Search

Researchers established that parental vaccination status often predicts that of their children, but a limited number of studies have examined factors influencing dyadic concordance or discordance (i.e., same or different vaccination status or intent for both members). We investigated how child versus parent age as well as parents’ perceptions of their respective friends’ immunization behavior impacted un/vaccinated parents’ decisions regarding vaccinating their child. An online survey obtained the COVID-19 vaccination status and views of 762 parents of 5–17-year-old children. More than three-quarters of all dyads were concordant; 24.1% of vaccinated parents would not vaccinate their child, with greater hesitancy for younger children and among younger or less educated parents. Children of vaccinated parents and of parents who thought most of their child’s friends were vaccinated were 4.7 and 1.9 times, respectively, more likely to be vaccinated; unvaccinated parents were 3.2 times more likely to accept the vaccine for their child if they believed most of their friends would vaccinate their children. Further, parents who reported that most of their friends were vaccinated were 1.9 times more likely to have obtained the vaccine themselves, illustrating the influence of social norms. Regardless of their own vaccination status, parents of unvaccinated children were more likely to be politically conservative. If communities or circles of friends could achieve or convey a vaccinated norm, this might persuade undecided or reluctant parents to vaccinate their children. Future research should examine the effects of community behavior and messages highlighting social norms on pediatric vaccine uptake.

A 2021 article, "Now is our time to act: Why academic medicine must embrace community collaboration as its fourth mission," by Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) authors, including AAMC president and CEO Dr. David J. Skorton, offers 2 aims that are highly related: community collaboration and health equity. The AAMC's call to prioritize community collaboration and health equity as pillars of the academic medicine mission echo earlier work on community-oriented primary care (COPC) and an even more robust model that builds on COPC, community-engaged health care (CEHC). COPC is a tested, systematic approach to health care by which a health clinic or system collaborates with a community to reshape priorities and services based on assessed health needs and determinants of health. COPC affirms health inequities' socioeconomic and political roots, emphasizing health care as a relationship, not a transaction or commodity. Communities where COPC is implemented often see reductions in health inequities, especially those related to socioeconomic, structural, and environmental factors. COPC was the foundation on which community health centers were built, and early models had demonstrable effects on community health and engagement. Several academic health centers build on COPC to achieve community-engaged health care (CEHC). In CEHC, primary care remains critical, but more of the academic health center's functions are pulled into community engagement and trust building. Thus, the AAMC has described and embraced a care and training model for which there are good, longitudinal examples among medical schools and teaching hospitals. Spreading CEHC and aligning the Community Health Needs Assessment requirements of academic health centers with the fourth mission could go a long way to improving equity, building trust, and repairing the social contract for health care.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced not only rapid changes in how clinical care and educational programs are delivered but also challenged academic medical centers (AMCs) like never before. The pandemic made clear the need to have coordinated action based on shared data and shared resources to meet the needs of patients, learners, and communities. Family medicine departments across the country have been key partners in AMCs' responses. The Duke Department of Family Medicine and Community Health (FMCH) was involved in many aspects of Duke University's and Health System's responses, including leadership contributions in delivering employee health and student health services. The pandemic also surfaced the biological and social interactions that reveal underlying socioeconomic inequalities, for which family medicine has advocated since its inception. Key to success was the department's ability to integrate "horizontally" with the broader community, thereby accelerating the institution's response to the pandemic.

Efforts to move community engagement in research from marginalized to mainstream include the NIH requiring community engagement programs in all Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how little these efforts have changed the dominant culture of clinical research. When faced with the urgent need to generate knowledge about prevention and treatment of the novel coronavirus, researchers largely neglected to involve community stakeholders early in the research process. This failure cannot be divorced from the broader context of systemic racism in the US that has contributed to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities bearing a disproportionate toll from COVID-19, being underrepresented in COVID-19 clinical trials, and expressing greater hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination. We call on research funders and research institutions to take decisive action to make community engagement obligatory, not optional, in all clinical and translational research and to center BIPOC communities in this process. Recommended actions include funding agencies requiring all research proposals involving human participants to include a community engagement plan, providing adequate funding to support ongoing community engagement, including community stakeholders in agency governance and proposal reviews, promoting racial and ethnic diversity in the research workforce, and making a course in community engaged research a requirement for Masters of Clinical Research curricula.

Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the history and background to a general desire to try to find ways to improve population health through primary care and public health. The first Practical Playbook derived from an internet-based initiative that sought to find, assemble, assess, and share stories of how communities and agencies across the United States were working together to improve health. This text is the second development from that, after the realization that a completely new text was needed that would build on the experiences of the broadening array of sites and sectors and provide a concise set of tools, methods, and examples that support multi-sector partnerships to improve population health. The chapter then outlines the coverage of the rest of the chapters.

This chapter looks forward to the next set of chapters in this book which broadly speaking cover the topic of innovation in public health collaborations. This section of the book provides a concise overview of the types and forms of innovation, the factors driving it, guidance on some of the more successful innovations that are under way, and how to engage in those changes. Innovation does not need to be new as such. It also can be facilitated by new partners, from new perspectives, and using new tools. Not all innovation is effective. The chapter gives an overview of future directions for innovation, which will be covered in one of the chapters in this section.

Over the last few years, this chapter explains, the role of training and the workforce has moved from the position of not a primary concern to an important factor in public health issues. Part of the shift was the result of the rapid growth of community partnerships, making the opportunity to include learners more than an isolated possibility. Another was the infrequent presence of learners, training programs, or professional schools in the partnerships, even though many were occurring in the neighborhoods around the professional schools and programs. And a large part was the eagerness of the learners themselves. However, as this next section of chapters will explain, the voice of students and residents in the health improvement process has not yet reached full force.

This chapter concludes the book and looks to the future. The teams and partnerships for health are clearly underway across the United States. From this point on, health care professionals and other agencies will all need to incorporate lessons learned and practices adopted into training programs, for all the health and related disciplines. Rather than learn what makes a difference in health, the aim should be to discover and then teach what makes a difference for some, and what works better for others. Training would be best carried out in teams, so the skills of teamwork and partnership are not just ideas, but practiced skills. The chapter concludes with this thought: health is something we can achieve together, but that no person or group can achieve alone.

The Affordable Care Act is designed to increase healthcare access nationwide. Such foreseeable new demand in the face of a fixed supply of physicians could lead to greater, and/or more intensive, recruitment of primary care physicians. We analyzed all primary care advertisements on three important national physician recruitment websites by ‘scraping’ all content on two days one year apart and parsed the content using text analytic tools. We expected greater increases in recruitment activity in those states expanding Medicaid and which partnered with the federal government to construct insurance exchanges. Contrary to hypothesis, physician labor markets did not consistently respond to foreseeable increases in patient demand by increased recruitment activities.

Multiple promising but unsustainable attempts have been made to maintain programs integrating primary care and public health since the middle of the last century. During the 1960s, social justice movements expanded access to primary care and began to integrate primary care with public health concepts both to meet community needs for medical care and to begin to address the social determinants of health. Two decades later, the managed care movement offered opportunities for integration of primary care and public health as many employers and government payers attempted to control health costs and bring disease prevention strategies in line with payment mechanisms. Today, we again have the opportunity to align primary care with public health to improve the community's health.

ealth care utilization among Latinos in the United States is low. Nationwide, only 55% had seen a physician in the past year, compared with 73% of non-Latino whites ( Ezzati-Rice, Kasjijara, & Machlin, 2004 ). Thus, identifying and removing barriers to care in this population is essential. Barriers that Latinos face to health care access include culture and language differences, immigration status, and inadequate insurance

Drawing on the experiences of hundreds of public health and primary care clinicians from across the United States, this book explains why population health is receiving so much attention from policy makers in states and federal agencies; the practical steps that clinicians and public health professionals can take to work together to meet the needs of their community; signs that you are on the right track (or not); and how to sustain successes to the benefit of patients, community members, and the health care and public health teams that care for them.

Drawing on the experiences of hundreds of public health and primary care clinicians from across the United States, this book explains why population health is receiving so much attention from policy makers in states and federal agencies, the practical steps that clinicians and public health professionals can take to work together to meet the needs of their community, signs that you are on the right track (or not) and how to sustain successes to the benefit of patients, community members, and the health care and public health teams that care for them.

Drawing on the experiences of hundreds of public health and primary care clinicians from across the United States, this book explains why population health is receiving so much attention from policy makers in states and federal agencies, the practical steps that clinicians and public health professionals can take to work together to meet the needs of their community, signs that you are on the right track (or not) and how to sustain successes to the benefit of patients, community members, and the health care and public health teams that care for them.

Drawing on the experiences of hundreds of public health and primary care clinicians from across the United States, this book explains why population health is receiving so much attention from policy makers in states and federal agencies, the practical steps that clinicians and public health professionals can take to work together to meet the needs of their community, signs that you are on the right track (or not) and how to sustain successes to the benefit of patients, community members, and the health care and public health teams that care for them.

Drawing on the experiences of hundreds of public health and primary care clinicians from across the United States, this book explains why population health is receiving so much attention from policy makers in states and federal agencies, the practical steps that clinicians and public health professionals can take to work together to meet the needs of their community, signs that you are on the right track (or not) and how to sustain successes to the benefit of patients, community members, and the health care and public health teams that care for them.

Following are excerpts from the closing panel discussion of the session “Shaping the Future of Academic Health Centers: A Reconnaissance from the Front Lines of Medicine,” held during the 2005 annual meeting of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). ### J. Lloyd Michener, MD: I

Failures in care coordination are a reflection of larger systemic shortcomings in communication and in physician engagement in shared team leadership. Traditional medical care and medical education neither focus on nor inspire responses to the challenges of coordinating care across episodes and sites. The authors suggest that the absence of attention to gaps in the continuum of care has led physicians to attempt to function as the glue that holds the health care system together. Further, medical students and residents have little opportunity to provide feedback on care processes and rarely receive the training and support they need to assess and suggest possible improvements.The authors argue that this absence of opportunity has driven cynicism, apathy, and burnout among physicians. They support a shift in culture and medical education such that students and residents are trained and inspired to act as catalysts who initiate and expedite positive changes. To become catalyst physicians, trainees require tools to partner with patients, staff, and faculty; training in implementing change; and the perception of this work as inherent to the role of the physician.The authors recommend that medical schools consider interprofessional training to be a necessary component of medical education and that future physicians be encouraged to grow in areas outside the "purely clinical" realm. They conclude that both physician catalysts and teamwork are essential for improving care coordination, reducing apathy and burnout, and supporting optimal patient outcomes.

A 2012 Institute of Medicine report is the latest in the growing number of calls to incorporate a population health approach in health professionals' training. Over the last decade, Duke University, particularly its Department of Community and Family Medicine, has been heavily involved with community partners in Durham, North Carolina, to improve the local community's health. On the basis of these initiatives, a group of interprofessional faculty began tackling the need to fill the curriculum gap to train future health professionals in public health practice, community engagement, critical thinking, and team skills to improve population health effectively in Durham and elsewhere. The Department of Community and Family Medicine has spent years in care delivery redesign and curriculum experimentation, design, and evaluation to distinguish the skills trainees and faculty need for population health improvement and to integrate them into educational programs. These clinical and educational experiences have led to a set of competencies that form an organizational framework for curricular planning and training. This framework delineates which learning objectives are appropriate and necessary for each learning level, from novice through expert, across multiple disciplines and domains. The resulting competency map has guided Duke's efforts to develop, implement, and assess training in population health for learners and faculty. In this article, the authors describe the competency map development process as well as examples of its application and evaluation at Duke and limitations to its use with the hope that other institutions will apply it in different settings.

We appreciate the letter by Plochg et al. It makes the important point that our reflections on primary care and public health are focused on the United States, and that there is a very active movement in population health occurring internationally. The long-standing efforts of international colleagues in public health and primary care to integrate the two disciplines might offer lessons for us as well. However, the payment system, which we point to as a major barrier to previous US efforts at integration, is substantially different from our own in most international settings. Many countries enjoy a national health system that has the better potential for integration because there is one final governing authority for both public health and medical services. And, most notably, the funding for both comes from the same source, again not the case in the United States. As we pointed out, we are optimistic that the United States will now take a similar path as new forms of care delivery, such as accountable care organizations, require a focus on the health of the population they serve, whether it is a community or its enrollees. We would be well served to continue looking to international efforts at integration and alignment across the components of health care systems. It is likely that we can learn from the successes and mistakes of their efforts as we proceed in the United States.

Evidence is accumulating that the United States is falling behind in its potential to translate biomedical advances into practical applications for the population. Societal forces, increased awareness of health disparities, and the direction of clinical and translational research are producing a compelling case for AHCs to bridge the gaps between scientific knowledge and medical advancement and between medical advancement and health. The Duke University Health System, the city and county of Durham, North Carolina, and multiple local nonprofit and civic organizations are actively engaged in addressing this need. More than a decade ago, Duke and its community partners began collaborating on projects to meet specific, locally defined community health needs. In 2005, Duke and Durham jointly developed a set of Principles of Community Engagement reflecting the key elements of the partnership and crafted an educational infrastructure to train health professionals in the principles and practice of community engagement. And, most recently, Duke has worked to establish the Duke Translational Medicine Institute, funded in part by a National Institutes of Health Clinical Translational Science Award, to improve health through innovative behavioral, social, and medical knowledge, matched with community engagement and the information sciences.

PURPOSE Despite the availability of national practice guidelines, many patients fail to receive recommended chronic disease care. Physician time constraints in primary care are likely one cause. METHODS We applied guideline recommendations for 10 common chronic diseases to a panel of 2,500 primary care patients with an age-sex distribution and chronic disease prevalences similar to those of the general population, and estimated the minimum physician time required to deliver high-quality care for these conditions. The result was compared with time available for patient care for the average primary care physician. RESULTS Eight hundred twenty-eight hours per year, or 3.5 hours a day, were required to provide care for the top 10 chronic diseases, provided the disease is stable and in good control. We recalculated this estimate based on increased time requirements for uncontrolled disease. Estimated time required increased by a factor of 3. Applying this factor to all 10 diseases, time demands increased to 2,484 hours, or 10.6 hours a day. CONCLUSIONS Current practice guidelines for only 10 chronic illnesses require more time than primary care physicians have available for patient care overall. Streamlined guidelines and alternative methods of service delivery are needed to meet recommended standards for quality health care.

BACKGROUND : Although patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is known to predict health services utilization, most risk assessment systems use provider-reported diagnoses as predictors rather than HRQOL. OBJECTIVE : We sought to classify adult primary care patients prospectively by utilization risk based on age, gender, and HRQOL at a single clinic visit. RESEARCH DESIGN : Patients completed the Duke Health Profile. Providers completed the Duke Severity of Illness Checklist. Diagnoses were grouped with the Ambulatory Care Groups system. Predictive coefficients for 1-year primary care charges calculated from the age, gender, and HRQOL of 728 reference patients were used to classify 474 test patients into 4 risk classes. Comparisons were made with models that used diagnoses or severity of illness as predictors. RESULTS : The positive likelihood ratio for predicting highest risk was 2.2 for the HRQOL model, compared with 1.8 for the diagnoses model, 1.6 for the severity model, and 1.5 for age and gender alone. One-year actual primary care visits and charges increased step-wise from lowest to highest risk class. Highest risk patients were older and more likely to be women, black, or Medicaid recipients. Although the highest-risk patients represented only 18.6% of the test group, they accounted for 26.7% of the primary care clinic visits, 31.6% of the clinic charges, 34.6% of the hospital days, 35.1% of hospital charges, and 30.8% of total charges at all healthcare sites. CONCLUSION : The HRQOL risk classification system can identify primary care patients at risk for high future health services utilization.

Objectives. We sought to determine the amount of time required for a primary care physician to provide recommended preventive services to an average patient panel.Methods. We used published and estimated times per service to determine the physician time required to provide all services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), at the recommended frequency, to a patient panel of 2500 with an age and sex distribution similar to that of the US population.Results. To fully satisfy the USPSTF recommendations, 1773 hours of a physician’s annual time, or 7.4 hours per working day, is needed for the provision of preventive services.Conclusions. Time constraints limit the ability of physicians to comply with preventive services recommendations.

The Duke Case-Mix System (DUMIX), which combines age, gender, patient-reported perceived and physical health status, and provider-reported or auditor-reported severity of illness to classify patients by their risk of high future utilization, explained 17.1% of the variance in future clinic charges and 16.6% of the variance in return visits. When a random half of 413 ambulatory adults were classified into four risk classes by predictive regression coefficients from the other half, there was a stepwise increase in actual future utilization by risk class. The most accurate classification was for Class 4 (highest risk) patients, with a sensitivity of 40.8%, specificity of 82.1%, and likelihood ratio of 2.3. These 23.7% of patients accounted for 44.2% of charges for all patients. When predictive coefficients from this population were used to classify a different group of 206 ambulatory adults, past utilization also increased in stepwise order by case-mix class.

Background Delivery of preventive health services in primary care is lacking. One of the main barriers is lack of time. We estimated the amount of time primary care physicians spend on important preventive health services. Methods We analyzed a large dataset of primary care (family and internal medicine) visits using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2001–4); analyses were conducted 2007–8. Multiple linear regression was used to estimate the amount of time spent delivering each preventive service, controlling for demographic covariates. Results Preventive visits were longer than chronic care visits (M = 22.4, SD = 11.8, M = 18.9, SD = 9.2, respectively). New patients required more time from physicians. Services on which physicians spent relatively more time were prostate specific antigen (PSA), cholesterol, Papanicolaou (Pap) smear, mammography, exercise counseling, and blood pressure. Physicians spent less time than recommended on two "A" rated ("good evidence") services, tobacco cessation and Pap smear (in preventive visits), and one "B" rated ("at least fair evidence") service, nutrition counseling. Physicians spent substantial time on two services that have an "I" rating ("inconclusive evidence of effectiveness"), PSA and exercise counseling. Conclusion Even with limited time, physicians address many of the "A" rated services adequately. However, they may be spending less time than recommended for important services, especially smoking cessation, Pap smear, and nutrition counseling. Future research is needed to understand how physicians decide how to allocate their time to address preventive health.

A randomized trial of a telephone family assessment intervention was conducted during a 2.5 month period on 224 ambulatory primary care patients, aged 18-49 years, who were selected according to self-report of elevated family stress levels. Family physicians conducted telephone interviews to collect information from patients on their supportive and stressful family members. The working hypothesis was that this process would lead to reduction in the patient's family stress and to improvement in family support and personal health status. Patients reported that the intervention caused them to think about their family support and helped them to feel better. Comparison of family factor and functional health scores before and after intervention also indicated a limited beneficial effect, but only for a small subset of black patients. These results suggest that the telephone family assessment alone is inadequate as an intervention and should be strengthened to include professional assistance to patients for the family problems that are identified by the assessment.

The self-reported family support and stress of 249 ambulatory adult patients, aged 18-49 years, were studied relative to their self-reported functional health. Support from family members was found to be related positively with emotional function. Stress from family members was associated negatively with symptom status, physical function, and emotional function. Patients' severity of illness was related negatively to their symptom status, physical function, and social function, but not to their emotional function. During the study a new self-report instrument, the Duke Social Support and Stress Scale (DUSOCS), was developed to measure family and non-family support and stress. Also, a new chart audit methodology, the Duke Severity of Illness Scale (DUSOI), was designed to assess severity in the ambulatory setting. Reliability and validity of the DUSOCS and the DUSOI were supported. The importance of the patient's perception of health and its family determinants is emphasized.

Background The Future of Family Medicine Report calls for a fundamental redesign of the American family physician workplace. At the same time, academic family practices are under economic pressure. Most family medicine departments do not have self-supporting practices, but seek support from specialty colleagues or hospital practice plans. Alternative models for academic family practices that are economically viable and consistent with the principles of family medicine are needed. This article presents several "experiments" to address these challenges. Methods The basis of comparison is a traditional academic family medicine center. Apart of the faculty practice plan, our center consistently operated at a deficit despite high productivity. A number of different practice types and alternative models of service delivery were therefore developed and tested. They ranged from a multi-specialty office arrangement, to a community clinic operated as part of a federally-qualified health center, to a team of providers based in and providing care for residents of an elderly public housing project. Financial comparisons using consistent accounting across models are provided. Results Academic family practices can, at least in some settings, operate without subsidy while providing continuity of care to a broad segment of the community. The prerequisites are that the clinicians must see patients efficiently, and be able to bill appropriately for their payer mix. Conclusion Experimenting within academic practice structure and organization is worthwhile, and can result in economically viable alternatives to traditional models.