Knowledge and practices related to louse- and flea-borne diseases among staff providing services to people experiencing homelessness in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Louse-borne Bartonella quintana infection and flea-borne murine typhus are two potentially serious vector-borne diseases that have led to periodic outbreaks among people experiencing homelessness in the United States. Little is known about louse- and flea-borne disease awareness and prevention among staff who provide services to the population. We surveyed staff in seven US states to identify gaps in knowledge and prevention practices for these diseases. METHODS AND RESULTS: Surveys were administered to 333 staff at 89 homeless shelters and outreach teams in California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New York and Washington from August 2022 to April 2023. Most participants (>68%) agreed that body lice and fleas are a problem for people experiencing homelessness. About half were aware that diseases could be transmitted by these vectors; however, most could not accurately identify which diseases. Less than a quarter of staff could describe an appropriate protocol for managing body lice or fleas. Misconceptions included that clients must isolate or be denied services until they are medically cleared. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal significant knowledge gaps among staff who provide services to people experiencing homelessness in the prevention and control of louse- and flea-borne diseases. This demonstrates an urgent need for staff training to both reduce disease and prevent unnecessary restrictions on services and housing.

A Qualitative Study of Caregiver Perspectives on Health Policy Discussions Initiated by Pediatricians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Prior studies suggest that pediatricians believe discussing health policy issues with families is important. Caregiver preferences on these discussions, however, have not been examined. We explored circumstances in which caregivers may be receptive to discussing health policy issues with pediatricians. METHODS: We conducted 26 semistructured interviews with mostly Black female caregivers at 3 urban academic pediatric primary care practices. Using both structured and open response questions, we explored 4 primary content areas: 1) caregivers' perspectives on discussing health policy issues in pediatricians' offices; 2) which health policy topics caregivers may prefer to discuss; 3) factors that render policy discussions in the clinic inappropriate to caregivers; and 4) which communication modalities caregivers prefer. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Themes that emerged from interviews included: 1) pediatricians are perceived as trusted information sources on health policy; 2) caregivers want to talk with pediatricians about children's health insurance policy changes; 3) time constraints are a barrier to health policy discussions; 4) caregivers prefer to discuss health policy topics during well-child visits; 5) caregivers want the option to opt-out of these conversations; 6) preferred modalities for communicating about health policy issues, including printed materials and health fairs or educational events. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers expressed a satisfactory view of pediatricians discussing directly relevant health policy issues, including congressional debates on health insurance, in the primary care setting. Our findings highlight other caregiver preferences for engaging families in health policy discussions, including the timing of these conversations.

Pediatric provider perspectives and practices regarding health policy discussions with families: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Advocacy regarding child health policy is a core tenet of pediatrics. Previous research has demonstrated that most pediatric providers believe collective advocacy and political involvement are essential aspects of their profession, but less is known about how pediatric providers engage with families about policy issues that impact child health. The objectives of this study were to examine providers' perceptions and practices with regards to discussing health policy issues with families and to identify provider characteristics associated with having these discussions. METHODS: In this cross-sectional mixed methods study, pediatric resident physicians, attending physcians, and nurse practitioners at primary care clinics within a large academic health system were surveyed to assess (1) perceived importance of, (2) frequency of, and (3) barriers to and facilitators of health policy discussions with families. Multivariable ordinal regression was used to determine provider characteristics (including demographics, practice location, and extent of civic engagement) associated with frequency of these discussions. A subset of providers participated in subsequent focus groups designed to help interpret quantitative findings. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 155/394 (39%). The majority of respondents (76%) felt pediatricians should talk to families about health policy issues affecting children, but most providers (69%) reported never or rarely having these discussions. Factors associated with discussing policy issues included being an attending physician/nurse practitioner (OR 8.22, 95% CI 2.04-33.1) and urban practice setting (OR 3.85, 95% CI 1.03-14.3). Barriers included feeling uninformed about relevant issues and time constraints. In provider focus groups, four key themes emerged: (1) providers felt discussing policy issues would help inform and empower families; (2) providers frequently discussed social service programs, but rarely discussed policies governing these programs; (3) time constraints and concerns about partisan bias were a barrier to conversations; and (4) use of support staff and handouts with information about policy changes could help facilitate more frequent conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric providers felt it was important to talk to families about child health policy issues, but few providers reported having such conversations in practice. Primary care practices should consider incorporating workflow changes that promote family engagement in relevant health policy discussions.

Simulation modeling to assist with childhood obesity control: perceptions of Baltimore City policymakers.

Computational simulation models have potential to inform childhood obesity prevention efforts. To guide their future use in obesity prevention policies and programs, we assessed Baltimore City policymakers' perceptions of computational simulation models. Our research team conducted 15 in-depth interviews with stakeholders (policymakers in government and non-profit sectors), then transcribed and coded them for analysis. We learned that informants had limited understanding of computational simulation modeling. Although they did not understand how the model was developed, they perceived the tool to be useful when applying for grants, adding to the evidence base for decision-making, piloting programs and policies, and visualizing data. Their concerns included quality and relevance of data used to support the model. Key recommendations for model design included a visual display with explanations to facilitate understanding and a formal method for gathering feedback during model development.

Suburban Families' Experience With Food Insecurity Screening in Primary Care Practices.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity (FI) remains a major public health problem. With the rise in suburban poverty, a greater understanding of parents' experiences of FI in suburban settings is needed to effectively screen and address FI in suburban practices. METHODS: We conducted 23 semistructured interviews with parents of children <4 years of age who presented for well-child care in 6 suburban pediatric practices and screened positive for FI. In the interviews, we elicited parents' perceptions of screening for FI, how FI impacted the family, and recommendations for how practices could more effectively address FI. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. We used a modified grounded theory approach to code the interviews inductively and identified emerging themes through an iterative process. Interviews continued until thematic saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Of the 23 parents interviewed, all were women, with 39% white and 39% African American. Three primary themes emerged: Parents expressed initial surprise at screening followed by comfort discussing their unmet food needs; parents experience shame, frustration, and helplessness regarding FI, but discussing FI with their clinician helped alleviate these feelings; parents suggested practices could help them more directly access food resources, which, depending on income, may not be available to them through government programs. CONCLUSIONS: Although most parents were comfortable discussing FI, they felt it was important for clinicians to acknowledge their frustrations with FI and facilitate access to a range of food resources.

Clinicians' Perceptions of Screening for Food Insecurity in Suburban Pediatric Practice.

BACKGROUND: National organizations recommend pediatricians screen for food insecurity (FI). Although there has been growing research in urban practices, little research has addressed FI screening in suburban practices. We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of screening in suburban practices. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study that implemented FI screening in 6 suburban pediatric primary care practices. We included all children presenting for either a 2-, 15-, or 36-month well-child visit (N = 5645). Families who screened positive were eligible to be referred to our community partner that worked to connect families to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We conducted focus groups with clinicians to determine their perceptions of screening and suggestions for improvement. RESULTS: Of the 5645 children eligible, 4371 (77.4%) were screened, of which 122 (2.8%) screened positive for FI (range: 0.9%-5.9% across practices). Of the 122 food-insecure families, only 1 received new Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. In focus groups, 3 themes emerged: (1) Time and workflow were not barriers to screening, but concerns about embarrassing families and being unable to provide adequate resources were; (2) Clinicians reported that parents felt the screening showed caring, which reinforced clinicians' continued screening; (3) Clinicians suggested implementing screening before the visit. CONCLUSIONS: We found it is feasible and acceptable for clinicians to screen for FI in suburban practices, but the referral method used in this study was ineffective in assisting families in obtaining benefits. Better approaches to connect families to local resources may be needed to maximize the effectiveness of screening in suburban settings.