Search

Abstract Background Hypertension is the leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Despite advances in blood pressure management, significant racial and ethnic disparities persist, resulting in higher risks of stroke, heart disease, and mortality among non-White populations. Self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring, also known as home blood pressure monitoring, has shown promise in improving blood pressure control, especially when combined with feedback from healthcare providers. However, the adoption of SMBP remains low, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities, due to various patient, provider, and system-level barriers. Objectives This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of study methods implementing the ASPIRE (adapting self-measured blood pressure to reduce health disparities) toolkit in a primary care setting. The toolkit is designed to address barriers to SMBP adoption and improve hypertension management among underserved populations to increase SMBP adoption. Methods This pilot hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted at a primary care clinic in South Side Chicago, serving a diverse patient population. Eligible patients with uncontrolled hypertension will be randomized to either the intervention group, receiving the ASPIRE toolkit and support, or the control group, receiving usual care. The primary outcomes include feasibility measures including recruitment rates, attrition, and availability of data in the electronic health records. Results The feasibility of the study methods will be analyzed to inform a larger multi-site RCT informed by progression criteria developed in this protocol. Qualitative interviews with patients and providers will explore the appropriateness and implementation success of the toolkit using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Conclusions This pilot RCT will provide critical insights into the feasibility of study methods to evaluate the implementation success of the ASPIRE toolkit in a real-world primary care setting. By addressing barriers to SMBP adoption, this intervention has the potential to improve hypertension management and reduce health disparities in underserved populations. Trial registration NCT: NCT06175793. Registered 19 December 2023, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06175793 .

Background: To explore the association between ethnicity, as a proxy for language, and participation in clinical trials (CT) conducted by Principal Investigators (PI) who speak one or more language in addition to English. Methods: This retrospective, descriptive study utilized CT participant demographic data extracted from the largest Midwestern non-profit healthcare system between January 1, 2019 and 12/31/2021. The CT participant sample (N = 4308) was divided for comparison: CT Participants of Hispanic or Latino Origin (N = 254; 5.90 %) and CT Participants of Non-Hispanic or Latino Origin (N = 4054; 94.10 %). Logistic regressions were performed to generate the crude and adjusted odds of patients of Hispanic or Latino origin participating in CTs conducted by PIs who speak another language in addition to English. Results: Crude analysis revealed that patients of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity had 2.04 (1.58, 2.64) times greater odds of participating in CTs conducted by PIs who speak another language than English (

Background: The lack of racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials leads to skewed findings, limited generalizability, inequitable health outcomes for people of color, and insufficient access to innovative therapies. Our objective was to compare perceptions of barriers to participation in trials for people of color and trial staff to provide tangible solutions for improving diversity among study participants. Methods: This mixed method study utilized semi-structured interviews and surveys to evaluate barriers to participation and solutions to improve racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials among healthcare system trial staff and community members from the same region. Through thematic analysis via coded transcripts and quantitative analysis via survey data, social support theory constructs were identified to evaluate where perceptions of barriers and solutions overlap and where they diverge. Results: A total of 55 trial staff and 75 community members participated in the study. Trial staff identified logistics and patients’ unwillingness to receive additional treatments as perceived barriers to participation, while community members stated lack of information and lack of trust in their care team. Both groups identified hesitance toward research as a prominent barrier. Solutions related to informational support demonstrated the most overlap between groups, while instrumental support showed the most discordance. Conclusion: Solutions for improving racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trial participation are multi-faceted and have various levels of impact. Overlap and discordance of opinions regarding solutions should be further evaluated, and implementation of solutions should be carefully considered.

Background: Representativeness in clinical trials (CT) serves as a metric of access to healthcare and reflects differences that may determine differential efficacy of medical interventions; thus, quantifying representativeness in CT participation is critical. Methods: This retrospective, descriptive study utilized patient demographic data extracted from the largest Midwestern non-profit healthcare system. Using data between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021, a CT Participant Sample of 4,537 system patients who were active CT participants was compared to a CT Patient Population of 195,726 system patients receiving care by the PI of active CTs, which represented the target population. Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests were used to test differences in distributions of demographic variables between groups, indicating disparity in CT participation. Two metrics adapted from literature - participation incidence disparity (PID) and participation incidence ratio (PIR) - were calculated to quantify absolute and relative disparity in representativeness proportions, respectively. Descriptive approaches to assessing representativeness are also provided. Results: Results showed significant differences by race/ethnicity (χ2 = 50.64; p

Objective: The objective of the CONTINUE study is to gather preliminary data on the potential impact of implementing a “Cost Tool” in routine obstetrics (OB) care. It is hypothesized that by providing prenatal patients with an ability to forecast their care plan, they would be better able to anticipate and plan for the costs associated with their prenatal care. Methods: Pilot data from interviews and surveys were collected from 71 prenatal patients across three clinics throughout Chicago, IL. Results: As compared to privately insured prenatal patients, prenatal patients with public insurance reported the most benefit in Cost Tool use. Specifically, that the Cost Tool helped to navigate insurance more effectively (OR 4.49, p=0.0254), see the ''Big Picture'' and link it to the family budget (OR 4.25, p=0.0099), and make the financial tradeoffs needed to get through pregnancy (OR 5.50, p=0.0305). Conclusion: The CONTINUE study provides preliminary signals of the Cost Tool’s potential to help publicly insured prenatal patients better navigate the costs associated with their care plan. Innovations: The CONTINUE study contributes valuable preliminary data about the utility of a cost tool in routine OB care, especially as it may benefit low-income prenatal patients navigate prenatal care better.

The objective of the CONTINUE (conversations in routine OB care) pilot study was to gather preliminary data on the benefits of integrating a well-designed pregnancy support tool (“CONTINUE Tool”) in low-income prenatal care. A total of 184 tools were distributed by 21 OB providers during the study implementation period. Follow-up data were collected from 71 (38.5%) prenatal patients across three community-based midwestern OB clinics serving a diverse prenatal patient population. Early-gestation prenatal patients received the strategically designed CONTINUE Tool during routine prenatal care and later completed a semi-structured interview or electronic survey to report pre-determined individual benefit items experienced due to tool usage. Factor analysis used individual benefit items to identify factors representing common underlying benefits (“factor benefits”). Logistic regression analyses were performed to describe the relative odds of participants with low income (public insurance) experiencing individual and factor benefits of tool use compared to participants of higher income (private insurance). Chi square tests (or Fisher’s exact tests) were performed to generate P values reflecting statistically significant differences by income group. More low-income prenatal participants reported experiencing individual benefits as compared to higher-income participants. Among factor benefits, low-income participants were statistically more likely to report experiencing a time-related logistics benefit (OR = 4.00; 95% CI 1.02-15.73; P = .045). Low-income participants reported experiencing an overall logistics factor benefit (OR = 4.29; 95% CI 0.47-38.75), including a cost-related logistics benefit (OR = 3.08; CI 0.59-16.00), as well as an understanding benefit (OR = 1.90; 95% CI 0.72-5.04) and a self-efficacy benefit (OR = 1.30; 95% CI 0.44-3.87). While this study is limited by sample size due to being a pilot study, the findings suggest there may be tangible benefits to introducing the CONTINUE Tool among low-income prenatal patients. Given the staggering inequity in OB care and subsequent health outcomes, any preliminary findings on ways to help combat this are necessary and should lay the groundwork for subsequent randomized trials. Our preliminary findings show that supplementing routine OB care with the CONTINUE Tool can confer benefits to both providers and patients, but particularly for low-income prenatal patients who tend to have more structural barriers to adequate care in the first place.

The November 2015 terrorist attacks at the Bataclan concert hall and sidewalk cafés in Paris, the March 2016 bombing at the Brussels airport, and the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla. in June 2016 are just a few examples of the horror and loss of life inflicted on innocent civilians by individuals affiliated with, or supporting the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Canada is not immune: in October 2014 two ISIS-inspired attacks, one in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que. and one in Ottawa, resulted in the deaths of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Cpl. Nathan Cirillo. More recently, ISIS vowed to make the month of Ramadan a bloodbath in Europe and America.2 Heightened awareness, attention, and concern among western democracies surround the issue of terrorism on home soil. And there are serious challenges in addressing such threats.

Middle grades transitions pose challenges to many students who meet these tasks with varying levels of success. Contemporary developmental and strengths-based literature offers Hope Theory (Snyder, 2002), a research supported approach that can mitigate risks in school transitions. This article describes how middle grades educators can apply the tenets of Hope Theory to empower students' transition from elementary to middle school, as well as middle to high school.