Search

BackgroundCardiovascular disease in individuals with mental health conditions such as bipolar disorder is highly prevalent and often poorly managed. Individuals with bipolar disorder face significant medication adherence barriers, especially when they are prescribed multiple medications for other health conditions including hypertension. Poor adherence puts them at a disproportionate risk for poor health outcomes. As such, there is a need for effective interventions to improve hypertension medication adherence, particularly in patients that struggle with adherence due to mental health comorbidity.MethodsThis 5-year project uses a 2-stage randomized controlled trial design to evaluate a brief, practical adherence intervention delivered via interactive text messaging (iTAB-CV) along with self-monitoring of medication taking, mood, and home blood pressure (N = 100) compared to self-monitoring alone (N = 100). Prior to randomization, all participants will view an educational video that emphasizes the importance of medication for the treatment of hypertension and bipolar disorder. Those randomized to the texting intervention will receive daily text messages with predetermined content to address 11 salient domains as well as targeted customized messages for 2 months. This group will then be re-randomized to receive either a high (gradual taper from daily to weekly texts) or low booster (weekly texts) phase for an additional 2 months. All participants will be monitored for 52 weeks. The primary outcomes are systolic blood pressure and adherence to antihypertensive medication as determined by a self-reported questionnaire and validated with an automated pill-monitoring device. Secondary outcomes include adherence to bipolar disorder medications, psychiatric symptoms, health status, self-efficacy for medication-taking behavior, illness beliefs, medication attitudes, and habit strength.DiscussionThis study specifically targets blood pressure and mental health symptom control in people with bipolar and includes implementation elements in the study design intended to inform future scale-up. Promising pilot data and a theoretical model, which views sustained medication-taking behavior in the context of habit formation, suggests that this remotely delivered intervention may help advance care for this high-risk population and is amenable to both scale up and easy adaptation for other groups with poor medication adherence.Trial registrationThe study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04675593 ) on December 19, 2020.

BackgroundChronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration.MethodsForty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration.DiscussionAs primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

Background: A school district in Northern Ohio implemented a COVID-19 surveillance program from January 4 to May 21, 2021, as in-person school and extracurricular activities resumed. Methods: Among 560 staff members and >6300 students, random weekly testing was performed on 563 students and weekly for 204 students participating in extracurricular activities, and 553 staff. Results: Cases of COVID-19 were identified among 26 staff members and 23 students. Most of those infected were participating in extracurricular activities (14/23) and in the age range of 14-18. Percent positivity was low (range 0.2-2.4%) throughout the school surveillance program despite significant changes in positivity rate (2.8-19.8%). Conclusion: This demonstrates that in a setting employing basic yet consistent mitigation strategies, there is low transmission among young children and adolescents as they return to in-person classes and activities. Maintaining layered prevention strategies implemented and sustained with fidelity can substantially limit transmission within schools.

It is time for family medicine to stop enabling a dysfunctional health care system. The patient needs that family physicians witness and strive to meet each day are immediate and [...]

PURPOSE To examine the psychometric properties and scores of the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure (PCPCM) in 28 languages and 35 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. METHODS Using a paid online sampling service, we requested age- and sex-representative samples of 360 adults in each country. We administered the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure--a previously validated 11-item, patient-reported measure that was developed using what patients and clinicians said is most important about primary care. We also assessed construct validity through associations with demographics, the Patient-Enablement Instrument, number of years the person had been with their primary care physician and practice, whether the patient thought the doctor knowing the results would improve their care, and whether it was hard to complete the survey. We assessed the psychometric properties of the PCPCM in each country and report the summative and item-specific PCPCM scores for each country. RESULTS The PCPCM exhibited solid psychometric properties across all languages and countries, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.88 to 0.95, and corrected item-total correlations ranging from 0.47 to 0.81, with the vast majority of countries ranging from the low 0.50s to the high 0.70s. Multiple analyses showed strong evidence of concurrent validity. With a potential range from a low of 1 to a high of 4, the overall mean score was 2.74, with a standard deviation of 0.19. Mean PCPCM scores ranged from the lowest in Sweden (2.28) to the highest in Turkey (3.08), with Germany ranking second (3.01), and the United States third (2.99). CONCLUSIONS The internal consistency and concurrent validity of the PCPCM across multiple countries provides strong evidence of the coherence of the breadth of primary care functions that patients and clinicians say are important. The diversity of total and item-specific scores across countries provokes interesting hypotheses about the influence of each different country's policies, practices, demographics, and culture on primary care, and provides a strong impetus for further ecological and individual data analyses using the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure. Key words: primary care; quantitative methods: health status/QOL measurement; measure development; international comparison, INTRODUCTION Primary care is widely viewed as the cornerstone of a high-functioning health care system. (1-4) Considerable variability in health care system design and in how primary care is provided [...]

People working on behalf of population health, community health, or public health often experience confusion or ambiguity in the meaning of these and other common terms--the similarities and differences and how they bear on the tasks and division of labor for care delivery and public health. Shared language must be clear enough to help, not hinder people working together as they ultimately come to mutual understanding of roles, responsibilities, and actions in their joint work. Based on an iterative lexicon development process, the authors developed and propose a definitional framework as an aid to navigating among related population and community health terms. These terms are defined, similarities and differences clarified, and then organized into 3 categories that reflect goals, realities, and ways to get the job done. Goals include (a) health as well-being for persons, (b) population health as that goal expressed in measurable terms for groups, and (c) community health as population health for particular communities of interest, geography, or other defining characteristic--groups with shared identity and particular systemic influences on health. Realities are social determinants as influences, health disparities as effects, and health equity as both a goal and a design principle. Ways to get the job done include health care delivery systems for enrollees and public health in population-based civic activities--with a broad zone of collaboration where streams of effort converge in partnership with served communities. This map of terms can enable people to move forward together in a broad zone of collaboration for health with less confusion, ambiguity, and conflict. Key words: population health; lexicon; definitions; primary care public health integration, THE IMPERATIVE AND THE PROBLEM The terms population health, community health, and public health are often used interchangeably, yet imprecisely, leading to conceptual and practical misunderstandings. Each term relates in [...]

Background: Virtual care increased dramatically during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The specific modality of virtual care (video, audio, eVisits, eConsults, and remote patient monitoring) has important implications for the accessibility and quality of care, but rates of use are relatively unknown. Methods for identifying virtual care modalities, especially in electronic health records (EHR) are inconsistent. This study (a) developed a method to identify virtual care modalities using EHR data and (b) described the distribution of these modalities over a 3‐year study period. Methods: EHR data from 316 primary care safety net clinics throughout the study period (4/1/2020‐3/31/2023) were included. Visit type (in‐person vs virtual) by adults >18 years old were classified. Expert consultation informed the development of two algorithms to classify virtual care visit modalities; these algorithms prioritized different EHR data elements. We conducted descriptive analyses comparing algorithms and the frequency of virtual care modalities. Results: Agreement between the algorithms was 96.5% for all visits and 89.3% for virtual care visits. The majority of disagreement between the algorithms was among encounters scheduled as audio‐only but billed as a video visit. Restricting to visits where the algorithms agreed on visit modality, there were 2‐fold more audio‐only than video visits. Conclusion: Visit modality classification varies depending upon which data in the EHR are prioritized. Regardless of which algorithm is utilized, safety net clinics rely on audio‐only and video visits to provide care in virtual visits. Elimination of reimbursement for audio visits may exacerbate existing inequities in care for low‐income patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction/Objectives: Social determinants of health (SDoH) screening and intervention in pediatric primary care depends upon caregiver disclosure of adverse household or social conditions and thus may be influenced by perceived bias or stigma. This paper examines to what extent parents' experience of their child's medical home is associated with their perceptions of a practice-based social needs intervention. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of data reported by 73 parents of children obtaining care in a medical home with an embedded SDoH navigation program. Using survey data collected in October 2021 and October 2022, we calculated descriptive statistics and non-parametric bivariate analyses of the association between engagement with the SDoH navigation program and parent-reported social needs, stress, and perception of care quality as measured by the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure (PCPCM). Results: Initial ratings of care quality were high (mean baseline PCPCM score = 3.63) and remained high on second interview (mean change in PCPCM score = −0.04, 95%CI −0.16, 0.09, P =.58) despite significant reductions in parents' ratings of access to care over time. Parents reported substantial stress, unmet social needs, and unmet healthcare needs, with 41 families (56%) ever using the practice-based SDoH program, including 16 (22%) who were new users in 2022. There was no association observed between PCPCM score and parent stress, unmet social needs, or use of SDoH services. Conclusions: Parents' perceptions of care delivered in their child's medical home appears to be stable on repeat measurement, and independent of family context or interactions with social needs navigation services offered in the practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Access to a usual source of care is associated with improved health outcomes, but research on how the physician-patient relationship affects a patient's health, particularly long-term, is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the longitudinal effect of changes in the physician-patient relationship on functional health. METHODS We conducted a prospective cohort study using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS, 2015-2016). The outcome was 1-year change in functional health (12-Item Short-Form Survey). The predictors were quality of physician-patient relationship, and changes in this relationship, operationalized with the MEPS Primary Care (MEPS-PC) Relationship subscale, a composite measure with preliminary evidence of reliability and validity. Confounders included age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, insurance status, US region, and multimorbidity. We conducted analyses with survey-weighted, covariate-adjusted, predicted marginal means, used to calculate Cohen effect estimates. We tested differences in trajectories with multiple pairwise comparisons with Tukey contrasts. RESULTS Improved physician-patient relationships were associated with improved functional health, whereas worsened physician-patient relationships were associated with worsened functional health, with 1-year effect estimates ranging from 0.05 (95% CI, 0-0.10) to 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02-0.13) compared with -0.16 (95% CI, -0.35 to -0.03) to -0.33 (95% CI, -0.47 to -0.02), respectively. CONCLUSION The quality of the physician-patient relationship is positively associated with functional health. These findings could inform health care strategies and health policy aimed at improving patient-centered health outcomes. Key words: United States; primary care; functional health; relationship; impact; Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, INTRODUCTION Ecologic studies have shown that primary care is associated with better health, improved health care quality, improved access, and lower cost--virtually the definition of value. (1-4) Having a usual [...]

PURPOSE Despite a burgeoning population of cancer survivors and pending shortages of oncology services, clear definitions and systematic approaches for engaging primary care in cancer survivorship are lacking. We sought to understand how primary care clinicians perceive their role in delivering care to cancer survivors. METHODS We conducted digitally recorded interviews with 38 clinicians in 14 primary care practices that had national reputations as workforce innovators. Interviews took place during intense case study data collection and explored clinicians' perspectives regarding their role in cancer survivorship care. We analyzed verbatim transcripts using an inductive and iterative immersion-crystallization process. RESULTS Divergent views exist regarding primary care's role in cancer survivor care with a lack of coherence about the concept of survivorship. A few clinicians believed any follow-up care after acute cancer treatment was oncology's responsibility; however, most felt cancer survivor care was within their purview. Some primary care clinicians considered cancer survivors as a distinct population; others felt cancer survivors were like any other patient with a chronic disease. In further interpretative analysis, we discovered a deeply ingrained philosophy of whole-person care that creates a professional identity dilemma for primary care clinicians when faced with rapidly changing specialized knowledge. CONCLUSIONS This study exposes an emerging identity crisis for primary care that goes beyond cancer survivorship care. Facilitated national conversations might help specialists and primary care develop knowledge translation platforms to support the prioritizing, integrating, and personalizing functions of primary care for patients with highly complicated issues requiring specialized knowledge., INTRODUCTION The population of adult cancer survivors in the United States is poised to reach 26. (1) million by 2040,1 including large numbers of survivors of childhood cancers who are [...]

PURPOSE To develop and evaluate a concise measure of primary care that is grounded in the experience of patients, clinicians, and health care payers. METHODS We asked crowd-sourced samples of 412 patients, 525 primary care clinicians, and 85 health care payers to describe what provides value in primary care, then asked 70 primary care and health services experts in a 21/2 day international conference to provide additional insights. A multidisciplinary team conducted a qualitative analysis of the combined data to develop a parsimonious set of patient-reported items. We evaluated items using factor analysis, Rasch modeling, and association analyses among 2 online samples and 4 clinical samples from diverse patient populations. RESULTS The resulting person-centered primary care measure parsimoniously represents the broad scope of primary care, with 11 domains each represented by a single item: accessibility, advocacy, community context, comprehensiveness, continuity, coordination, family context, goal-oriented care, health promotion, integration, and relationship. Principal axes factor analysis identified a single factor. Factor loadings and corrected item-total correlations were >0.6 in online samples (n = 2,229) and >0.5 in clinical samples (n = 323). Factor scores were fairly normally distributed in online patient samples, and skewed toward higher ratings in point-of-care patient samples. Rasch models showed a broad spread of person and item scores, acceptable item-fit statistics, and little item redundancy. Preliminary concurrent validity analyses supported hypothesized associations. CONCLUSIONS The person-centered primary care measure reliably, comprehensively, and parsimoniously assesses the aspects of care thought to represent high-value primary care by patients, clinicians, and payers. The measure is ready for further validation and outcome analyses, and for use in focusing attention on what matters about primary care, while reducing measurement burden., INTRODUCTION Measures matter because they focus the precious commodity of attention. (1) Increasingly, measures also are used to concentrate material resources and infrastructure, and even to influence the right to [...]

Abstract Background There is a pressing need for greater attention to patient-centered health behavior and psychosocial issues in primary care, and for practical tools, study designs and results of clinical and policy relevance. Our goal is to design a scientifically rigorous and valid pragmatic trial to test whether primary care practices can systematically implement the collection of patient-reported information and provide patients needed advice, goal setting, and counseling in response. Methods This manuscript reports on the iterative design of the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, a cluster randomized delayed intervention trial. Nine pairs of diverse primary care practices will be randomized to early or delayed intervention four months later. The intervention consists of fielding the MOHR assessment – addresses 10 domains of health behaviors and psychosocial issues – and subsequent provision of needed counseling and support for patients presenting for wellness or chronic care. As a pragmatic participatory trial, stakeholder groups including practice partners and patients have been engaged throughout the study design to account for local resources and characteristics. Participatory tasks include identifying MOHR assessment content, refining the study design, providing input on outcomes measures, and designing the implementation workflow. Study outcomes include the intervention reach (percent of patients offered and completing the MOHR assessment), effectiveness (patients reporting being asked about topics, setting change goals, and receiving assistance in early versus delayed intervention practices), contextual factors influencing outcomes, and intervention costs. Discussion The MOHR study shows how a participatory design can be used to promote the consistent collection and use of patient-reported health behavior and psychosocial assessments in a broad range of primary care settings. While pragmatic in nature, the study design will allow valid comparisons to answer the posed research question, and findings will be broadly generalizable to a range of primary care settings. Per the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) framework, the study design is substantially more pragmatic than other published trials. The methods and findings should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers attempting to make healthcare more patient-centered and relevant. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01825746

PurposeWe aimed to advance the internal and external validity of research by sharing our empirical experience and recommendations for systematically reporting contextual factors.MethodsFourteen teams conducting research on primary care practice transformation retrospectively considered contextual factors important to interpreting their findings (internal validity) and transporting or reinventing their findings in other settings/situations (external validity). Each team provided a table or list of important contextual factors and interpretive text included as appendices to the articles in this supplement. Team members identified the most important contextual factors for their studies. We grouped the findings thematically and developed recommendations for reporting context.ResultsThe most important contextual factors sorted into 5 domains: (1) the practice setting, (2) the larger organization, (3) the external environment, (4) implementation pathway, and (5) the motivation for implementation. To understand context, investigators recommend (1) engaging diverse perspectives and data sources, (2) considering multiple levels, (3) evaluating history and evolution over time, (4) looking at formal and informal systems and culture, and (5) assessing the (often nonlinear) interactions between contextual factors and both the process and outcome of studies. We include a template with tabular and interpretive elements to help study teams engage research participants in reporting relevant context.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of identifying and reporting contextual factors. Involving diverse stakeholders in assessing context at multiple stages of the research process, examining their association with outcomes, and consistently reporting critical contextual factors are important challenges for a field interested in improving the internal and external validity and impact of health care research.