Standard HIPAA Authorization Forms Decreased Response Rates for a Multi-site Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) aims to safeguard patient information; however, complex legal language may lead to confusion and mistrust, and hinder enrollment in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a standard HIPAA authorization included in mailed survey packets on study enrollment for a multi-site pragmatic trial. DESIGN: This study is nested within an advance care planning pragmatic trial at 50 primary care clinics across three University of California (UC) Health Systems. PARTICIPANTS: We included English and Spanish-speaking seriously ill patients. INTERVENTIONS: One third of eligible patients received and 2/3 did not receive the HIPAA authorization in their enrollment packet. MAIN MEASURES: We compared enrollment rates at 3 months and assessed the readability, understandability, and actionability of the standard HIPAA form using the Federal Plain Language Guidelines Checklist for Plain Language, the Automatic Readability Checker consensus calculator (grade 8 is the average reading level for US adults), and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials (PEMAT-P, 0-100%, 70% considered the minimum). KEY RESULTS: Of 4632 eligible patients (mean age 71, 48% women, 11% Spanish-speaking, 40% racial/ethnic minority); 1543 received a mailed enrollment packet with a HIPAA form and 3089 did not. Patients mailed the HIPAA form were less likely to enroll (10.2% vs. 14.8%, p < 0.001). The standard HIPAA form scored at the 12th grade reading level, had a PEMAT-P Understandability score of 42%, had an Actionability score of 40%, and only met 50% of Federal Plain Language Guideline Checklist items. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of a standard HIPAA authorization in mailed enrollment packets for a large pragmatic trial led to lower rates of study enrollment. This study informs how HIPAA authorization forms should be redesigned to be more accessible to patients to prevent unnecessary barriers to research enrollment.

Associations of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Survey Scores with Interventions and Site, Provider, and Patient Factors: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

Patient experience is a key aspect of care quality. Since the 2007 release of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) survey, no systematic review of factors associated with CG-CAHPS scores has been reported. We reviewed 52 peer-reviewed English language articles published in the United States using CG-CAHPS data. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and used the Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. We identified several interventions (eg, adding a care coordinator focused on chronic care management) associated with improved overall provider rating and 2 interventions (eg, peer shadow coaching) that improved provider communication scores. Studies evaluating the implementation of patient-centered medical homes or patient-reported outcomes found mixed results. We identified site-level factors (eg, better team communication) and provider-level factors (eg, physician empathy) associated with better patient experience. In contrast, patient-level factors (eg, medication adherence) found mixed associations with patient experience. Policymakers, clinicians, and healthcare leaders can leverage this evidence for quality improvement efforts and interventions supporting patient-centered care.

Significant individual change should be used as a lower bound for anchor based estimates of meaningful change on patient-reported outcome scores.

Interpretation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores has been supported by identifying score thresholds or ranges that indicate clinical importance. There has been a recent focus on the estimation of meaningful within patient change (MWPC). While much attention has been focused on anchor-based methods, some researchers prefer that a lower bound to these estimates should exceed a change score that could be observed due to measurement error alone as a safeguard against misclassifying individual patients as changed when they have not. The standard error of measurement (SEM) is often used as the lower bound of anchor estimates. Here, we argue that the SEM is not an the best lower bound for MWPCs. Instead, statistically significant individual change as calculated by the reliable change index (RCI) should be used as the lower bound. Our argument is based on two points. First, conceptually, the SEM does not provide specific enough information to serve as a lower bound for MWPCs, which should be based on the level of observed score change that is unlikely to be due to chance alone. Second, the SEM is not appropriate for direct application to observed scores, and requires a multiplier when examining observed change instead of true change. We conclude with recommendations for using the RCI with a thoughtful range of p-values in combination with anchor estimates.

Crosswalking 4 Pain Impact Measures in a Nationally Representative Sample of Adults With Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To generate crosswalk equations and tables for 4 pain impact measures: the Impact Stratification Score (ISS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Pain, Enjoyment of Life and General Activity Scale (PEG). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey assessing demographics and pain impact. Crosswalks were developed using item-response theory (IRT) cocalibrations and linear regressions between the ISS, ODI, RMDQ, and PEG. SETTING: Online panel. PARTICIPANTS: Population-based sample of United States adults aged 18 and older. Eligibility criteria were reporting current back pain, not reporting 2 fake health conditions, and having data for 2 or more pain measures (N=1530; 37% of sample). Crosswalks were developed (n=1030) and cross-validated in a subsample of 500 participants (n=125 randomly sampled from each ISS quartile). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ISS, ODI, RMDQ, and the PEG. RESULTS: Associations of the ISS with the PEG and ODI met the criteria for IRT cocalibration. Other measure pairs were crosswalked using regression. Associations were strongest between the PEG and the ISS (r=0.87, normalized mean absolute error [NMAE]=0.38) and between the ODI and the ISS (r=0.85, NMAE=0.39). Associations were weakest between the PEG and the RMDQ (r=0.69, R2=0.48, NMAE: 0.55-0.58). Regression equations and IRT accounted for 48%-64% of the variance (NMAE: 0.38-0.58) in corresponding pain measures in the cross-validation sample. CONCLUSIONS: The crosswalks between the ISS and common legacy pain measures created in this study of a nationally representative sample of United States adults with back pain can be used to estimate 1 pain impact measure from another. Further evaluation in clinical samples is recommended.

The Role of Inflammation and Psycho-Behavioral Factors as Mediators Between Acculturation and Time to Incident Dementia Among Older Mexican Americans.

Background: The mechanisms through which acculturation influences the onset of cognitive impairment and dementia are not well understood, especially among older Hispanics. Objective: To investigate whether inflammation and psycho-behavioral factors mediate the relationship between acculturation and incident dementia among older Mexican Americans. Methods: We analyzed the Sacramento Area Latino Study on Aging (1998-2007, SALSA), a longitudinal study (N = 1,194) with 10 years of follow-up, and used g-computation for mediation analysis with pooled logistic regression to evaluate whether acculturation (assessed by the Revised Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans [ARSMA-II]) affected dementia or cognitive impairment but not dementia (CIND) through inflammation (i.e., interleukin 6 [IL-6], tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]), smoking, alcohol consumption, and depressive symptoms. The potential mediators were assessed at baseline. Results: The 10-year average adjusted risk ratio (aRR) for the effect of high U.S. acculturation and dementia/CIND was 0.66, 95% CI (0.36, 1.30). The indirect effects were: IL-6 (aRR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.88, 1.05)); TNF-α (aRR:0.99, 95% CI (0.93, 1.05)); hs-CRP: (aRR = 1.21, 95% CI (0.84, 1.95)); current smoking: aRR = 0.97, 95% CI (0.84, 1.16); daily/weekly alcohol consumption (aRR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.96, 1.05)); and depressive symptom score (aRR = 1.03, 95% CI (0.95, 1.26)). Hs-CRP yielded a proportion mediated of -26%, suggesting that hs-CRP could suppress the potential effect of high U.S. acculturation. The other factors explored resulted in little to no mediation. Conclusions: The effect of acculturation on time to incident dementia/CIND varied over time. Our study suggests that inflammation could suppress the effect between high U.S. acculturation and dementia risk.

Comparing patient-reported outcomes measurement information system® (PROMIS®)-16 domain scores with the PROMIS-29 and 5-item PROMIS cognitive function scores.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the interpretability of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®)-16 profile domain scores (physical function, ability to participate in social roles and activities, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, pain interference, cognitive function - abilities, and fatigue) compared to the PROMIS-29 scores and a 5-item PROMIS cognitive function score. The study aims to provide insights into using these measures in clinical and research settings. METHODS: Analyses were conducted using data from 4130 adults from a nationally representative, probability-based internet panel between September and October 2022. A subset of 1256 individuals with back pain was followed up at six months. We compared the PROMIS-16 profile with the corresponding domain scores from the PROMIS-29 and a custom five-item cognitive function measure. We evaluated (1) reliability through inter-item correlations within each domain and (2) criterion validity by comparing PROMIS-16 profile with the corresponding longer PROMIS measures: (a) standardized mean differences in domain scores, (b) correlations, and (c) concordance of change (i.e., got worse, stayed the same, got better) among those with back pain from baseline to six months later using the reliable change index. We report the Kappa coefficient of agreement and the frequency and percentage of participants with concordant classifications. RESULTS: Inter-item correlations for the PROMIS-16 domains ranged from 0.65 in cognitive function to 0.92 in pain interference. Standardized mean differences between PROMIS-16 and the scores for the corresponding longer PROMIS domains were minimal (< 0.2). Correlations among the corresponding domain scores ranged from 0.82 for sleep disturbance to 0.98 for pain interference. The percentage of concordance in change groups ranged from 63% for sleep disturbance to 88% for pain interference. Except for sleep disturbance, the change groups derived from the PROMIS-16 showed moderate to substantial agreement with scores estimated from the longer PROMIS measures (Kappa coefficients ≥ 0.41). CONCLUSION: The PROMIS-16 domain scores perform similarly to the longer PROMIS measures and can be interpreted in the same way. This similarity indicates that PROMIS-16 can be useful for research as a brief health-related quality-of-life profile measure.

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System^® (PROMIS^®)-16 Profile assesses eight health-related quality of life domains (physical function, ability to participate in social roles and activities, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, pain interference, cognitive function ­ abilities, and fatigue) using two items per domain. We evaluated the PROMIS-16 profile in a sample drawn from a nationally representative, probability-based internet panel. The study supports the reliability and criterion validity of the PROMIS-16, showing that the domain scores closely align with and have high concordance in change with the PROMIS-29 scores and a custom five-item cognitive function score. The PROMIS-16 has the potential to be a brief health-related quality-of-life profile measure in research and clinical settings.

Factors associated with self-reports of limitations in activities of daily living among Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients.

BACKGROUND: Physical function is an important indicator of physical health and predicts mortality. This study identified characteristics associated with limitations in Medicare recipients' activities of daily living. METHODS: 2019 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Fee-for-Service Medicare Survey data: 79,725 respondents (34% response rate) who were 65 and older and 53% female; 7% Black, 5% Hispanic, 4% Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander, 2% Multiracial, 1% American Indian/Alaskan Native; 35% with high school education or less. Walking, getting in and out of chairs, bathing, dressing, toileting, and eating (scored as having no difficulty versus being able to do with difficulty or unable to do) and a scale of these items were regressed on patient characteristics. RESULTS: After adjustment for all characteristics, function limitations were found for those who smoked (effect sizes of significant associations range .04-.13), had chronic health conditions (.02-.33), were 85 years or older (.09-.46), needed assistance completing the survey (.32-1.29), were female (.05-.07), and had low income and assets (.15-.47). CONCLUSIONS: These nationally representative U.S. estimates of physical function characteristics are useful for interventions for vulnerable population subgroups.

Development of a Web-Based Interactive Tool for Visualizing Breast Cancer Clinical Trial Tolerability Data.

PURPOSE: Longitudinal patient tolerability data collected as part of randomized controlled trials are often summarized in a way that loses information and does not capture the treatment experience. To address this, we developed an interactive web application to empower clinicians and researchers to explore and visualize patient tolerability data. METHODS: We used adverse event (AE) data (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the NSABP-B35 phase III clinical trial, which compared anastrozole with tamoxifen for breast cancer-free survival, to demonstrate the tools. An interactive web application was developed using R and the Shiny web application framework that generates Sankey diagrams to visualize AEs and PROs using four tools: AE Explorer, PRO Explorer, Cohort Explorer, and Custom Explorer. RESULTS: To illustrate how users can use the interactive tool, examples for each of the four applications are presented using data from the NSABP-B35 phase III trial and the NSABP-B30 trial for the Custom Explorer. In the AE and PRO explorers, users can select AEs or PROs to visualize within specified time periods and compare across treatments. In the cohort explorer, users can select a subset of patients with a specific symptom, severity, and treatment received to visualize the trajectory over time within a specified time interval. With the custom explorer, users can upload and visualize structured longitudinal toxicity and tolerability data. CONCLUSION: We have created an interactive web application and tool for clinicians and researchers to explore and visualize clinical trial tolerability data. This adaptable tool can be extended for other clinical trial data visualization and incorporated into future patient-clinician interactions regarding treatment decisions.

How the CAHPS Clinician and Group Patient Experience Survey Data Have Been Used in Research: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: Patient experience is a key aspect of care quality. The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS®) survey measures experiences with ambulatory care providers to inform public reporting, pay-for-performance initiatives, interventions, patient choice of physicians/practices, and quality improvement. Since the survey's 2007 release, no systematic review of its use in research has been published. Methods: We reviewed English-language, peer-reviewed articles published since 2008 using CG-CAHPS survey data in the U.S. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and used the Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: We examined 126 articles and included 52. Twenty-seven articles focused on general primary care, and the others focused on ambulatory specialty care. Of the 52 studies, 37 were cross-sectional, and the majority conducted patient-level regression analysis, controlling for patient characteristics. The most-used CAHPS measures were overall provider rating and the provider communication composite. CG-CAHPS data were primarily utilized to evaluate interventions (24 studies) and examine cross-sectional associations (21 studies) of site-level (eg, organizational climate), provider-level (physician empathy), and patient-level (medication adherence) factors with patient experience. Four studies reported disparities in patient experience. Conclusions: The widespread use of CG-CAHPS data implies the survey's value in measuring and improving care quality. Unlike facility or plan surveys, the CG-CAHPS survey was designed to allow attribution to medical groups and clinicians, which, as evidence shows, is its main strength. Policymakers, researchers, clinicians, and health care leaders can leverage CG-CAHPS data in quality improvement efforts and interventions supporting patient-centered care.

Overall side effect assessment of oxaliplatin toxicity in rectal cancer patients in NRG oncology/NSABP R04.

PURPOSE: Regulatory guidance suggests capturing patient-reported overall side effect impact in cancer trials. We examined whether the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) GP5 item ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment") post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy/radiotherapy differed between oxaliplatin vs. non- oxaliplatin arms in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) R-04 trial of stage II-III rectal cancer patients. METHODS: The R-04 neoadjuvant trial compared local-regional tumor control between patients randomized to receive 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine with radiation, with or without oxaliplatin (4 treatment arms). Participants completed surveys at baseline and immediately after chemoradiotherapy. GP5 has a 5-point response scale: "Not at all" (0), "A little bit" (1), "Somewhat" (2), "Quite a bit" (3), and "Very much" (4). Logistic regression compared the odds of reporting moderate-high side effect impact (GP5 2-4) between patients receiving oxaliplatin or not after chemoradiotherapy, controlling for relevant patient characteristics. We examined associations between GP5 and other patient-reported outcomes reflecting side effects. RESULTS: Analyses were performed among 1132 study participants. Participants receiving oxaliplatin were 1.58 times (95% CI: 1.22-2.05) more likely to report moderate-high side effect bother at post-chemotherapy/radiation. In both arms, worse overall side effect impact was associated with patient-reported diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and peripheral sensory neuropathy (p < 0.01 for all). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis of R-04 found that GP5 distinguished between patients receiving oxaliplatin or not as part of their post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, adding patient-centric evidence on the reduced tolerability of oxaliplatin and demonstrating that GP5 is sensitive to known toxicity differences between treatments. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT00058474.

Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system preference score (PROPr) in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to prior research, our study presents longitudinal comparisons of the EQ-5D-5L and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) preference (PROPr) scores. This fills a gap in the literature, providing a much-needed understanding of these preference-based measures and their applications in healthcare research. Furthermore, our study provides equations to estimate one measure from the other, a tool that can significantly facilitate comparisons across studies. METHODS: We administered a health survey to 4,098 KnowledgePanel® members living in the United States. A subset of 1,256 (82% response rate) with back pain also completed the six-month follow-up survey. We then conducted thorough cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of the two measures, including product-moment correlations between scores, associations with demographic variables, and health conditions. To estimate one measure from the other, we used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with the baseline data from the general population. RESULTS: The correlation between the EQ-5D-5L and PROPr scores was 0.69, but the intraclass correlation was only 0.34 because the PROPr had lower (less positive) mean scores on the 0 (dead) to 1 (perfect health) continuum than the EQ-5D-5L. The associations between the two preference measures and demographic variables were similar at baseline. The product-moment correlation between unstandardized beta coefficients for each preference measure regressed on 22 health conditions was 0.86, reflecting similar patterns of unique associations. Correlations of change from baseline to 6 months in the two measures with retrospective perceptions of change were similar. Adjusted variance explained in OLS regressions predicting one measure from the other was 48%. On average, the predicted values were within a half-standard deviation of the observed EQ-5D-5L and PROPr scores. The beta-binomial regression model slightly improved over the OLS model in predicting the EQ-5D-5L from the PROPr but was equivalent to the OLS model in predicting the PROPr. CONCLUSION: Despite substantial mean differences, the EQ-5D-5L and PROPr have similar cross-sectional and longitudinal associations with other variables. We provide the OLS regression equations for use in cost-effectiveness research and meta-analyses. Future studies are needed to compare these measures with different conditions and interventions to provide more information on their relative validity.

A Health-Related Quality of Life Measure for Patients Who Undergo Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery.

PURPOSE: To develop a patient-reported outcome measure to assess the impact of glaucoma and treatment, including minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS). DESIGN: Observational study before and after concomitant cataract and Food and Drug Administration-approved implantable MIGS device surgery. SETTING: Survey administration was on a computer, iPad, or similar device. PATIENT POPULATION: 184 adults completed the baseline survey, 124 a survey 3 months after surgery, and 106 the 1-month test-retest reliability survey. The age range was 37 to 89 (average age = 72). Most were female (57%), non-Hispanic White (81%), and had a college degree (56%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Glaucoma Outcomes Survey (GOS) assesses functional limitations (27 items), vision-related symptoms (7 items), psychosocial issues (7 items), and satisfaction with microinvasive glaucoma surgery (1 item). These multiple-item scales were scored on a 0 to 100 range, with a higher score indicating worse health. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliability estimates ranged from 0.75 to 0.93, and 1-month test-retest intraclass correlations ranged from 0.83 to 0.92 for the GOS scales. Product-moment correlations among the scales ranged from 0.56 to 0.60. Improvement in visual acuity in the study eye from baseline to the 3-month follow-up was significantly related to improvements in GOS functional limitations (r = 0.18, P = .0485), vision-related symptoms (r = 0.19, P = .0386), and psychosocial concerns (r = 0.18, P = .0503). Responders to treatment ranged from 17% for vision-related symptoms to 48% for functional limitations. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports using the GOS for ophthalmic procedures such as MIGS. Further evaluation of the GOS in different patient subgroups and clinical settings is needed.

The PROMIS-16 reproduces the PROMIS-29 physical and mental health summary scores accurately in a probability-based internet panel.

PURPOSE: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS)-16 assesses the same multi-item domains but does not include the pain intensity item in the PROMIS-29. We evaluate how well physical and mental health summary scores estimated from the PROMIS-16 reproduce those estimated using the PROMIS-29. METHODS: An evaluation of data collected from 4130 respondents from the KnowledgePanel. Analyses include confirmatory factor analysis to assess physical and mental health latent variables based on PROMIS-16 scores, reliability estimates for the PROMIS measures, mean differences and correlations of scores estimated by the PROMIS-16 with those estimated by the PROMIS-29, and associations between differences in corresponding PROMIS-16 and PROMIS-29 scores by sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: A two-factor (physical and mental health) model adequately fits the PROMIS-16 scores. Reliability estimates for the PROMIS-16 measures were slightly lower than for the PROMIS-29 measures. There were minimal differences between PROMIS physical and mental health summary scores estimated using the PROMIS-16 or the PROMIS-29. PROMIS-16 and PROMIS-29 score differences by sociodemographic characteristics were small. Using the PROMIS pain intensity item when scoring the PROMIS-16 produced similar estimates of physical and mental health summary scores. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS-16 provides similar estimates of the PROMIS-29 physical and mental health summary scores. The high reliability of these scores indicates they are accurate enough for use with individual patients.

Is Primary Care Patient Experience Associated with Provider-Patient Language Concordance and Use of Interpreters for Spanish-preferring Patients: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare provided by a bilingual provider or with the assistance of an interpreter improves care quality; however, their associations with patient experience are unknown. We reviewed associations of patient experience with provider-patient language concordance (LC) and use of interpreters for Spanish-preferring patients. METHOD: We reviewed articles from academic databases 2005-2023 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Joanna Briggs Institute Checklists to rate study quality. We reviewed 217 (of 2193) articles, yielding 17 for inclusion. RESULTS: Of the 17 included articles, most articles focused on primary (n = 6 studies) or pediatric care (n = 5). All were cross-sectional, collecting data by self-administered surveys (n = 7) or interviews (n = 4). Most assessed the relationship between LC or interpreter use and patient experience by cross-sectional associations (n = 13). Two compared subgroups, and two provided descriptive insights into the conversational content (provider-interpreter-patient). None evaluated interventions, so evidence on effective strategies is lacking. LC for Spanish-preferring patients was a mix of null findings (n = 4) and associations with better patient experience (n = 3) (e.g., receiving diet/exercise counseling and better provider communication). Evidence on interpreter use indicated better (n = 2), worse (n = 2), and no association (n = 2) with patient experience. Associations between Spanish-language preference and patient experience were not significant (n = 5) or indicated worse experience (n = 4) (e.g., long waits, problems getting appointments, and not understanding nurses). CONCLUSION: LC is associated with better patient experience. Using interpreters is associated with better patient experience but only with high-quality interpreters. Strategies are needed to eliminate disparities and enhance communication for all Spanish-preferring primary care patients, whether with a bilingual provider or an interpreter.

Narrative comments about pediatric inpatient experiences yield substantial information beyond answers to closed-ended CAHPS survey questions.

PURPOSE: Adults' comments on patient experience surveys explain variation in provider ratings, with negative comments providing more actionable information than positive comments. We investigate if narrative comments on the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) survey of inpatient pediatric care (Child HCAHPS) account for global perceptions of the hospital beyond that explained by reports about specific aspects of care. METHODS: We analyzed 545 comments from 927 Child HCAHPS surveys completed by parents and guardians of hospitalized children with at least a 24-h hospital stay from July 2017 to December 2020 at an urban children's hospital. Comments were coded for valence (positive/negative/mixed) and actionability and used to predict Overall Hospital Rating and Willingness to Recommend the Hospital along with Child HCAHPS composite scores. RESULTS: Comments were provided more often by White and more educated respondents. Negative comments and greater actionability of comments were significantly associated with Child HCAHPS global rating measures, controlling for responses to closed-ended questions, and child and respondent characteristics. Each explained an additional 8% of the variance in respondents' overall hospital ratings and an additional 5% in their willingness to recommend the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Child HCAHPS narrative comment data provide significant additional information about what is important to parents and guardians during inpatient pediatric care beyond closed-ended composites. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Quality improvement efforts should include a review of narrative comments alongside closed-ended responses to help identify ways to improve inpatient care experiences. To promote health equity, comments should be encouraged for racial-and-ethnic minority patients and those with less educational attainment.

Development of short forms for screening children's dental caries and urgent treatment needs using item response theory and machine learning methods.

OBJECTIVES: Surveys can assist in screening oral diseases in populations to enhance the early detection of disease and intervention strategies for children in need. This paper aims to develop short forms of child-report and proxy-report survey screening instruments for active dental caries and urgent treatment needs in school-age children. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited 497 distinct dyads of children aged 8-17 and their parents between 2015 to 2019 from 14 dental clinics and private practices in Los Angeles County. We evaluated responses to 88 child-reported and 64 proxy-reported oral health questions to select and calibrate short forms using Item Response Theory. Seven classical Machine Learning algorithms were employed to predict children's active caries and urgent treatment needs using the short forms together with family demographic variables. The candidate algorithms include CatBoost, Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Naïve Bayes, Neural Network, Random Forest, and Support Vector Machine. Predictive performance was assessed using repeated 5-fold nested cross-validations. RESULTS: We developed and calibrated four ten-item short forms. Naïve Bayes outperformed other algorithms with the highest median of cross-validated area under the ROC curve. The means of best testing sensitivities and specificities using both child-reported and proxy-reported responses were 0.84 and 0.30 for active caries, and 0.81 and 0.31 for urgent treatment needs respectively. Models incorporating both response types showed a slightly higher predictive accuracy than those relying on either child-reported or proxy-reported responses. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of Item Response Theory and Machine Learning algorithms yielded potentially useful screening instruments for both active caries and urgent treatment needs of children. The survey screening approach is relatively cost-effective and convenient when dealing with oral health assessment in large populations. Future studies are needed to further leverage the customize and refine the instruments based on the estimated item characteristics for specific subgroups of the populations to enhance predictive accuracy.

Development of an ultra-short measure of eight domains of health-related quality of life for research and clinical care: the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system® PROMIS®-16 profile.

PURPOSE: We describe development of a short health-related quality of life measure, the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system® (PROMIS®)-16 Profile, which generates domain-specific scores for physical function, ability to participate in social roles and activities, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, pain interference, cognitive function, and fatigue. METHODS: An empirical evaluation of 50 candidate PROMIS items and item pairs was conducted using data from a sample of 5775 respondents from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Results and item response theory information curves for a subset of item pairs were presented and discussed in a stakeholder meeting to narrow the candidate item sets. A survey of the stakeholders and 124 MTurk adults was conducted to solicit preferences among remaining candidate items and finalize the measure. RESULTS: Empirical evaluation showed minimal differences in basic descriptive statistics (e.g., means, correlations) and associations with the PROMIS-29 + 2 Profile, thus item pairs were further considered primarily based on item properties and content. Stakeholders discussed and identified subsets of candidate item pairs for six domains, and final item pairs were agreed upon for two domains. Final items were selected based on stakeholder and MTurk-respondent preferences. The PROMIS-16 profile generates eight domain scores with strong psychometric properties. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS-16 Profile provides an attractive brief measure of eight distinct domains of health-related quality of life, representing an ideal screening tool for clinical care, which can help clinicians quickly identify distinct areas of concern that may require further assessment and follow-up. Further research is needed to confirm and extend these findings.

Associations of Primary Care Provider Burnout with Quality Improvement, Patient Experience Measurement, Clinic Culture, and Job Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among providers negatively impacts patient care experiences and safety. Providers at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) are at high risk for burnout due to high patient volumes; inadequate staffing; and balancing the demands of patients, families, and team members. OBJECTIVE: Examine associations of provider burnout with their perspectives on quality improvement (QI), patient experience measurement, clinic culture, and job satisfaction. DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional provider survey about their perspectives including the single-item burnout measure. We fit separate regression models, controlling for provider type, gender, being multilingual, and fixed effects for clinic predicting outcome measures from burnout. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-four providers from 44 clinics in large, urban FQHC (52% response rate; n = 174). MAIN MEASURES: Survey included a single-item, self-defined burnout measure adapted from the Physician Worklife Survey, and measures from the RAND AMA Study survey, Heath Tracking Physician survey, TransforMed Clinician and Staff Questionnaire, Physician Worklife Survey, Minimizing Errors Maximizing Outcomes survey, and surveys by Friedberg et al. 31 and Walling et al. 32 RESULTS: Thirty percent of providers reported burnout. Providers in clinics with more facilitative leadership reported not being burned out (compared to those reporting burnout; p-values < 0.05). More pressures related to patient care and lower job satisfaction were associated with burnout (p-values < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Creating provider-team relationships and environments where providers have the time and space necessary to discuss changes to improve care, ideas are shared, leadership supports QI, and QI is monitored and discussed were related to not being burned out. Reducing time pressures and improving support needed for providers to address the high-need levels of FQHC patients can also decrease burnout. Such leadership and support to improving care may be a separate protective factor against burnout. Research is needed to further examine which aspects of leadership drive down burnout and increase provider involvement in change efforts and improving care.