy within 3 months. Patients with ≥1 PCP visit had 30 % higher adjusted odds of completing colonoscopy after positive FIT/FOBT (OR = 1.30; 95 % CI: 1.22-1.40)., Conclusions: Patients with a greater number of PCP visits had higher rates of both incident CRC screening and colonoscopy after positive FIT/FOBT, even in health systems with active population health outreach programs. In this era of virtual care and population outreach, primary care visits remain an important mechanism for engaging patients in cancer screening., Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standards Funding This study was conducted as part of the NCI-funded consortium Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regiments (PROSPR), with support from NIH/NCI-funded PROSPR cooperative agreements (grant numbers U54CA163308, U01CA163304, U54CA163261, U5U54CA163262, U54CA163303, U54CA163307, U54CA163313). Dr. Halm was also supported in part by the AHRQ Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (R24 HS022418). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or AHRQ. Conflict of Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to report, other than receiving funding from the NCI as investigators in the PROSPR U54 grants listed above.

Patient-centered health risk assessments (HRAs) that screen for unhealthy behaviors, prioritize concerns, and provide feedback may improve counseling, goal setting, and health. To evaluate the effectiveness of routinely administering a patient-centered HRA, My Own Health Report, for diet, exercise, smoking, alcohol, drug use, stress, depression, anxiety, and sleep, 18 primary care practices were randomized to ask patients to complete My Own Health Report (MOHR) before an office visit (intervention) or continue usual care (control). Intervention practice patients were more likely than control practice patients to be asked about each of eight risks (range of differences 5.3-15.8 %, p < 0.001), set goals for six risks (range of differences 3.8-16.6 %, p < 0.01), and improve five risks (range of differences 5.4-13.6 %, p < 0.01). Compared to controls, intervention patients felt clinicians cared more for them and showed more interest in their concerns. Patient-centered health risk assessments improve screening and goal setting.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01825746.

Purpose: Guidelines recommend screening patients for unhealthy behaviors and mental health concerns. Health risk assessments can systematically identify patient needs and trigger care. This study seeks to evaluate whether primary care practices can routinely implement such assessments into routine care., Methods: As part of a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial, 9 diverse primary care practices implemented My Own Health Report (MOHR)-an electronic or paper-based health behavior and mental health assessment and feedback system paired with counseling and goal setting. We observed how practices integrated MOHR into their workflows, what additional practice staff time it required, and what percentage of patients completed a MOHR assessment (Reach)., Results: Most practices approached (60%) agreed to adopt MOHR. How they implemented MOHR depended on practice resources, informatics capacity, and patient characteristics. Three practices mailed patients invitations to complete MOHR on the Web, 1 called patients and completed MOHR over the telephone, 1 had patients complete MOHR on paper in the office, and 4 had staff help patients complete MOHR on the Web in the office. Overall, 3,591 patients were approached and 1,782 completed MOHR (Reach = 49.6%). Reach varied by implementation strategy with higher reach when MOHR was completed by staff than by patients (71.2% vs 30.2%, P <.001). No practices were able to sustain the complete MOHR assessment without adaptations after study completion. Fielding MOHR increased staff and clinician time an average of 28 minutes per visit., Conclusions: Primary care practices can implement health behavior and mental health assessments, but counseling patients effectively requires effort. Practices will need more support to implement and sustain assessments., (© 2014 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: There is a pressing need for greater attention to patient-centered health behavior and psychosocial issues in primary care, and for practical tools, study designs and results of clinical and policy relevance. Our goal is to design a scientifically rigorous and valid pragmatic trial to test whether primary care practices can systematically implement the collection of patient-reported information and provide patients needed advice, goal setting, and counseling in response., Methods: This manuscript reports on the iterative design of the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, a cluster randomized delayed intervention trial. Nine pairs of diverse primary care practices will be randomized to early or delayed intervention four months later. The intervention consists of fielding the MOHR assessment--addresses 10 domains of health behaviors and psychosocial issues--and subsequent provision of needed counseling and support for patients presenting for wellness or chronic care. As a pragmatic participatory trial, stakeholder groups including practice partners and patients have been engaged throughout the study design to account for local resources and characteristics. Participatory tasks include identifying MOHR assessment content, refining the study design, providing input on outcomes measures, and designing the implementation workflow. Study outcomes include the intervention reach (percent of patients offered and completing the MOHR assessment), effectiveness (patients reporting being asked about topics, setting change goals, and receiving assistance in early versus delayed intervention practices), contextual factors influencing outcomes, and intervention costs., Discussion: The MOHR study shows how a participatory design can be used to promote the consistent collection and use of patient-reported health behavior and psychosocial assessments in a broad range of primary care settings. While pragmatic in nature, the study design will allow valid comparisons to answer the posed research question, and findings will be broadly generalizable to a range of primary care settings. Per the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) framework, the study design is substantially more pragmatic than other published trials. The methods and findings should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers attempting to make healthcare more patient-centered and relevant., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01825746.

We aimed to assess whether a family history of coronary heart disease, diabetes, or cancer is linked to meeting public health guidelines for health-promoting physical activity. To achieve this objective, we analyzed data on 29,513 adults who came to the Cooper Clinic (Dallas, Texas) between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2010, for a preventive medicine visit. Patients completed a comprehensive medical survey including information on family medical history, physical activity, and other lifestyle behaviors. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to examine the relationship between having a family history of chronic disease and meeting physical activity guidelines. The results indicated that individuals with a family history of disease had reduced odds for meeting or exceeding physical activity guidelines. For example, participants with a family history of 3 diseases were 36% less likely to meet or exceed physical activity guidelines than their counterparts without a family history of disease (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58-0.72), while controlling for covariates. Among this large sample of adults, those with a family history of chronic disease were less inclined to regularly engage in physical activity. Thus, targeted programs encouraging adoption and maintenance of health-promoting physical activity might be warranted, specifically targeting individuals with familial history of disease., (Copyright © 2013 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the risk of neonatal and infant adverse outcomes between vacuum and forceps assisted deliveries., Design: Population based study., Setting: US linked natality and mortality birth cohort file and the New Jersey linked natality, mortality, and hospital discharge summary birth cohort file., Participants: Singleton live births in the United States (n = 11 639 388) and New Jersey (n = 375 351)., Main Outcome Measures: Neonatal morbidity and mortality., Results: Neonatal mortality was comparable between vacuum and forceps deliveries in US births (odds ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.12). Vacuum delivery was associated with a lower risk of birth injuries (0.69, 0.66 to 0.72), neonatal seizures (0.78, 0.68 to 0.90), and need for assisted ventilation (< 30 minutes 0.94, 0.92 to 0.97; > or = 30 minutes 0.92, 0.88 to 0.98). Among births in New Jersey, vacuum extraction was more likely than forceps to be complicated by postpartum haemorrhage (1.22, 1.07 to 1.39) and shoulder dystocia (2.00, 1.62 to 2.48). The risks of intracranial haemorrhage, difficulty with feeding, and retinal haemorrhage were comparable between both modes of delivery. The sequential use of vacuum and forceps was associated with an increased risk of need for mechanical ventilation in the infant and third and fourth degree perineal tears., Conclusion: Although vacuum extraction does have risks, it remains a safe alternative to forceps delivery.