Search

Introduction: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Latinos in the U.S., but it is unclear, from previous research, whether Latinos have differing rates of colorectal cancer screening methods from those of non-Hispanic Whites.Methods: This study used electronic health records from 686 community health centers across 21 states in the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Records from English-preferring Latinos, Spanish-preferring Latinos, and non-Hispanic Whites aged 50-75 years were included. A total of 5 outcomes were compared between 2012 and 2017 to provide a comprehensive view of colorectal cancer screening: (1) any colorectal cancer screening, (2) stool-based screening, (3) annual rates of stool testing, (4) any referral for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and (5) endoscopy referral among patients with a positive stool-based screening.Results: In this study (N=204,243), Spanish-preferring Latinos had higher odds of any colorectal cancer screening (OR=1.44, 95% CI=1.23, 1.68) and stool-based testing (OR=1.82, 95% CI=1.55, 2.13) than non-Hispanic Whites. English- and Spanish-preferring Latinos had lower odds of having ever had a referral for endoscopy in the study period than non-Hispanic Whites (English: OR=0.23, 95% CI=0.15, 0.34; Spanish: OR=0.55, 95% CI=0.40, 0.74), even with a positive stool-based screening (English: OR=0.14, 95% CI=0.06, 0.33; Spanish: OR=0.33, 95% CI=0.19, 0.57).Conclusions: In a multistate network of community health centers, Latino patients aged >50 years were more likely to receive stool-based screening tests for colorectal cancer than non-Hispanic Whites but were less likely to receive endoscopy referrals than non-Hispanic Whites, even when experiencing a positive stool-based screening test. Initiatives to improve Latino colorectal cancer outcomes should encourage indicated referrals for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Brief smoking-cessation interventions in primary care settings are effective, but delivery of these services remains low. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Meaningful Use (MU) of Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program could increase rates of smoking assessment and cessation assistance among vulnerable populations. This study examined whether smoking status assessment, cessation assistance, and odds of being a current smoker changed after Stage 1 MU implementation.Methods: EHR data were extracted from 26 community health centers with an EHR in place by June 15, 2009. AORs were computed for each binary outcome (smoking status assessment, counseling given, smoking-cessation medications ordered/discussed, current smoking status), comparing 2010 (pre-MU), 2012 (MU preparation), and 2014 (MU fully implemented) for pregnant and non-pregnant patients.Results: Non-pregnant patients had decreased odds of current smoking over time; odds for all other outcomes increased except for medication orders from 2010 to 2012. Among pregnant patients, odds of assessment and counseling increased across all years. Odds of discussing or ordering of cessation medications increased from 2010 compared with the other 2 study years; however, medication orders alone did not change over time, and current smoking only decreased from 2010 to 2012. Compared with non-pregnant patients, a lower percentage of pregnant patients were provided counseling.Conclusions: Findings suggest that incentives for MU of EHRs increase the odds of smoking assessment and cessation assistance, which could lead to decreased smoking rates among vulnerable populations. Continued efforts for provision of cessation assistance among pregnant patients is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In cross-sectional survey studies, obese Latinos are less likely to be screened for elevated serum cholesterol, despite their higher risk for hyperlipidemia and coronary artery disease. This study evaluated insurance and racial/ethnic disparities in lipid screening receipt between obese Latino and non-Hispanic white patients in Oregon community health centers (CHCs) over 5 years, using electronic health record data.Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated obese (BMI ≥30), low-income, adult patients (aged 21-79 years) with at least one visit at an Oregon CHC during 2009-2013 (n=11,095). Odds of lipid screening in the study period (clinical data collected in 2009-2013) were measured, adjusting for age, sex, primary clinic, and comorbidities, stratified by utilization in the study period. Analysis was done in 2016.Results: Sixty percent of the study population received at least one lipid screening in 2009-2013. There were no significant differences in screening between insured Latinos and insured non-Hispanic whites, except those with more than five visits over 5 years (OR=0.75, 95% CI=0.60, 0.94). Uninsured Latinos had higher odds of screening versus insured non-Hispanic whites among the low visit strata (OR=1.65, 95% CI=1.18, 2.30). Among Latinos, Spanish preference resulted in higher screening odds versus English preference in the two- to five-visit stratum (OR=1.63, 95% CI=1.12, 2.35).Conclusions: Obese, low-income patients at CHCs underutilize cholesterol screening. However, screening differences by race/ethnicity and preferred language are minimal. Further research is necessary to understand how care delivered by CHCs may mitigate previously reported disparities in lipid screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Preventive care delivery is an important quality outcome, and electronic data reports are being used increasingly to track these services. It is highly informative when electronic data sources are compared to information manually extracted from medical charts to assess validity and completeness.Methods: This cross-sectional study used a random sample of Medicaid-insured patients seen at 43 community health centers in 2011 to calculate standard measures of correspondence between manual chart review and two automated sources (electronic health records [EHRs] and Medicaid claims), comparing documentation of orders for and receipt of ten preventive services (n=150 patients/service). Data were analyzed in 2015.Results: Using manual chart review as the gold standard, automated EHR extraction showed near-perfect to perfect agreement (κ=0.96-1.0) for services received within the primary care setting (e.g., BMI, blood pressure). Receipt of breast and colorectal cancer screenings, services commonly referred out, showed moderate (κ=0.42) to substantial (κ=0.62) agreement, respectively. Automated EHR extraction showed near-perfect agreement (κ=0.83-0.97) for documentation of ordered services. Medicaid claims showed near-perfect agreement (κ=0.87) for hyperlipidemia and diabetes screening, and substantial agreement (κ=0.67-0.80) for receipt of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings, and influenza vaccination. Claims showed moderate agreement (κ=0.59) for chlamydia screening receipt. Medicaid claims did not capture ordered or unbilled services.Conclusions: Findings suggest that automated EHR and claims data provide valid sources for measuring receipt of most preventive services; however, ordered and unbilled services were primarily captured via EHR data and completed referrals were more often documented in claims data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

HIV screening should occur for all adults at least once by age 65 years. Older adults have low screening rates. Latinos, with historically low screening rates, have worse HIV outcomes than non-Hispanic White patients. Electronic health record data from a multistate network of community health centers were used to examine whether there are differences in HIV screening for Latino (English and Spanish preferring) and non-Hispanic White older adults. Data were from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network Clinical Research Network of PCORnet from 21 states in 2012–2021 among an open cohort of patients aged 50–65 years. Relative odds of ever having received HIV screening comparing Latinos with non-Hispanic Whites using generalized estimating equation logistic regression modeling were calculated, adjusting for relevant patient-level covariates. Analyses were conducted in 2022. Among 251,645 patients, the covariate-adjusted odds of ever receiving HIV screening were 18% higher for English-preferring Latino patients (OR=1.18, 95% CI=1.11, 1.25) and 32% higher for Spanish-preferring Latinos than for non-Hispanic Whites (OR=1.32, 95% CI=1.24, 1.42). Latinos seen in community health centers, regardless of language spoken, are more likely to be screened at least once for HIV than non-Hispanic Whites. This increased screening may be due at least in part to the community health center setting, a setting known to mitigate disparities, as well as due to participation efforts by community health centers in public health campaigns. Future research can prioritize understanding the cause of this relative advantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Differences in face-to-face and telemedicine visits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among rural and urban safety-net clinic patients were evaluated. In addition, this study investigated whether rural patients were as likely to utilize telemedicine for primary care during the pandemic as urban patients.Methods: Using electronic health record data from safety-net clinics, patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 visit before or during the COVID-19 pandemic, March 1, 2019-March 31, 2021, were identified, and trends in face-to-face and telemedicine (phone and video) visits for patients by rurality using Rural‒Urban Commuting Area codes were characterized. Multilevel mixed-effects regression models compared service delivery method during the pandemic by rurality.Results: Included patients (N=1,015,722) were seen in 446 safety-net clinics: 83% urban, 10.3% large rural, 4.1% small rural, and 2.6% isolated rural. Before COVID-19, little difference in the percentage of encounters conducted face-to-face versus through telemedicine by rurality was found. Telemedicine visits significantly increased during the pandemic by 27.2 percentage points among patients in isolated rural areas to 52.3 percentage points among patients in urban areas. Rural patients overall had significantly lower odds of using telemedicine for a visit during the pandemic than urban patients.Conclusions: Despite the increased use of telemedicine in response to the pandemic, rural patients had significantly fewer telemedicine visits than those in more urban areas. Equitable access to telemedicine will depend on continued reimbursement for telemedicine services, but additional efforts are warranted to improve access to and use of health care among rural patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although smoking prevalence is lower among Hispanic adults than among non-Hispanic White adults, smoking remains a leading cause of preventable death among older Hispanics. This study examines the differences in tobacco assessment and smoking-cessation assistance among older patients seen in community health centers by ethnicity and language preference.Methods: Electronic health record data were extracted from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network of community health centers from patients aged 55‒80 years with ≥1 primary care visit between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. Binary outcomes included tobacco use assessment and, among those with ≥1 status indicating current smoking, having a smoking-cessation medication ordered. The independent variable combined ethnicity and language preference, categorized as non-Hispanic White (reference), Spanish-preferring Hispanic, and English-preferring Hispanic. Multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regressions, clustering by primary care clinic using an exchangeable working correlation structure, modeled the odds of tobacco use assessment and cessation medication orders by ethnicity/preferred language, adjusting for patient covariates, health system, and clinic location. Analyses were conducted in 2021.Results: The study included 116,328 patients. Spanish-preferring Hispanic patients had significantly lower odds of having tobacco use assessed than non-Hispanic White patients (AOR=0.89, 95% CI=0.82, 0.95). Both Spanish- and English-preferring Hispanic patients had lower odds of having a smoking-cessation medication ordered (AOR=0.53, 95% CI=0.47, 0.60; AOR=0.77, 95% CI=0.67, 0.89, respectively) than non-Hispanic White patients.Conclusions: Significant disparities were found in tobacco assessment and cessation assistance by ethnicity and language preference among older adults seen in safety-net clinics. Future research is needed to understand the etiology of these smoking-related disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To examine influence of language preference—English versus Spanish—on Hispanics’ perceptions of their healthcare providers’ communication behaviors. Methods Using the 2005 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), we observed non-institutionalized Hispanics ( n = 5197; US population estimate = 27,070,906), aged ≥18 years, reporting visiting a healthcare provider within the past 12 months. Results When compared to Spanish responders (reference group), English responders were more likely to report that their healthcare provider “always” listened to them carefully (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.78), “always” explained things so that they understood (adjusted OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08–1.73), “always” spent enough time with them (adjusted OR = 1.62, 95% CI 1.24–2.11),”always” asked them to help make decisions (adjusted OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.03–1.82), and “always” showed respect for treatment decisions (adjusted OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.27–2.19). Discussion Healthcare providers should consider the complex needs of Hispanic patients whose language of choice is not English. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For example, if a patient does not mail in the FOBT kit because they were uncomfortable with specimen collection, we would say that these missing data are MNAR; anytime the missing data are related to what is missing is an indication of MNAR. Inverse probability weighting and multiple imputation approaches are generally recommended as they often assume a MAR missing data mechanism and thus can use supplementary information about the missing data in the final analysis. Performing data checks regularly during the conduct of the study can identify missing data issues and prompt action to address missing data. Dealing with missing data in the conduct phase (during the study) For study designs with prospective data collection, missing data can also occur during the study (prior to analysis). [Extracted from the article]

Abstract: Background: Previous research on ascertainment of cancer family history and cancer screening has been conducted in urban settings. Purpose: To examine whether documented family history of breast or colorectal cancer is associated with breast or colorectal cancer screening. Methods: Medical record reviews were conducted on 3433 patients aged 55 and older from four primary care practices in two rural Oregon communities. Data collected included patient demographic and risk information, including any documentation of family history of breast or colorectal cancer, and receipt of screening for these cancers. Results: A positive breast cancer family history was associated with an increased likelihood of being up-to-date for mammography screening (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.45–3.00 relative to a recorded negative history). A positive family history for colorectal cancer was associated with an increased likelihood of being up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening according to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force low risk guidelines for males (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.15–7.29) and females (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.32–4.64) relative to a recorded negative family history. The absence of any recorded family cancer history was associated with a decreased likelihood of being up-to-date for mammography screening (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56–0.88 relative to recorded negative history) or for colorectal cancer screening (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60–0.96 in females, OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53–0.88 in males relative to recorded negative history). Conclusion: Further research is needed to determine if establishing routines to document family history of cancer would improve appropriate use of cancer screening. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]