Search

Background: Patients with complex health needs are increasingly the focus of health system redesign. Objective: To characterize complex patients, as defined by their primary care physicians (PCPs), and to compare this definition with other commonly used algorithms. Design: Cohort study. Setting: 1 hospital-based practice, 4 community health centers, and 7 private practices in a primary care network in the United States. Participants: 40 physicians who reviewed a random sample of 120 of their own patients. Measurements: After excluding patients for whom they were not directly responsible, PCPs indicated which of their patients they considered complex. These patients were characterized, independent predictors of complexity were identified, and PCP-defined complexity was compared with 3 comorbidity-based methods (Charlson score, Higashi score, and a proprietary Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services algorithm). Results: Physicians identified 1126 of their 4302 eligible patients (26.2%) as complex and assigned a mean of 2.2 domains of complexity per patient (median, 2.0 [interquartile range, 1 to 3]). Mental health and substance use were identified as major issues in younger complex patients, whereas medical decision making and care coordination predominated in older patients (P < 0.001 for trends by decade). Major independent predictors of PCP-defined complexity (P < 0.001) included age (probability of complexity increased from 14.8% to 19.8% with age increasing from 55 to 65 years), poorly controlled diabetes (from 12.7% to 47.6% if hemoglobin A(1c) level >=9%), use of antipsychotics (from 12.7% to 31.8%), alcohol-related diagnoses (from 12.9% to 27.4%), and inadequate insurance (from 12.5% to 19.2%). Classification agreement for complex patients ranged from 26.2% to 56.0% when PCP assignment was compared with each of the other methods. Limitation: Results may not be generalizable to other primary care settings. Conclusion: Primary care physicians identified approximately one quarter of their patients as complex. Medical, social, and behavioral factors all contributed to PCP-defined complexity. Physician-defined complexity had only modest agreement with 3 comorbidity-based algorithms. Primary Funding Source: Partners Community Healthcare, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Prospective randomized and observational cohorts.Objective: To compare outcomes of patients with and without workers' compensation who had surgical and nonoperative treatment for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation (IDH).Summary Of Background Data: Few studies have examined the association between worker's compensation and outcomes of surgical and nonoperative treatment.Methods: Patients with at least 6 weeks of sciatica and a lumbar IDH were enrolled in either a randomized trial or observational cohort at 13 US spine centers. Patients were categorized as workers' compensation or nonworkers' compensation based on baseline disability compensation and work status. Treatment was usual nonoperative care or surgical discectomy. Outcomes included pain, functional impairment, satisfaction and work/disability status at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.Results: Combining randomized and observational cohorts, 113 patients with workers' compensation and 811 patients without were followed for 2 years. There were significant improvements in pain, function, and satisfaction with both surgical and nonoperative treatment in both groups. In the nonworkers' compensation group, there was a clinically and statistically significant advantage for surgery at 3 months that remained significant at 2 years. However, in the workers' compensation group, the benefit of surgery diminished with time; at 2 years no significant advantage was seen for surgery in any outcome (treatment difference for SF-36 bodily pain [-5.9; 95% CI: -16.7-4.9] and physical function [5.0; 95% CI: -4.9-15]). Surgical treatment was not associated with better work or disability outcomes in either group.Conclusion: Patients with a lumbar IDH improved substantially with both surgical and nonoperative treatment. However, there was no added benefit associated with surgical treatment for patients with workers' compensation at 2 years while those in the nonworkers' compensation group had significantly greater improvement with surgical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A serious underlying condition rarely is present in patients with low back pain (LBP), but the pain can be intense and severely limit home and work activities. For most patients with LBP, the cause is a nonspecific mechanical process; for those with acute symptoms, the course is self-limited. Initial treatments include activity modification, nonnarcotic analgesic agents, and patient education. For patients whose symptoms are not improving, referral for physical treatments is appropriate. For patients with subacute and chronic LBP, behavioral treatments, exercise programs, spinal manipulation, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation can help. For patients with chronic LBP, a variety of other therapeutic options (eg, acupuncture) also are effective. Primary care physicians may help patients by providing unbiased information and redirecting care for those who are not improving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health care information technology can be a means to improve quality and efficiency in the primary care setting. However, merely applying technology without addressing how it fits into provider workflow and existing systems is unlikely to achieve improvement goals. Improving quality of primary care, such as cancer screening rates, requires addressing barriers at system, provider, and patient levels. The authors report the development, implementation, and preliminary use of a new breast cancer screening outreach program in a large multicenter primary care network. This installation paired population-based surveillance with customized information delivery based on a validated model linking patients to providers and practices. In the first six months, 86% of physicians and all case managers voluntarily participated in the program. Providers intervened in 83% of the mammogram-overdue population by initiating mailed reminders or deferring contact. Overall, 63% of patients were successfully contacted. Systematic population-based efforts are promising tools to improve preventative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and objectivesLow back pain (LBP) is a common condition with frequenthealth care visits and work disability. Quality improvement efforts in primary care focusedon guidelines adherence, provider selection and education, and feedback on appropriatenessof care. Such efforts can only succeed if a health care provider is in charge of care overa substantial period. This study was conducted to provide insights about actual patterns ofprovider involvement in LBP care and implications for quality evaluation.MethodsEstablished primary care patients with occupational LBP and health care coveredby a workers' compensation insurer were selected. Primary care physician (PCP)involvement was examined relative to overall health care utilization. Four methods ofclassifying PCP involvement were used to assess the association between PCP involvementand health care and work disability outcomes over a 2-year follow-up period.ResultsPrimary care physician was rarely the sole provider during episodes of occupationalLBP. PCP was the initial non-emergency room provider in 55% of cases, and was themost prevalent provider during at least one episode of care in 45% of cases. Differentmethods of classification led to different conclusions about the association between PCPinvolvement and work disability or number of health care visits. Multiple providers wereinvolved throughout the clinical course of the small number of cases that accounted formost of the health care visits and work disability; in these cases, the role of PCP in care wasdifficult to determine.ConclusionsAdministrative data alone are adequate for provider comparisons only inrelatively simple cases. Provider comparisons based on initial treating provider likelyoverstate the importance of early care, particularly in more complex cases. For LBP, qualityimprovement models based on PCP-directed interventions or reinforcing guideline adherencemay not impact outcomes. A patient-centred model may be necessary to achieveoutcome improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Combined analysis of 2 prospective clinical studies.Objective: To identify socioeconomic characteristics associated with workers' compensation in patients with an intervertebral disc herniation (IDH) or spinal stenosis (SpS).Summary Of Background Data: Few studies have compared socioeconomic differences between those receiving or not receiving workers' compensation with the same underlying clinical conditions.Methods: Patients were identified from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) and the National Spine Network (NSN) practice-based outcomes study. Patients with IDH and SpS within NSN were identified satisfying SPORT eligibility criteria. Information on disability and work status at baseline evaluation was used to categorize patients into 3 groups: workers' compensation, other disability compensation, or work-eligible controls. Enrollment rates of patients with disability in a clinical efficacy trial (SPORT) and practice-based network (NSN) were compared. Independent socioeconomic predictors of baseline workers' compensation status were identified in multivariate logistic regression models controlling for clinical condition, study cohort, and initial treatment designation.Results: Among 3759 eligible patients (1480 in SPORT and 2279 in NSN), 564 (15%) were receiving workers' compensation, 317 (8%) were receiving other disability compensation, and 2878 (77%) were controls. Patients receiving workers' compensation were less common in SPORT than NSN (9.2% vs. 18.8%, P < 0.001), but patients receiving other disability compensation were similarly represented (8.9% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.19). In univariate analyses, many socioeconomic characteristics significantly differed according to baseline workers' compensation status. In multiple logistic regression analyses, gender, educational level, work characteristics, legal action, and expectations about ability to work without surgery were independently associated with receiving workers' compensation.Conclusion: Clinical trials involving conditions commonly seen in patients with workers' compensation may need special efforts to ensure adequate representation. Socioeconomic characteristics markedly differed between patients receiving and not receiving workers' compensation. Identifying the independent effects of workers' compensation on outcomes will require controlling for these baseline characteristics and other clinical features associated with disability status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop and validate an automated method for determining the set of patients for whom a given primary care physician holds overall clinical responsibility.Design: The study included all adult patients (16,185) seen at least once in an ambulatory setting during a three-year period by 18 primary care physicians in ten practices. The physicians indicated whether they considered themselves to be the physician primarily responsible for the overall clinical care of each visiting patient. Statistical models were constructed to predict the physicians' designations using predictor variables derived from electronically available appointment schedules and demographic information.Measurements: Predictive accuracy was assessed primarily using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), and secondarily using positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity.Results: A minimal set of six variables was identified as predictive of the physicians' designations. The constructed model had a median AUC for individual physicians of 0.92 (interquartile interval: 0.90-0.96), a PPV of 0.94 (interquartile interval: 0.87-0.95), and a sensitivity of 0.95 (interquartile interval: 0.87-0.97).Conclusion: A statistical model using a minimal set of commonly available electronic data can accurately predict the set of patients for whom a physician holds primary clinical responsibility. Further research examining the generalization of the model to other settings would be valuable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A retrospective case series of primary care patients receiving Workers' Compensation (WC) for back pain.Objective: To describe the extent of primary care provider (PCP) involvement in work-related low back pain (WRLBP), and whether PCP involvement is a significant determinant of patterns of care or outcomes.Summary Of Background Data: In general, WRLBP has inferior outcomes compared with nonoccupational LBP. Although it has been suggested that better outcomes are achieved when care for WRLBP involves specialists such as occupational medicine physicians rather than a PCP, limited evidence supports this claim.Methods: Adult patients were identified by electronic records from four hospital-affiliated PCP practices in fiscal years 1996 to 1998. Those with a WRLBP claim filed during the same time period were identified by searching a WC claims database. Medical records were reviewed to assess past medical history, the extent of prior PCP contacts for any visits before and for visits 2 years after the reported onset of the WRLBP claim, and detailed information on visits for this condition. Disability outcomes (total costs and days of work disability) were obtained from the WC database.Results: Among 68,710 individuals with a PCP practice visit, 118 with a WRLBP claim were identified. The final study sample included 87 patients with a WRLBP claim and at least 1 documented PCP practice visit during the study period. Seventy-eight percent of patients saw the PCP at least once in the 2 years after the claim onset date, but only 34 patients (39%) visited the PCP for their WRLBP, and 20 (23%) had more than 1 visit. Although almost all patients with a PCP visit for WRLBP saw a physician (not the PCP in 79% of cases) within a week of the claim onset date, the median number of days between the onset date and the first WRLBP visit to the PCP was 47.5. Patients with a prior history of back problems were more likely to have a PCP visit for WRLBP (odds ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.1-7.7). Patients with PCP visits for WRLBP had higher total and medical costs than those without PCP visits, but a similar number of paid disability days. After controlling for other potential predictors, involvement of the PCP was not a significant predictor of the total cost of the WRLBP claim.Conclusions: Many individuals with a WC claim do not have a stable PCP relationship around the onset of their WRLBP episode. Those with PCP relationships uncommonly involve the PCP in their WRLBP, and if they do, it is usually later in the course because of persistent or recurrent symptoms. Disability outcomes appear to be similar regardless of whether a PCP was involved. However, PCP involvement is associated with greater medical costs, which may reflect confounding based on duration of symptoms rather than the nature of the care provided. Additional research is needed to understand how different patterns of care for patients with a WRLBP claim relate to outcomes and how these patients compare with individuals without such a claim, as well as the factors that lead patients to involve their PCP or not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of health-related quality of life data obtained from a prospective cohort study of patients with sciatica due to an intervertebral disc herniation or lumbar spinal stenosis. OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a shortened version of a previously validated 23-item modification of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For patients with low back pain, improving health-related quality of life is often the main goal of therapy. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire is one of the best validated and most frequently used back-specific functional status measures. A shortened version may permit more widespread use in clinical and research settings. METHODS: Data from 507 patients with sciatica enrolled in the Maine Lumbar Spine Study were used to derive a shortened version of a 23-item modification of the original Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire using qualitative and cluster analysis techniques. The internal consistency, construct validity, reproducibility, and responsiveness in detecting change over a 3-month period for a new 12-item scale was compared to the original 23-item scale. The 12-item scale was then validated in an independent cohort of 148 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. RESULTS: Internal consistency was very good but modestly lower for the 12-item instrument compared to the 23-item original scale. Reproducibility over a 3-month interval was good and did not differ between the 12-item and original scale. Findings from the validation cohort were similar or better than the derivation cohort. A high degree of construct validity with patient-reported symptoms was demonstrated for the 12-item and original scales. The responsiveness and interpretability of the 12-item scale over 3 months was excellent and comparable to the original scale. Responsiveness assessed in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis in the independent validation cohort showed consistent findings compared to patients with a disc herniation in the derivation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This short, simple, self-administered 12-item back-specific functional status questionnaire performed extremely well in comparison with the original 23-item scale. If validated in additional study populations, this new questionnaire may be useful in the clinical setting as a way for providers to prospectively compare their outcomes of care to other patient populations, and to study treatment effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low-back problems are one of the most frequent reasons for disability compensation claims by workers. However, the effect of Workers' Compensation status on the long-term outcome for workers with sciatica has not been studied in detail, to our knowledge. Therefore, we believe that it is important to describe the long-term outcomes for patients who have herniation of a lumbar disc and sciatica according to the Workers' Compensation status at the time of the preoperative consultation.Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational study of patients who had sciatica and were seeking care from specialist physicians in community-based practices throughout Maine. Among 440 eligible patients, 199 were receiving Workers' Compensation at the time of entry into the study (baseline) and 241 were not. Three hundred and twenty-six patients (74 percent) completed questionnaires at the time of a four-year follow-up. The outcomes that we assessed included disability compensation and work status as well as relief from symptoms, functional status, and quality of life.Results: Patients who were receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline were more likely to be young, male, and employed as laborers. They reported worse functional status; however, the clinical findings for these patients were similar to those for patients who were not receiving Workers' Compensation. Patients who had been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline were more likely to be receiving disability benefits at the time of the four-year follow-up compared with those who had not (27 percent of 133 compared with 7 percent of 189; p<0.001); however, they were only slightly less likely to be working at the time of the four-year follow-up (80 percent of 133 compared with 87 percent of 190; p = 0.09). Operative management did not influence these comparisons, but it decreased symptoms and improved functional status. Patients who had been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline also had significantly less relief from symptoms and improvement in quality of life than patients who had not been receiving Workers' Compensation (all p<0.001). In multivariate models, Workers' Compensation status at baseline was an independent predictor of whether the patient would be receiving disability benefits after four years (odds ratio, 3.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.7 to 7.6) but was not an independent predictor of whether the patient would be working on a job for pay at the time of the four-year follow-up (odds ratio, 0.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 1.2).Conclusions: Even after adjustment for the initial treatment of the sciatica and for other clinical factors, patients who had been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline were more likely to be receiving disability benefits and were less likely to report relief from symptoms and improvement in quality of life at the time of the four-year follow-up than patients who had not been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline. Nonetheless, most patients returned to work regardless of their initial disability status, and those who had been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline were only slightly less likely to be working after four years. Whether or not they had been receiving Workers' Compensation at baseline, patients who had been managed with an operation reported greater relief from symptoms and improvement in functional status at the time of the four-year follow-up compared with patients who had been managed nonoperatively, even though the outcomes with regard to disability and work status in these two groups were comparable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: As US health care systems shift to human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening, more patients are receiving positive high-risk non-16/18 genotype HPV results and negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM) cytological findings. Risk-based management guidelines recommend 2 consecutive negative annual results to return to routine screening., Objective: To quantify patterns of surveillance testing and associated outcomes for patients after an HPV-positive results and NILM cytologic findings., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed patients in the METRICS (Multi-level Optimization of the Cervical Cancer Screening Process in Diverse Settings and Populations) cohort of the PROSPR II (Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process) Cervical Consortium. Population-based data were obtained from 3 diverse health care systems (Mass General Brigham [MGB] in Massachusetts, Kaiser Permanente Washington [KPWA] in Washington, and Parkland Health [PH] in Texas) in the METRICS cohort. Participants were patients aged 21 to 65 years who received an HPV-positive (non-16/18 or pooled genotypes) result and NILM cytologic finding from January 2010 to August 2018 and were followed up through December 2019. Data analyses were performed between April 2021 and November 2024., Main Outcomes and Measures: Test receipt and outcomes delivered within 16 months after the index result (round 1 surveillance)., Results: The final sample across the 3 health care systems comprised 13 158 female patients (3228 Hispanic or Latine [24.5%], 1990 non-Hispanic African American or Black [15.1%], 749 non-Hispanic Asian [5.7%], and 6559 non-Hispanic White [49.8%] individuals). Sociodemographic characteristics varied by site, with more non-Hispanic White (2277 [63.7%] and 4061 [61.2%]) and commercially insured patients (3137 [87.8%] and 4365 [65.7%]) at KPWA and MGB, and more Hispanic or Latine (1664 [56.5%]) and uninsured patients (2352 [79.9%]) at PH. During round 1 surveillance, 43.7% of patients were tested, of whom 18.2% (2394) had HPV-negative results and NILM cytologic findings and 25.5% (3351) had abnormal results. Many patients remained in the cohort and were untested through round 1 surveillance (overall: 49.4% [6505]; across sites: 39.0% [1395] to 69.4% [2043]), while fewer exited the cohort (overall: 6.9% [908]; across sites: 0.2% [12] to 24.6% [879]). Groups with lower odds of timely testing were younger adults (aged 25-29 vs 30-39 years: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.65; 95% CL, 0.53-0.81), non-Hispanic African American or Black compared with non-Hispanic White patients (AOR, 0.78; 95% CL, 0.68-0.89), and those with Medicaid compared with commercial insurance (AOR, 0.81; 95% CL, 0.72-0.91), while those with a primary care clinician were more likely to have timely testing (AOR, 1.44; 95% CL, 1.21-1.70). Cancer was diagnosed in 10 patients (0.2%) untested in round 1 surveillance compared with 0 cancers in those with an HPV-negative results and NILM cytologic findings., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that among patients with HPV-positive results and NILM cytologic findings, less than half received a surveillance cotest during the guideline-recommended time frame. Health care systems should monitor annual surveillance and gather evidence on interventions to optimize the delivery of surveillance testing.

Background: The "burden" of atrial fibrillation (AF) detected by screening likely influences stroke risk, but the distribution of burden is not well described., Objectives: This study aims to determine the frequency of AF and the distribution of AF burden found when screening individuals ≥70 years of age with a 14-day electrocardiograph monitor., Methods: This is a cohort study of the screening arm of a randomized AF screening trial among those ≥70 years of age without a prior AF diagnosis (between 2019 and 2021). Screening was performed with a 14-day continuous electrocardiogram patch monitor., Results: Analyzable patches were returned by 5,684 (95%) of screening arm participants; the median age was 75 years (Q1-Q3: 72-78 years), 57% were female, and the median CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 3 (Q1-Q3: 2-4). AF was detected in 252 participants (4.4%); 29 (0.5%) patients had continuous AF and 223 (3.9%) had paroxysmal AF. Among those with paroxysmal AF, the average indices of AF burden were of low magnitude with right-skewed distributions. The median percent time in AF was 0.46% (Q1-Q3: 0.02%-2.48%), or 75 (Q1-Q3: 3-454) minutes, and the median longest episode was 38 (Q1-Q3: 2-245) minutes. The upper quartile threshold of 2.48% time in AF corresponded to 7.6 hours. Age >80 years was associated with screen-detected AF in our multivariable model (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.06-2.02)., Conclusions: Most AF detected in these older patients was very low burden. However, one-quarter of those with AF had multiple hours of AF, raising concern about stroke risk. These findings have implications for targeting populations for AF screening trials and for responding to heart rhythm alerts from mobile devices (GUARD-AF [A Study to Determine if Identification of Undiagnosed Atrial Fibrillation in People at least 70 Years of Age Reduces the Risk of Stroke]; NCT04126486)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The GUARD-AF trial was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb (Princeton, New Jersey, USA) and Pfizer (New York, New York, USA). The authors are solely responsible for the drafting and editing of the paper and its final contents. Dr Singer has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb; has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Medtronic, and Pfizer; and has been supported, in part, by the Eliot B. and Edith C. Shoolman Fund of Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr Atlas has received sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer and the American Heart Association (18SFRN34250007); and he has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Fitbit. Dr Go has received research support through his institution from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and iRhythm Technologies. Dr Lubitz has received support from National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants R01HL139731 and R01HL157635, and the American Heart Association (18SFRN34250007); has received sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fitbit, Medtronic, Premier, and IBM; has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Blackstone Life Sciences, and Invitae; and is an employee of Novartis as of July 18, 2022. Dr McManus has received sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Flexcon, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Fitbit, Heart Rhythm Society, and Flexcon; and has received payment to serve on Data Safety Boards for NAMSA and Avania. Dr Rothberg has received consulting fees from Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association. Dr Crosson has formerly been employed at iRhythm Technologies. Dr Aronson, Ms Mills, and Mr Patlakh are employees of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Lopes has received grants or contracts from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received funding for educational activities or lectures from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca; and has received consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving., Objective: Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results., Design: A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response., Participants: Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts., Main Measures: Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines., Key Results: In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer., Conclusions: Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed., Competing Interests: Declarations:. Conflict of Interest:: Dang reports travel support from Weill Cornell Medical College. Werner has received travel support from and is a steering committee member of the American Cancer Society National Roundtable on Cervical Cancer (ACS NRTCC). Feldman receives royalties from UpToDate., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) often remains undiagnosed, and it independently raises the risk of ischemic stroke, which is largely reversible by oral anticoagulation. Although randomized trials using longer term screening approaches increase identification of AF, no studies have established that AF screening lowers stroke rates., Objectives: To address this knowledge gap, the GUARD-AF (Reducing Stroke by Screening for Undiagnosed Atrial Fibrillation in Elderly Individuals) trial screened participants in primary care practices using a 14-day continuous electrocardiographic monitor to determine whether screening for AF coupled with physician/patient decision-making to use oral anticoagulation reduces stroke and provides a net clinical benefit compared with usual care., Methods: GUARD-AF was a prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial designed to test whether screening for AF in people aged ≥70 years using a 14-day single-lead continuous electrocardiographic patch monitor could identify patients with undiagnosed AF and reduce stroke. Participants were randomized 1:1 to screening or usual care. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were hospitalization due to all-cause stroke and bleeding, respectively. Analyses used the intention-to-treat population., Results: Enrollment began on December 17, 2019, and involved 149 primary care sites across the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic led to premature termination of enrollment, with 11,905 participants in the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 15.3 months (Q1-Q3: 13.8-17.6 months). Median age was 75 years (Q1-Q3: 72-79 years), and 56.6% were female. The risk of stroke in the screening group was 0.7% vs 0.6% in the usual care group (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.69-1.75). The risk of bleeding was 1.0% in the screening group vs 1.1% in the usual care group (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60-1.26). Diagnosis of AF was 5% in the screening group and 3.3% in the usual care group, and initiation of oral anticoagulation after randomization was 4.2% and 2.8%, respectively., Conclusions: In this trial, there was no evidence that screening for AF using a 14-day continuous electrocardiographic monitor in people ≥70 years of age seen in primary care practice reduces stroke hospitalizations. Event rates were low, however, and the trial did not enroll the planned sample size.(Reducing Stroke by Screening for Undiagnosed Atrial Fibrillation in Elderly Individuals [GUARD-AF]; NCT04126486)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance funded the GUARD-AF trial but was not involved in data collection, analysis, or interpretation; manuscript preparation; or decision to publish. Dr Lopes has received research grants or contracts from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi; has received funding for educational activities or lectures from Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Novo Nordisk; and has received funding for consulting or other services from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Atlas has received sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer and the American Heart Association (18SFRN34250007); and has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Pfizer, and Premier. Dr Go has received a research grant from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance. Dr Lubitz is an employee of Novartis. Dr McManus has received grants or research support from Apple, Fitbit, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Flexcon; and has received consulting fees from Fitbit, NAMSA, Avania, and Heart Rhythm Society. Dr Rothberg is a consultant for Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Prof Crosson is a former employee of iRhythm Technologies,. Dr Aronson and Mr Patlakh are employees of Bristol Myers Squibb. Ms. Mills is a former employee of Bristol Myers Squibb, Inc. Dr O’Brien has received institutional research funding from Pfizer. Dr Singer has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb; and has consulted for the Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Medtronic, and Fitbit (Google). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Timely follow-up after an abnormal cancer screening test result is needed to maximize the benefits of screening, but is frequently not achieved. Little is known about patient experiences with the process of following up abnormal screening results., Objective: Assess patient experiences and perceptions regarding the process of a diagnostic workup following abnormal breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening results., Design: Survey of participating patients between April 2021 and June 2022 after reaching the primary outcome time point in a randomized controlled trial to improve follow-up of overdue abnormal screening results., Participants: Patients from 44 participating practices in three primary care practice networks., Main Measures: Self-reported ease of scheduling follow-up, perceived barriers or concerns, provider trust, and satisfaction with communication and care received for the follow-up of abnormal screening results., Results: Overall, 241 (25.0%) patients completed the survey including 66 (32.8%) with breast, 79 (25.3%) with cervical, and 96 (21.3%) with colorectal screening test; median age 55 years, 79.7% women, 80.5% non-Hispanic white, and 51.0% did not complete recommended follow-up. Most patients were worried that the test would find cancer (63.1%), but fewer worried about discomfort or side effects (34.4%), and neither were associated with completing follow-up. However, 17% of patients did not think they needed follow-up tests or appointments and were less likely to complete follow-up (10.5% vs. 24.0%, respectively, p-value 0.009). Most patients were very satisfied with their overall care (71.0%), but only 50.2% strongly agreed that they trusted their provider to put their medical needs above all else when making recommendations., Conclusions: Patients with overdue abnormal breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test results reported important deficiencies in the management of recommended follow-up. Addressing patient concerns about fear of cancer and effectively communicating the need for follow-up procedures may improve timely follow-up after an abnormal cancer screening result., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03979495., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Secondary prevention interventions to reduce post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) can be aided by the early identification of high-risk individuals who would benefit from risk factor modification., Aims: To develop and evaluate a predictive model to identify patients at increased risk of PSCI over 5 years using data easily accessible from electronic health records., Methods: Cohort study that included primary care patients from two academic medical centers. Patients were aged 45 years or older, without prior stroke or prevalent cognitive impairment, with primary care visits and an incident ischemic stroke between 2003 and 2016 (development/internal validation cohort) or 2010 and 2022 (external validation cohort). Predictors of PSCI were ascertained from the electronic health record. The outcome was incident dementia/cognitive impairment within 5 years and beginning 3 months following stroke, ascertained using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/Tenth Revision (ICD-9/10) codes. For model variable selection, we considered potential predictors of PSCI and constructed 400 bootstrap samples with two-thirds of the model derivation sample. We ran 10-fold cross-validated Cox proportional hazards models using a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) penalty. Variables selected in >25% of samples were included., Results: The analysis included 332 incident diagnoses of PSCI in the development cohort (n = 3741), and 161 and 128 incident diagnoses in the internal (n = 1925) and external (n = 2237) validation cohorts, respectively. The C-statistic for predicting PSCI was 0.731 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.694-0.768) in the internal validation cohort, and 0.724 (95% CI: 0.681-0.766) in the external validation cohort. A risk score based on the beta coefficients of predictors from the development cohort stratified patients into low (0-7 points), intermediate (8-11 points), and high (12-23 points) risk groups. The hazard ratios (HRs) for incident PSCI were significantly different by risk categories in internal (high, HR: 6.2, 95% CI: 4.1-9.3; Intermediate, HR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.8-4.1) and external (high, HR: 6.1, 95% CI: 3.9-9.6; Intermediate, HR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.9-4.3) validation cohorts., Conclusion: Five-year risk of PSCI can be accurately predicted using routinely collected data. Model output can be used to risk stratify and identify individuals at increased risk for PSCI for preventive efforts., Data Access Statement: Mass General Brigham data contain protected health information and cannot be shared publicly. The data processing scripts used to perform analyses will be made available to interested researchers upon reasonable request to the corresponding author., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: J.M.A. reports sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb / Pfizer Alliance. S.J.A. reports sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb / Pfizer Alliance and American Heart Association and has consulted for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Premier and Fitbit. D.E.S. reports sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance and has consulted for Bristol Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, and Pfizer. C.D.A. has received sponsored research support from Bayer AG. All relationships with industry are unrelated to this work.

Purpose: We examined characteristics of clinicians caring for transgender men and nonbinary (TMNB) individuals and guideline concordance of clinicians' cervical cancer screening recommendations. Methods: Using a survey of clinicians who performed ≥10 cervical cancer screenings in 2019, we studied characteristics of clinicians who do versus do not report caring for TMNB individuals and guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women. Results: In our sample ( N  = 492), 49.2% reported caring for TMNB individuals, and 25.4% reported performing cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals with a cervix. Differences in guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women (45.8% vs. 50% concordant) were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Sizable proportions of clinicians cared for and performed cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals. Research is needed to better understand clinicians' identified knowledge deficits to develop interventions (e.g., clinician trainings) to improve gender-affirming cervical cancer prevention.

Background: Single-lead electrocardiograms (1L ECGs) are increasingly used for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. Automated 1L ECG interpretation may have prognostic value for future AF in cases in which screening does not result in a short-term AF diagnosis., Objective: We sought to investigate the association between automated 1L ECG interpretation and incident AF., Methods: VITAL-AF was a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of screening for AF by 1L ECGs. For this study, participants were divided into 4 groups based on automated classification of 1L ECGs. Patients with prevalent AF were excluded. Associations between groups and incident AF were assessed by Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for risk factors. The start of follow-up was defined as 60 days after the latest 1L ECG (as some individuals had numerous screening 1L ECGs)., Results: The study sample included never screened (n = 16,306), normal (n = 10,914), other (n = 2675), and possible AF (n = 561). Possible AF had the highest AF incidence (5.91 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.24-8.23). Possible AF was associated with greater hazard of incident AF compared with normal (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.66-3.71). Other was associated with greater hazard of incident AF compared with normal (1.41; 95% CI, 1.04-1.90)., Conclusion: In patients undergoing AF screening with 1L ECGs without prevalent AF or AF within 60 days of screening, presumptive positive and indeterminate 1L ECG interpretations were associated with future AF. Abnormal 1L ECG recordings may identify individuals at higher risk for future AF., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Ellinor receives sponsored research support from Bayer AG, IBM Research, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Novo Nordisk; he has also served on advisory boards or consulted for Bayer AG. Dr Lubitz is a full-time employee of Novartis Institutes of BioMedical Research as of July, 2022. Dr Singer receives research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and has served as a consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb, Fitbit/Google, Medtronic, and Pfizer. Dr Atlas has received sponsored research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer and American Heart Association (18SFRN34250007). Dr Atlas has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Premier and Fitbit., (Copyright © 2024 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: One-time atrial fibrillation (AF) screening trials have produced mixed results; however, it is unclear if there is a subset for whom screening is effective. Identifying such a subgroup would support targeted screening., Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of VITAL-AF, a randomized trial of one-time, single-lead ECG screening during primary care visits. We tested two approaches to identify a subgroup where screening is effective. First, we developed an effect-based model using a T-learner. Specifically, we separately predicted the likelihood of AF diagnosis under screening and usual care conditions; the difference in probabilities was the predicted screening effect. Second, we used a validated AF risk model to test for a heterogeneous screening effect. We used interaction testing to determine if observed AF diagnosis rates in the screening and usual care groups differed when stratified by decile of the predicted screening effect and predicted AF risk., Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the screening (n=15187) and usual care (n=15078) groups (mean age 74 years, 59% female). In the effect-based analysis, in the highest decile of predicted screening effectiveness (n=3026), AF diagnosis rates were higher in the screening group (6.50 vs. 3.06 per 100 person-years, rate difference 3.45, 95%CI 1.62 to 5.28). In this group, the mean age was 84 years and 68% were female. The risk-based analysis did not identify a subgroup where screening was more effective. Predicted screening effectiveness and predicted baseline AF risk were poorly correlated (Spearman coefficient 0.13)., Conclusions: In a secondary analysis of the VITAL-AF trial, we identified a small subgroup where one-time screening was associated with increased AF diagnoses using an effect-based approach. In this study, predicted AF risk was a poor proxy for predicted screening effectiveness. These data caution against the assumption that high AF risk is necessarily correlated with high screening effectiveness.

Importance: Decisions about whether to stop colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests in older adults can be difficult and may benefit from shared decision-making (SDM)., Objective: To evaluate the effect of physician training in SDM and electronic previsit reminders (intervention) vs reminders only (comparator) on receipt of the patient-preferred approach to CRC screening and on overall CRC screening rates of older adults at 12 months., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of the Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED) cluster randomized clinical trial. In the PRIMED trial, primary care physicians (PCPs) from 36 primary care practices in Massachusetts and Maine were enrolled between May 1 and August 30, 2019, and were randomized to the intervention group or the comparator group. Patients aged 76 to 85 years who were overdue for CRC screening and did not have a prior diagnosis of CRC enrolled between October 21, 2019, and April 8, 2021. Data analysis was performed between May 24, 2022, and May 10, 2023., Interventions: Primary care physicians in the intervention group completed an SDM training course and received previsit reminders of patients eligible for CRC testing discussion, whereas PCPs in the comparator group received reminders only., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was concordance, or the percentage of patients who received their preferred screening approach. Postvisit surveys were administered to assess patient preference for testing, and electronic health record review was used to assess CRC testing at 12 months. Heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses examined interaction between study groups and different factors on concordance rates., Results: This study included 59 physicians and 466 older adults. Physicians had a mean (SD) age of 52.7 (9.4) years and a mean (SD) of 21.6 (10.2) years in practice; 30 (50.8%) were women and 16 (27.1%) reported prior training in SDM. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 80.3 (2.8) years; 249 (53.4%) were women and 238 (51.1%) reported excellent or very good overall health. Patients preferred stool-based tests (161 [34.5%]), followed by colonoscopy (116 [24.8%]) or no further screening (97 [20.8%]); 75 (16.1%) were not sure. The distribution of patient preferences was similar across groups (P = .36). At 12 months, test uptake was also similar for both the intervention group (29 [12.3%] for colonoscopy, 62 [26.3%] for stool-based tests, and 145 [61.4%] for no testing) and the comparator group (32 [13.9%] for colonoscopy, 35 [15.2%] for stool-based tests, and 163 [70.9%] for no testing; P = .08). Approximately half of patients in the intervention group received their preferred approach vs the comparator group (115 of 226 [50.9%] vs 103 of 223 [46.2%]; P = .47). Heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses found significantly higher rates with the intervention vs the comparator for patients with a strong intention to follow through with the preferred approach (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.79 [95% CI, 1.11-2.89]; P = .02, P = .05 for interaction) and for patients who reported more than 5 minutes (AOR, 3.27 [95% CI, 1.25-8.59]; P = .02, P = .05 for interaction) of discussion with their PCP regarding screening. Higher rates were also observed among patients who reported 2 to 5 minutes of discussion with their PCP, although this finding was not significant (AOR, 1.89 [95% CI, 0.93-3.84]; P = .08, P = .05 for interaction)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, approximately half of older patients received their preferred approach to CRC screening. Physician training in SDM did not result in higher concordance rates overall but may have benefitted some subgroups. Future work to refine and evaluate clinical decision support (in the form of an electronic advisory or reminder) as well as focused SDM skills training for PCPs may promote high-quality, preference-concordant decisions about CRC testing for older adults., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03959696.

Background: Follow-up of abnormal results is essential to cervical cancer screening, but data on adherence to follow-up are limited. We describe patterns of follow-up after screening abnormalities and identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up., Methods: We identified the index screening abnormality (positive human papillomavirus test or atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more severe cytology) among women of ages 25 to 65 years at three US healthcare systems during 2010 to 2019. We estimated the cumulative incidence of surveillance testing, colposcopy, or treatment after the index abnormality and initial colposcopy. Logistic regressions were fit to identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up according to contemporaneous guidelines., Results: Among 43,007 patients with an index abnormality, the cumulative incidence of any follow-up was 49.6% by 4 years for those with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/human papillomavirus-negative and higher for abnormalities warranting immediate colposcopy. The 1-year cumulative incidence of any follow-up after colposcopy was 70% for patients with normal results or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I and 90% for patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II+. Rates of concordant follow-up after screening and colposcopy were 52% and 47%, respectively. Discordant follow-up was associated with factors including age, race/ethnicity, overweight/obese body mass index, and specific types of public payor coverage or being uninsured., Conclusions: Adherence to the recommended follow-up of cytologic and histopathologic abnormalities is inconsistent in clinical practice. Concordance was poor for mild abnormalities and improved, although suboptimal, for more severe abnormalities., Impact: There remain gaps in the cervical cancer screening process in clinical practice. Further study is needed to understand the barriers to the appropriate management of cervical abnormalities., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: Understand how physicians' uncertainty tolerance (UT) in clinical care relates to their personal characteristics, perceptions and practices regarding shared decision making (SDM)., Methods: As part of a trial of SDM training about colorectal cancer screening, primary care physicians (n = 67) completed measures of their uncertainty tolerance in medical practice (Anxiety subscale of the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty Scale, PRUS-A), and their SDM self-efficacy (confidence in SDM skills). Patients (N = 466) completed measures of SDM (SDM Process scale) after a clinical visit. Bivariate regression analyses and multilevel regression analyses examined relationships., Results: Higher UT was associated with greater physician age (p = .01) and years in practice (p = 0.015), but not sex or race. Higher UT was associated with greater SDM self-efficacy (p < 0.001), but not patient-reported SDM., Conclusion: Greater age and practice experience predict greater physician UT, suggesting that UT might be improved through training, while UT is associated with greater confidence in SDM, suggesting that improving UT might improve SDM. However, UT was unassociated with patient-reported SDM, raising the need for further studies of these relationships., Practice Implications: Developing and implementing training interventions aimed at increasing physician UT may be a promising way to promote SDM in clinical care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The study was funded through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI) Award (CDR-2017C3–9270). The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. With regards to potential conflicts of interest for this study, all authors report grant support from PCORI (CDR-2017C3–9270) for the study activities. Dr. Sepucha reports grant funding from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and a contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts. Dr. Atlas reports grant funding from the National Cancer Institute and the Risk Management Foundation of Harvard. Dr. Simmons reports paid expert testimony from the US Department of Justice for testimony on cancer screening in primary care malpractice cases. Dr. Richter reports support from Exact Sciences and CRICO., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic posed serious challenges to cancer screening delivery, including cervical cancer. While the impact of the pandemic on deferred screening has been documented, less is known about how clinicians experienced barriers to screening delivery, and, in particular, the role of pre-pandemic barriers to changes reported during the pandemic., Methods: Survey of clinicians who performed ≥ 10 cervical cancer screening tests in 2019 from Mass General Brigham, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and Parkland Health, the healthcare systems participating in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium (administered 10/2020-12/2020, response rate 53.7 %)., Results: Prior to the pandemic, clinicians commonly noted barriers to the delivery of cervical cancer screening including lack of staff support (57.6%), interpreters (32.5%), resources to support patients with social barriers to care (61.3%), and discrimination or bias in interactions between staff and patients (31.2%). Clinicians who reported experiencing a given barrier to care before the pandemic were more likely than those who did not experience one to report worsening during the pandemic: lack of staff support (odds ratio 4.70, 95% confidence interval 2.94-7.52); lack of interpreters (8.23, 4.46-15.18); lack of resources to support patients in overcoming social barriers (7.65, 4.41-13.27); and discrimination or bias (6.73, 3.03-14.97)., Conclusions: Clinicians from three health systems who deliver cervical cancer screening commonly reported barriers to care. Barriers prior to the pandemic were associated with worsening of barriers during the pandemic. Addressing barriers to cervical cancer screening may promote resilience of care delivery during the next public health emergency., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: While nonpharmacologic treatments are increasingly endorsed as first-line therapy for low back pain (LBP) in clinical practice guidelines, it is unclear if use of these treatments is increasing or equitable., Objective: Examine national trends in chiropractic care and physical rehabilitation (occupational/physical therapy (OT/PT)) use among adults with LBP., Design/setting: Serial cross-sectional analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 2002 to 2018., Participants: 146,087 adults reporting LBP in prior 3 months., Methods: We evaluated the association of survey year with chiropractic care or OT/PT use in prior 12 months. Logistic regression with multilevel linear splines was used to determine if chiropractic care or OT/PT use increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines. We also examined trends in use by age, sex, race, and ethnicity. When trends were similar over time, we present differences by these demographic characteristics as unadjusted ORs using data from all respondents., Results: Between 2002 and 2018, less than one-third of adults with LBP reported use of either chiropractic care or OT/PT. Rates did not change until 2016 when uptake increased with the introduction of clinical guidelines (2016-2018 vs 2002-2015, OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.10-1.19). Trends did not differ significantly by sex, race, or ethnicity (p for interactions > 0.05). Racial and ethnic disparities in chiropractic care or OT/PT use were identified and persisted over time. For example, compared to non-Hispanic adults, either chiropractic care or OT/PT use was lower among Hispanic adults (combined OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.65-0.73). By contrast, compared to White adults, Black adults had similar OT/PT use (OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.94-1.03) but lower for chiropractic care use (OR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.47-0.53)., Conclusions: Although use of chiropractic care or OT/PT for LBP increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines in 2016, only about a third of US adults with LBP reported using these services between 2016 and 2018 and disparities in use have not improved., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Objective: Identify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences., Methods: Secondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC., Results: 382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient's preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient's preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length., Conclusion: Only half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences., Practice Implications: PCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The study was funded through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI) Award (CDR-2017C3–9270). The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. With regards to potential conflicts of interest for this study, all authors report grant support from PCORI (CDR-2017C3–9270) for the study activities. Dr. Sepucha reports grant funding from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and a contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts. Dr. Atlas reports grant funding from the National Cancer Institute and the Risk Management Foundation of Harvard. Dr. Fairfield reports grant funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Simmons reports paid expert testimony from the US Department of Justice for testimony on cancer screening in primary care malpractice cases., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Consumer wearable devices with health and wellness features are increasingly common and may enhance disease detection and management. Yet studies informing relationships between wearable device use, attitudes toward device data, and comprehensive clinical profiles are lacking., Methods and Results: WATCH-IT (Wearable Activity Tracking for Comprehensive Healthcare-Integrated Technology) studied adults receiving longitudinal primary or ambulatory cardiovascular care in the Mass General Brigham health care system from January 2010 to July 2021. Participants completed a 20-question electronic survey about perceptions and use of consumer wearable devices, with responses linked to electronic health records. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with device use. Among 214 992 individuals receiving longitudinal primary or cardiovascular care with an active electronic portal, 11 121 responded (5.2%). Most respondents (55.8%) currently used a wearable device, and most nonusers (95.3%) would use a wearable if provided at no cost. Although most users (70.2%) had not shared device data with their doctor previously, most believed it would be very (20.4%) or moderately (34.4%) important to share device-related health information with providers. In multivariable models, older age (odds ratio [OR], 0.80 per 10-year increase [95% CI, 0.77-0.82]), male sex (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80-0.95]), and heart failure (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63-0.89]) were associated with lower odds of wearable device use, whereas higher median income (OR, 1.08 per 1-quartile increase [95% CI, 1.04-1.12]) and care in a cardiovascular medicine clinic (OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.05-1.30]) were associated with greater odds of device use., Conclusions: Among patients in primary and cardiovascular medicine clinics, consumer wearable device use is common, and most users perceive value in wearable health data.

Background: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) using consumer-based devices capable of producing a single lead electrocardiogram (1L ECG) is increasing. There are limited data on the accuracy of physician interpretation of these tracings. The goal of this study is to assess the sensitivity, specificity, confidence, and variability of cardiologist interpretation of point-of-care 1L ECGs., Methods: Fifteen cardiologists reviewed point-of-care handheld 1L ECGs collected from patients aged 65 years or older enrolled in the VITAL-AF clinical trial [NCT035115057] who underwent cardiac rhythm assessments with a 1L ECG using an AliveCor KardiaMobile device. Random sampling of 1L ECGs for cardiologist review was stratified by the AliveCor algorithm interpretation. A 12L ECG performed on the same day for clinical purposes was used as the gold standard. Cardiologists each reviewed a common sample of 200 1L ECG tracings and completed a survey associated with each tracing. Cardiologists were blinded to both the AliveCor algorithm and same day 12L ECG interpretation. For each tracing, study cardiologists were asked to assess the rhythm (sinus rhythm, AF, unclassifiable), report their assessment of the quality of the tracing, and rate their confidence in rhythm interpretation. The outcomes included the sensitivity, specificity, variability, and confidence in physician interpretation. Variables associated with each measure were identified using multivariable regression., Results: The average sensitivity for AF was 77.4% (range 50%-90.6%, standard deviation [SD]=11.4%) and the average specificity was 73.0% (range 41.3%-94.6%, SD = 15.4%). The mean variability was 30.8% (range 0%-76.2%, SD = 23.2%). The average reviewer confidence of 1L ECG rhythm assessment was 3.6 out of 5 (range 2.5-4.2, SD = 0.6). Patient and tracing factors associated with sensitivity, specificity, variability, and confidence were identified and included age, body mass index, and presence of artifact., Conclusion: Cardiologist interpretation of point-of-care handheld 1L ECGs has modest diagnostic sensitivity and specificity with substantial variability for AF classification despite high confidence. Variability in cardiologist interpretation of 1L ECGs highlights the importance of confirmatory testing for diagnosing AF., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr. Ellinor has received sponsored research support from Bayer AG, IBM Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer; he has served on advisory boards or consulted for Bayer AG, MyoKardia, and Novartis. Dr. Lubitz is a full-time employee of Novartis Institutes of BioMedical Research as of July 18, 2022. Dr. Lubitz has received sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fitbit, Medtronic, Premier, and IBM, and has consulted for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Blackstone Life Sciences, and Invitae. Dr. McManus has received sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Fitbit, and has received consulting fees from Fitbit, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Heart Rhythm Society, Avania, Venturewell, and NAMSA. Dr. Singer has received sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance and has served on advisory boards or consulted for Bristol Myers Squib, Fitbit, Medtronic, and Pfizer., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Realizing the benefits of cancer screening requires testing of eligible individuals and processes to ensure follow-up of abnormal results., Objective: To test interventions to improve timely follow-up of overdue abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening results., Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 44 primary care practices within 3 health networks in the US enrolling patients with at least 1 abnormal cancer screening test result not yet followed up between August 24, 2020, and December 13, 2021., Intervention: Automated algorithms developed using data from electronic health records (EHRs) recommended follow-up actions and times for abnormal screening results. Primary care practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to (1) usual care, (2) EHR reminders, (3) EHR reminders and outreach (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a phone call at week 4), or (4) EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a navigator outreach phone call at week 4). Patients, physicians, and practices were unblinded to treatment assignment., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days of study enrollment. The secondary outcomes included completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days of enrollment and completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days and 240 days for specific cancer types and levels of risk., Results: Among 11 980 patients (median age, 60 years [IQR, 52-69 years]; 64.8% were women; 83.3% were White; and 15.4% were insured through Medicaid) with an abnormal cancer screening test result for colorectal cancer (8245 patients [69%]), cervical cancer (2596 patients [22%]), breast cancer (1005 patients [8%]), or lung cancer (134 patients [1%]) and abnormal test results categorized as low risk (6082 patients [51%]), medium risk (3712 patients [31%]), or high risk (2186 patients [18%]), the adjusted proportion who completed recommended follow-up within 120 days was 31.4% in the EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group (n = 3455), 31.0% in the EHR reminders and outreach group (n = 2569), 22.7% in the EHR reminders group (n = 3254), and 22.9% in the usual care group (n = 2702) (adjusted absolute difference for comparison of EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group vs usual care, 8.5% [95% CI, 4.8%-12.0%], P < .001). The secondary outcomes showed similar results for completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days and by subgroups for cancer type and level of risk for the abnormal screening result., Conclusions and Relevance: A multilevel primary care intervention that included EHR reminders and patient outreach with or without patient navigation improved timely follow-up of overdue abnormal cancer screening test results for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03979495.

Introduction: This study sought to characterize racial and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal findings across 3 U.S. healthcare settings., Methods: Data were from 2016 to 2019 and were analyzed in 2022, reflecting sites within the Multi-level Optimization of the Cervical Cancer Screening Process in Diverse Settings & Populations Research Center, part of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process consortium, including a safety-net system in the southwestern U.S., a northwestern mixed-model system, and a northeastern integrated healthcare system. Screening uptake was evaluated among average-risk patients (i.e., no previous abnormalities) by race and ethnicity as captured in the electronic health record, using chi-square tests. Among patients with abnormal findings requiring follow-up, the proportion receiving colposcopy or biopsy within 6 months was reported. Multivariable regression was conducted to assess how clinical, socioeconomic, and structural characteristics mediate observed differences., Results: Among 188,415 eligible patients, 62.8% received cervical cancer screening during the 3-year study period. Screening use was lower among non-Hispanic Black patients (53.2%) and higher among Hispanic (65.4%,) and Asian/Pacific Islander (66.5%) than among non-Hispanic White patients (63.5%, all p<0.001). Most differences were explained by the distribution of patients across sites and differences in insurance. Hispanic patients remained more likely to screen after controlling for a variety of clinical and sociodemographic factors (risk ratio=1.14, CI=1.12, 1.16). Among those receiving any screening test, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive Pap-only testing (versus receiving co-testing). Follow-up from abnormal results was low for all groups (72.5%) but highest among Hispanic participants (78.8%, p<0.001)., Conclusions: In a large cohort receiving care across 3 diverse healthcare settings, cervical cancer screening and follow-up were below 80% coverage targets. Lower screening for Black patients was attenuated by controlling for insurance and site of care, underscoring the role of systemic inequity. In addition, it is crucial to improve follow-up after abnormalities are identified, which was low for all populations., (Copyright © 2023 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lifestyle modification programs, such as cardiac rehabilitation, may reduce atrial fibrillation (AF) burden and improve quality of life (QOL), but remain unproven. The objective of this pilot study was to assess feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of an exercise and nutrition-based cardiac rehabilitation-like program for AF patients., Methods: We enrolled overweight adults aged ≥ 30 years with symptomatic AF in a 12-week cardiac lifestyle group program, including 6 virtual and 6 in-person visits. All visits included discussion and education about nutrition, exercise, and behavior modification. In-person visits included supervised aerobic exercise and strength training. Outcomes at baseline and 12 weeks included feasibility of participation, acceptability, change in weight and BMI, and changes in survey-based AF burden, symptoms, and QOL., Results: From 84 invitees, 11 (13.1%) were enrolled (mean age 64; baseline BMI 38 kg/m 2 ); 9 (82%) completed the program. Patients attended an average of 9.7 (81%) visits (Range: 6-11). Mean weight loss was 9.1 pounds (Range: 0-16); mean BMI decrease was 1.4 kg/m 2 (Range: 0-2.6). Patients found the program helpful overall: all reported making diet and exercise changes during the program. Compared to baseline, patients reported decreased AF burden (12.9 vs. 11.7, p = 0.03) and symptom (10.1 vs. 5.6, p = 0.003) scores at the conclusion of the program. Patients also reported increased QOL overall (68.9 vs. 86.4, p = 0.001)., Conclusions: Participation in a cardiac rehab-like program was feasible and acceptable for overweight patients with symptomatic AF. Results suggest preliminary effectiveness of the program for reducing AF burden and symptoms and increasing QOL., Competing Interests: Competing interests: J.M.A. reports sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb / Pfizer Alliance. P.N. reports research grants from Allelica, Apple, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Genentech / Roche, and Novartis, personal fees from Allelica, Apple, AstraZeneca, Blackstone Life Sciences, Foresite Labs, Genentech / Roche, GV, HeartFlow, Magnet Biomedicine, and Novartis, scientific advisory board membership of Esperion Therapeutics, Preciseli, and TenSixteen Bio, scientific co-founder of TenSixteen Bio, equity in Preciseli and TenSixteen Bio, and spousal employment at Vertex Pharmaceuticals. S.J.A. reports sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb / Pfizer Alliance and American Heart Association and has consulted for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Fitbit. A.B. reports sponsored research support from Thryv Therapeutics. R.B. reports advising fees from Casana Care, Inc. D.E.S. reports sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance and has consulted for Bristol Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, and Pfizer. All relationships with industry are unrelated to the current work

Background: Handheld single-lead electrocardiographic (1L ECG) devices are increasingly used for atrial fibrillation (AF) screening, but their real-world performance is not well understood., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to quantify the diagnostic test characteristics of 1L ECG automated interpretations for prospective AF screening., Methods: We calculated the diagnostic test characteristics of the AliveCor KardiaMobile 1L ECG (AliveCor, US) algorithm using unblinded cardiologist overread as the gold standard using single 30s tracings administered by medical assistants among individuals aged ≥65 years participating in the VITAL-AF trial (NCT03515057) of population-based AF screening embedded within routine primary care., Results: A total of 14,230 individuals (mean age 74 ± 7 years, 60% women, 82% White) had 31,376 tracings reviewed by 13 cardiologists. A total of 24,906 (79.6%) tracings had an AliveCor interpretation of normal , 5,046 (16.1%) were unclassified , 797 (2.5%) were possible AF , and 573 (1.8%) were no analysis . Cardiologists read 808 (2.6%) tracings as AF. AliveCor possible AF had a PPV of 51.7% (95% CI: 47.8%-55.6%). AliveCor normal had an NPV of 99.8% (95% CI: 99.7%-99.8%). The AliveCor algorithm had an overall sensitivity of 51.0% (95% CI: 47.1%-54.9%) and a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI: 98.6%-98.9%). AliveCor tracings interpreted as unclassified (PPV 5.9%, 95% CI: 5.1%-6.7%) and no analysis (PPV 6.5%, 95% CI: 4.6%-8.9%) had low predictive values for AF and were increasingly prevalent at older ages (13.7% for age 65-69 years to 28.1% for age ≥85 years, P  < 0.01)., Conclusions: In an older primary care population undergoing AF screening with handheld 1L ECGs, automated algorithm interpretations were sufficiently accurate to exclude the presence of AF but not to establish an AF diagnosis., Competing Interests: Dr Ellinor is supported by grants from the 10.13039/100000002National Institutes of Health (1RO1HL092577, 1R01HL157635, 1R01HL157635); by a grant from the 10.13039/100000968American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Networks (18SFRN34110082); and by a grant from the European Union (MAESTRIA 965286). Dr Singer is supported, in part, by the Eliot B. and Edith C. Shoolman Fund of Massachusetts General Hospital. This study was investigator-initiated and funded by the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Dr Ellinor has received sponsored research support from Bayer AG and IBM Research; and has served on advisory boards or consulted for Bayer AG, MyoKardia, and Novartis. Dr Atlas has received sponsored research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer; has received sponsored research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer; and has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Fitbit. Dr Lubitz is an employee of Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research. Dr Singer has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer; and has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer, Fitbit, and Google. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Introduction: Consumer wearable devices with health and wellness features are increasingly common and may enhance prevention and management of cardiovascular disease. However, the characteristics and attitudes of wearable device users versus non-users are poorly understood., Methods: Wearable Activity Tracking for Comprehensive Healthcare-Integrated Technology (WATCH-IT) was a prospective study of adults aged ≥18 years receiving longitudinal primary or ambulatory cardiovascular care at one of eleven hospitals within the Mass General Brigham multi-institutional healthcare system between January 2010-July 2021. We invited patients, including wearable users and non-users, to participate via an electronic patient portal. Participants were asked to complete a 20-question survey regarding perceptions and use of consumer wearable devices. Responses were linked to electronic health record data. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with device use., Results: Among 280,834 individuals receiving longitudinal primary or cardiovascular care, 65,842 did not have an active electronic portal or opted out of research contact. Of the 214,992 individuals sent a survey link, 11,121 responded (5.2%), comprising the WATCH-IT patient sample. Most respondents (55.8%) reported current use of a wearable device, and most non-users (95.3%) reported they would use a wearable device if provided at no cost. Although most users (70.2%) had not shared device data with their doctor previously, the majority believed it would be very (20.4%) or moderately (34.4%) important to share device-related health information with providers. In multivariable models, older age (odds ratio [OR] 0.80 per 10-year increase, 95% CI 0.77-0.82), male sex (0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95), and heart failure (0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89) were associated with lower odds of wearable device use, whereas higher median zip code income (1.08 per 1-quartile increase, 95% CI 1.04-1.12) and care in a cardiovascular medicine clinic (1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30) were associated with greater odds of device use. Nearly all respondents (98%) stated they would share device data with researchers studying health outcomes., Conclusions: Within an electronically assembled cohort of patients in primary and cardiovascular medicine clinics with linkage to detailed health records, wearable device use is common. Most users perceive value in wearable data. Our platform may enable future study of the relationships between wearable technology and resource utilization, clinical outcomes, and health disparities.

Background: Despite benefits of oral anticoagulation (OAC), many individuals with diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) do not receive OAC., Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess whether cardiac rhythm assessment for AF impacted use of OAC in patients with previously diagnosed AF., Methods: VITAL-AF was a cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in 16 primary care practices assessing the efficacy of AF rhythm assessment with single-lead electrocardiogram in routine care. Patients 65 years and older were offered rhythm assessment at visits. In this secondary analysis, we evaluated rhythm assessment uptake and compared initiation and discontinuation of OAC in patients with previously diagnosed AF from intervention and control arms over 1 year., Results: The study included 4593 patients with previously diagnosed AF (2250 intervention; 2343 control). In the intervention arm, 2022 (89.9%) completed rhythm assessment (median 2 visits with rhythm assessment) and 40.1% had ≥1 "Possible AF" result. Initiation of OAC was similar in the intervention (17.7%) and control (19.1%) arms but was influenced by the rhythm assessment result: higher with a "Possible AF" (26.1%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-2.51), and lower with a "Normal" result (9.9%; aOR 0.45; 95% CI 0.29-0.71) compared to control. OAC discontinuation was similar in the intervention (6.3%) and control (7.2%) arms, with lower discontinuation with a "Possible AF" result (3.8%; aOR 0.51; 95% CI 0.32-0.81)., Conclusions: Including patients with previously diagnosed AF in a point-of-care rhythm assessment strategy did not increase overall OAC use compared to the control arm. However, the rhythm assessment result influenced both initiation and discontinuation of OAC., (© 2023 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) is appealing because AF is common, when undiagnosed may increase stroke risk, and stroke is preventable with anticoagulants. This study assessed patient and primary care practitioner (PCP) acceptability of screening for AF using a 30-s single-lead electrocardiogram (SL-ECG) during outpatient visits., Methods: Secondary analyses of a cluster randomized trial. All patients ≥ 65 years old without prevalent AF seen during a 1-year period and their PCPs. Screening using a SL-ECG was performed by medical assistants during check-in at 8 intervention sites among verbally consenting patients. PCPs were notified of "possible AF" results; management was left to their discretion. Control practices continued with usual care. Following the trial, PCPs were surveyed about AF screening. Outcomes included screening uptake and results, and PCP preferences for screening., Results: Fifteen thousand three hundred ninety three patients were seen in intervention practices (mean age 73.9 years old, 59.7% female). Screening occurred at 78% of 38,502 individual encounters, and 91% of patients completed ≥ 1 screening. The positive predictive value of a "Possible AF" result (4.7% of SL-ECG tracings) at an encounter prior to a new AF diagnosis was 9.5%. Same-day 12-lead ECGs were slightly more frequent among intervention (7.0%) than control (6.2%) encounters (p = 0.07). Among the 208 PCPs completing a survey (73.6%; 78.9% intervention, 67.7% control), most favored screening for AF (87.2% vs. 83.6%, respectively), though SL-ECG screening was favored by intervention PCPs (86%) while control PCPs favored pulse palpation (65%). Both groups were less certain if AF screening should be done outside of office visits with patch monitors (47% unsure) or consumer devices (54% unsure)., Conclusions: Though the benefits and harms of screening for AF remain uncertain, most older patients underwent screening and PCPs were able to manage SL-ECG results, supporting the feasibility of routine primary care screening. PCPs exposed to a SL-ECG device preferred it over pulse palpation. PCPs were largely uncertain about AF screening done outside of practice visits., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03515057. Registered May 3, 2018., (© 2023. The Author(s).)