Search

Background The US outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) accelerated rapidly over a short time to become a public health crisis. Objective To assess how high-risk adults’ COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, and sense of preparedness changed from the onset of the US outbreak (March 13–20, 2020) to the acceleration phase (March 27–April 7, 2020). Design Longitudinal, two-wave telephone survey. Participants 588 predominately older adults with ≥ 1 chronic condition recruited from 4 active, federally funded studies in Chicago. Main Measures Self-reported knowledge of COVID-19 symptoms and prevention, related beliefs, behaviors, and sense of preparedness. Key Results From the onset to the acceleration phase, participants increasingly perceived COVID-19 to be a serious public health threat, reported more changes to their daily routine and plans, and reported greater preparedness. The proportion of respondents who believed they were “not at all likely” to get the virus decreased slightly (24.9 to 22.4%; p = 0.04), but there was no significant change in the proportion of those who were unable to accurately identify ways to prevent infection (29.2 to 25.7%; p 0.14). In multivariable analyses, black adults and those with lower health literacy were more likely to report less perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 (black adults: relative risk (RR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07–2.44, p = 0.02; marginal health literacy: RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.26–3.07, p < 0.01). Individuals with low health literacy remained more likely to feel unprepared for the outbreak (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.11–2.92, p = 0.02) and to express confidence in the federal government response (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.49–3.00, p < 0.001) Conclusions Adults at higher risk for COVID-19 continue to lack critical knowledge about prevention. While participants reported greater changes to daily routines and plans, disparities continued to exist in perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and in preparedness. Public health messaging to date may not be effectively reaching vulnerable communities.

PurposeA Universal Medication Schedule (UMS) that uses explicit language to describe when to take medicine has been proposed as a patient-centered prescribing and dispensing standard. Despite widespread support, evidence of its actual use and efficacy is limited. We investigated the prevalence of UMS instructions and whether their use was associated with higher rates of medication adherence.MethodsNational pharmacy records were analyzed for a cohort of type 2 diabetic adults ≥18 years old (N = 676,739) new to ≥1 oral diabetes medications between January and June 2014. Prescription instructions (N = 796,909) dispensed with medications were classified as UMS or non-UMS. Instructions coded as UMS were further categorized as either providing precise UMS language (tier 1: “take 1 pill at morning, noon, evening, or bedtime”) or offering some explicit guidance (tier 2: “take 1 tablet by mouth before breakfast”; tier 3: “take 1 tablet twice daily with a meal”). Adherence over 12 months was measured by proportion of days covered.ResultsOne-third of instructions (32.4%, n = 258,508) were classified as UMS (tier 1: 12.6%, n = 100,589; tier 2: 6.0%, n = 47,914; tier 3: 13.8%, n = 110,005). In multivariable analyses, UMS instructions (all tiers) exhibited better adherence compared to non-UMS instructions (relative risk [RR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.02; P = 0.01). Patients older than 65 years who were less educated and taking medication more than once daily received greater benefit from tier 1 UMS instructions (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07-1.21; P < 0.001).ConclusionWhile infrequently used, the UMS could help older, less-educated patients adhere to more complex regimens with minimal investment.

Objectives: Physical distancing precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic may challenge the provision of tangible support many middle age and older adults receive in managing their health. We examined the association between unmet tangible support needs and self-management behaviors and mental health status during the stay-at-home orders in Chicago and New York. Methods: We used data from the COVID-19 & Chronic Conditions study collected between May 1st and May 22nd, 2020. A total of 801 middle age and older adults with ≥1 chronic condition in Chicago and New York City completed the telephone interview. Adequacy of tangible social support was measured using a brief, validated scale that determined whether an individual needed assistance managing his or her health, and if yes, whether this need was met. Participants reported their level of difficulty engaging in self-management behaviors using 2 discrete items; they also self-reported medication adherence using the ASK-12 medication adherence scale. Mental health status was measured using the depression and anxiety PROMIS short-form instruments. Results: Participants’ mean age was 63 years; 30% identified as Black, 26% identified as Latino, and 12% identified unmet support needs. Inadequacy of tangible support was associated with greater difficulty managing one’s health and accessing medications due to COVID-19, as well as poorer medication adherence, increased anxiety and depressive symptoms, and poorer overall well-being ( P’s Conclusions: Perceived unmet support needs during stay-at-home orders were associated with greater difficulty engaging in self-management behaviors and poorer overall well-being. Two brief items quickly identified individuals with unmet support needs.

Accurate understanding of COVID-19 safety recommendations early in the outbreak was complicated by inconsistencies in public health and media messages. We sought to characterize high-risk adults' knowledge of COVID-19 symptoms, prevention strategies, and prevention behaviors. We used data from the Chicago COVID-19 Comorbidities (C3) survey collected between March 13 thru March 20, 2020. A total of 673 predominately older adults with ≥ 1 chronic condition completed the telephone interview. Knowledge was assessed by asking participants to name three symptoms of COVID-19 and three actions to prevent infection. Participants were then asked if and how they had changed plans due to coronavirus. Most participants could identify three symptoms (71.0%) and three preventive actions (69.2%). Commonly reported symptoms included: fever (78.5%), cough (70.6%), and shortness of breath (45.2%); preventive actions included: washing hands (86.5%) and social distancing (86.2%). More than a third of participants reported social distancing themselves (38.3%), and 28.8% reported obtaining prescription medication to prepare for the outbreak. In multivariable analyses, no participant characteristics were associated with COVID-19 knowledge. Women were more likely than men, and Black adults were less likely than White adults to report practicing social distancing. Individuals with low health literacy were less likely to report obtaining medication supplies. In conclusion, though most higher-risk individuals were aware of social distancing as a prevention strategy early in the outbreak, less than half reported enacting it, and racial disparities were apparent. Consistent messaging and the provision of tangible resources may improve future adherence to safety recommendations.

Background Poor medication adherence is common; however, few mechanisms exist in clinical practice to monitor how patients take medications in outpatient settings. Objective This study aimed to pilot test the Electronic Medication Complete Communication (EMC2) strategy, a low-cost, sustainable approach that uses functionalities within the electronic health record to promote outpatient medication adherence and safety. Methods The EMC2 strategy was implemented in 2 academic practices for 14 higher-risk diabetes medications. The strategy included: (1) clinical decision support alerts to prompt provider counseling on medication risks, (2) low-literacy medication summaries for patients, (3) a portal-based questionnaire to monitor outpatient medication use, and (4) clinical outreach for identified concerns. We recruited adult patients with diabetes who were prescribed a higher-risk diabetes medication. Participants completed baseline and 2-week interviews to assess receipt of, and satisfaction with, intervention components. Results A total of 100 patients were enrolled; 90 completed the 2-week interview. Patients were racially diverse, 30.0% (30/100) had a high school education or less, and 40.0% (40/100) had limited literacy skills. About a quarter (28/100) did not have a portal account; socioeconomic disparities were noted in account ownership by income and education. Among patients with a portal account, 58% (42/72) completed the questionnaire; 21 of the 42 patients reported concerns warranting clinical follow-up. Of these, 17 were contacted by the clinic or had their issue resolved within 24 hours. Most patients (33/38, 89%) who completed the portal questionnaire and follow-up interview reported high levels of satisfaction (score of 8 or greater on a scale of 1-10). Conclusions Findings suggest that the EMC2 strategy can be reliably implemented and delivered to patients, with high levels of satisfaction. Disparities in portal use may restrict intervention reach. Although the EMC2 strategy can be implemented with minimal impact on clinic workflow, future trials are needed to evaluate its effectiveness to promote adherence and safety.

Background Individuals with type 2 diabetes manage complex multi-drug regimens, but nearly half of all patients do not consistently take the dose prescribed for them, and therefore may not receive the full potential therapeutic benefit. Both patient and health system factors contribute to achieving and maintaining medication adherence. To determine if patients with type 2 diabetes who are concurrently managing other chronic conditions could improve their adherence, we devised and are testing a multifaceted, primary care-based strategy to provide health literacy-appropriate and language concordant regimen information, guidance and reminders. Objective We are testing the effectiveness of an electronic health record (EHR) based strategy and short message service (SMS) text reminders to help patients with type 2 diabetes adhere to their medications. Methods We are conducting a 3-arm, multi-site trial to test and compare the effectiveness of the EHR, and EHR + SMS text reminder strategies compared to usual care on medication adherence. Our goal is to enroll a total of 900 English or Spanish-speaking patients with type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1C value ≥7.5%. Enrolled participants will complete interviews at baseline and 3 and 6 months following their baseline interview. Conclusions Our trial is evaluating practical, clinic-based, scalable, evidence-based solutions for patients with type 2 diabetes managing complex medication regimens. Our findings will evaluate strategies that can be implemented broadly in primary care practices, and programmed as defaults within EHRs to support appropriate medication adherence to allow the widespread implementation of those strategies.

We sought to create a new research and clinical instrument -the Influence and Motivation for Patient ACTivation in Diabetes care (IMPACT-D™) - to measure the degree to which patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) value health and believe they can influence it.Candidate items were generated via a literature review, expert opinion, and qualitative interviews and focus groups with T2DM patients in Chicago, IL and Chapel Hill, NC. Psychometric testing guided by item response theory was conducted among an online panel of 500 English-speaking adults with T2DM. Differential item functioning analyses evaluated item performance across key participant characteristics. To determine construct validity, IMPACT-D™ scores were compared to other general measures of personality and patient activation. A second study among 300 patients recruited from two internal medicine clinics further assessed associations between the IMPACT-D™ and health outcomes. Cognitive interviews confirmed patient understanding of IMPACT-D™ items and instructions.Exploratory factor analyses revealed a single-factor solution that included 6 items. The IMPACT-D™ demonstrated adequate reliability (α = 0.72) and moderate construct validity with patient activation (r = 0.51, p 0.001) and personality-conscientiousness subscales (r = 0.29, p 0.001). Higher scores on the IMPACT-D™ were associated with better physical health (r = 0.17, p = 0.003) and lower severity of depressive (r = -0.35, p 0.001) and anxiety (r = -0.28, p 0.001) symptoms. There were no significant differences by blood pressure (r = -0.0021, p = 0.9) or haemoglobin A1c (r = -0.069p = 0.2).The IMPACT-D holds potential for use in both clinical care and research applications. Future studies should evaluate how to best operationalize its use for both settings.