Results From a Trial of an Online Diabetes Prevention Program Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Online Diabetes Prevention Programs (DPPs) can be scaled up and delivered broadly. However, little is known about real-world effectiveness and how outcomes compare with in-person DPP. This study examined online DPP weight loss and participation outcomes and secondarily compared outcomes among participating individuals with parallel in-person interventions. STUDY DESIGN: A large non-randomized trial supplemented by a comparative analysis of participating individuals from a concurrent trial of two parallel in-person programs: in-person DPP and the Veterans Administration's standard of care weight loss program (MOVE!). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Obese/overweight Veterans with prediabetes enrolled in online DPP (n = 268) between 2013 and 2014. Similar eligibility criteria were used to enroll in-person participants between 2012 and 2014 (n = 273 in-person DPP, n = 114 MOVE!) within a separate trial. INTERVENTION: Online DPP included a virtual group format, live e-coach, weekly modules delivered asynchronously, and wireless home scales. In-person programs included eight to 22 group-based, face-to-face sessions. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Weight change at 6 and 12 months using wirelessly uploaded home scale data or electronic medical record weights from clinical in-person visits. Outcomes were analyzed between 2015 and 2017. RESULTS: From 1,182 invitations, 268 (23%) participants enrolled in online DPP. Among these, 158 (56%) completed eight or more modules; mean weight change was -4.7kg at 6 months and -4.0kg at 12 months. In a supplemental analysis of participants completing one or more sessions/modules, online DPP participants were most likely to complete eight or more sessions/modules (87% online DPP vs 59% in-person DPP vs 55% MOVE!, p < 0.001). Online and in-person DPP participants lost significantly more weight than MOVE! participants at 6 and 12 months; there was no significant difference in weight change between online and in-person DPP. CONCLUSIONS: An intensive, multifaceted online DPP intervention had higher participation but similar weight loss compared to in-person DPP. An intensive, multifaceted online DPP intervention may be as effective as in-person DPP and help expand reach to those at risk.

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States in the past few years, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. The benefit and harms of low-dose chest CT screening differ in both frequency and magnitude. The translation of a favorable balance of benefit and harms into practice can be difficult. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low radiation dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not. METHODS: Approved panelists developed key questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted by using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached. RESULTS: The systematic literature review identified 59 studies that informed the response to the 12 PICO questions that were developed. Key clinical questions were addressed resulting in six graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus based statements. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer results in a favorable but tenuous balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible patients, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can affect this balance. Additional research is needed to optimize the approach to low-dose CT screening.

Diabetes Prevention Program Translation in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: This clinical demonstration trial compared the effectiveness of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Prevention Program (VA-DPP) with an evidence-based usual care weight management program (MOVE!®) in the Veterans Health Administration health system. DESIGN: Prospective, pragmatic, non-randomized comparative effectiveness study of two behavioral weight management interventions. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Obese/overweight Veterans with prediabetes were recruited from three geographically diverse VA sites between 2012 and 2014. INTERVENTION: VA-DPP included 22 group-based intensive lifestyle change sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight change at 6 and 12 months, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at 12 months, and VA health expenditure changes at 15 months were assessed using VA electronic health record and claims data. Between- and within-group comparisons for weight and HbA1c were done using linear mixed-effects models controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, baseline outcome values, and site. Analyses were conducted in 2015-2016. RESULTS: A total of 387 participants enrolled (273 VA-DPP, 114 MOVE!). More VA-DPP participants completed at least one (73.3% VA-DPP vs 57.5% MOVE! p=0.002); four (57.5% VA-DPP vs 42.5% MOVE!, p=0.007); and eight or more sessions (42.5% VA-DPP vs 31% MOVE!, p=0.035). Weight loss from baseline was significant at both 6 (p<0.001) and 12 months (p<0.001) for VA-DPP participants, but only significant at 6 months for MOVE! participants (p=0.004). Between groups, there were significant differences in 6-month weight loss (-4.1 kg VA-DPP vs -1.9 kg MOVE!, p<0.001), but not 12-month weight loss (-3.4 kg VA-DPP vs -2.0 kg MOVE!, p=0.16). There were no significant differences in HbA1c change or outpatient, inpatient, and total VA expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: VA-DPP participants had higher participation rates and weight loss at 6 months, but similar weight, HbA1c, and health expenditures at 12 months compared to MOVE! PARTICIPANTS: Features of VA-DPP may help enhance the capability of MOVE! to reach a larger proportion of the served population and promote individual-level weight maintenance.

Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography for current and former heavy smokers aged 55 to 80 years. There is little published experience regarding implementing this recommendation in clinical practice. Objectives: To describe organizational- and patient-level experiences with implementing an LCS program in selected Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals and to estimate the number of VHA patients who may be candidates for LCS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This clinical demonstration project was conducted at 8 academic VHA hospitals among 93 033 primary care patients who were assessed on screening criteria; 2106 patients underwent LCS between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2015. Interventions: Implementation Guide and support, full-time LCS coordinators, electronic tools, tracking database, patient education materials, and radiologic and nodule follow-up guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Description of implementation processes; percentages of patients who agreed to undergo LCS, had positive findings on results of low-dose computed tomographic scans (nodules to be tracked or suspicious findings), were found to have lung cancer, or had incidental findings; and estimated number of VHA patients who met the criteria for LCS. Results: Of the 4246 patients who met the criteria for LCS, 2452 (57.7%) agreed to undergo screening and 2106 (2028 men and 78 women; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [5.1] years) underwent LCS. Wide variation in processes and patient experiences occurred among the 8 sites. Of the 2106 patients screened, 1257 (59.7%) had nodules; 1184 of these patients (56.2%) required tracking, 42 (2.0%) required further evaluation but the findings were not cancer, and 31 (1.5%) had lung cancer. A variety of incidental findings, such as emphysema, other pulmonary abnormalities, and coronary artery calcification, were noted on the scans of 857 patients (40.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: It is estimated that nearly 900 000 of a population of 6.7 million VHA patients met the criteria for LCS. Implementation of LCS in the VHA will likely lead to large numbers of patients eligible for LCS and will require substantial clinical effort for both patients and staff.

Implementation of a prediabetes identification algorithm for overweight and obese Veterans.

Type 2 diabetes prevention is an important national goal for the Veteran Health Administration (VHA): one in four Veterans has diabetes. We implemented a prediabetes identification algorithm to estimate prediabetes prevalence among overweight and obese Veterans at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs) in preparation for the launch of a pragmatic study of Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) delivery to Veterans with prediabetes. This project was embedded within the VA DPP Clinical Demonstration Project conducted in 2012 to 2015. Veterans who attended orientation sessions for an established VHA weight-loss program (MOVE!) were recruited from VAMCs with geographically and racially diverse populations using existing referral processes. Each site implemented and adapted the prediabetes identification algorithm to best fit their local clinical context. Sites relied on an existing referral process in which a prediabetes identification algorithm was implemented in parallel with existing clinical flow; this approach limited the number of overweight and obese Veterans who were assessed and screened. We evaluated 1,830 patients through chart reviews, interviews, and/or laboratory tests. In this cohort, our estimated prevalence rates for normal glycemic status, prediabetes, and diabetes were 29% (n = 530), 28% (n = 504), and 43% (n = 796), respectively. Implementation of targeted prediabetes identification programs requires careful consideration of how prediabetes assessment and screening will occur.

Disease Prevention in the Veterans Health Administration.

The burden of chronic diseases is substantial among veterans who are seen in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health care system. Healthy lifestyle interventions and clinical preventive services can help veterans improve their health and well-being. The VHA's National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention supports policies, programs, resources, and training for VHA.

Implementation of new clinical programs in the VHA healthcare system: the importance of early collaboration between clinical leadership and research.

Collaboration between policy, research, and clinical partners is crucial to achieving proven quality care. The Veterans Health Administration has expended great efforts towards fostering such collaborations. Through this, we have learned that an ideal collaboration involves partnership from the very beginning of a new clinical program, so that the program is designed in a way that ensures quality, validity, and puts into place the infrastructure necessary for a reliable evaluation. This paper will give an example of one such project, the Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project (LCSDP). We will outline the ways that clinical, policy, and research partners collaborated in design, planning, and implementation in order to create a sustainable model that could be rigorously evaluated for efficacy and fidelity. We will describe the use of the Donabedian quality matrix to determine the necessary characteristics of a quality program and the importance of the linkage with engineering, information technology, and clinical paradigms to connect the development of an on-the-ground clinical program with the evaluation goal of a learning healthcare organization. While the LCSDP is the example given here, these partnerships and suggestions are salient to any healthcare organization seeking to implement new scientifically proven care in a useful and reliable way.

Implementing the MOVE! weight-management program in the Veterans Health Administration, 2007-2010: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: One-third of US veterans receiving care at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical facilities are obese and, therefore, at higher risk for developing multiple chronic diseases. To address this problem, the VHA designed and nationally disseminated an evidence-based weight-management program (MOVE!). The objective of this study was to examine the organizational factors that aided or inhibited the implementation of MOVE! in 10 VHA medical facilities. METHODS: Using a multiple, holistic case study design, we conducted 68 interviews with medical center program coordinators, physicians formally appointed as program champions, managers directly responsible for overseeing the program, clinicians from the program's multidisciplinary team, and primary care physicians identified by program coordinators as local opinion leaders. Qualitative data analysis involved coding, memorandum writing, and construction of data displays. RESULTS: Organizational readiness for change and having an innovation champion were most consistently the 2 factors associated with MOVE! implementation. Other organizational factors, such as management support and resource availability, were barriers to implementation or exerted mixed effects on implementation. Barriers did not prevent facilities from implementing MOVE! However, they were obstacles that had to be overcome, worked around, or accepted as limits on the program's scope or scale. CONCLUSION: Policy-directed implementation of clinical weight-management programs in health care facilities is challenging, especially when no new resources are available. Instituting powerful, mutually reinforcing organizational policies and practices may be necessary for consistent, high-quality implementation.

Best practices in the Veterans Health Administration's MOVE! Weight management program.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a substantial problem in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). VHA developed and disseminated the MOVE! Weight Management Program for Veterans to its medical facilities but implementation of the program has been variable. PURPOSE: The objective was to explore variation in MOVE! program implementation to identify facility structure, policies, and processes associated with larger patient weight-loss outcomes. METHODS: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was used to identify facility conditions or combinations of conditions associated with larger 6-month patient weight-loss outcomes. QCA is a method that allows for systematic cross-case comparison to better understand causal complexity. Eleven sites with larger outcomes and 11 sites with smaller outcomes were identified and data were collected with site interviews, facility-completed program summary forms, and medical record abstraction in 2009 and 2010. Conditions were selected based on theory and experience implementing MOVE! and were calibrated using QCA methods. Configuration patterns were examined to identify necessary conditions (i.e., always present when outcome present, but alone do not guarantee outcome) and sufficient conditions (i.e., presence guarantees outcome) at sites with larger and smaller outcomes. A thematic analysis of site interview data supplemented QCA findings. RESULTS: No two sites shared the same condition pattern. Necessary conditions included the use of a standard curriculum and group care-delivery format, and they were present at all sites with larger outcomes but at only six sites with smaller outcomes. At the 17 sites with both necessary conditions, four combinations of conditions were identified that accounted for all sites with larger outcomes. These included high program complexity combined with high staff involvement; group care-delivery format combined with low accountability to facility leadership; an active physician champion combined with low accountability to facility leadership; and the use of quality-improvement strategies combined with not using a waiting list. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a standard curriculum delivered with a group care-delivery format is an essential feature of successful VHA facility MOVE! Weight Management Programs, but alone does not guarantee success. Program development and policy will be used to ensure dissemination of the best practices identified in this evaluation.

RE-AIM evaluation of the Veterans Health Administration's MOVE! Weight Management Program.

UNLABELLED: Over one-third of patients treated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) are obese. VHA introduced the MOVE! Weight Management Program for Veterans in 2006 to provide comprehensive weight management services. An evolving, periodic evaluation using the RE-AIM framework (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) has been conducted to gauge success and opportunities for improvement. Key metrics were identified in each RE-AIM dimension. Data were compiled over fiscal years (FY) 2006 through 2010 from a variety of sources including VHA administrative and clinical databases, electronic medical record reviews, and an annual, structured VHA facility self-report. REACH: Screening for obesity and offering weight management treatment to eligible patients increased from 66% to 95% over the past 3 years. MOVE! is currently provided at every VHA hospital facility and at over one-half of VHA community-based outpatient clinics. The percent of eligible patients who participate in at least one weight management visit has doubled since implementation began but has stabilized at 10 to 12%. EFFECTIVENESS: About 18.6% of the 31,854 patients with available weight data who participated in at least two treatment visits between Jul 1, 2008 and Sep 30, 2009 had at least a 5% body weight loss by 6 months as did almost one-third of those who participated in more intense and sustained treatment. By contrast, only 12.5% of a comparison group of patients matched on age, gender, body mass index (BMI) class, and comorbidity status who were not treated with MOVE! had at least a 5% body weight loss. ADOPTION: The median full-time staff equivalent providing weight management services at each facility has increased over time and was 1.76 in FY 2010. IMPLEMENTATION: Staff from multiple disciplines typically provide MOVE!-related care although not all disciplines are involved with providing care at every facility. Group-based treatment has become increasingly utilized, and in FY 2010 it represented 72% of all MOVE!-related visits. Intensity of treatment has increased from an average of 3.6 visits per patient per year in FY 2007 to 4.6 in FY 2010, but more than half of patients have two visits or less. Almost all facilities now report the consistent use of key evidence-based behavioral strategies with patients. MAINTENANCE: While participation in MOVE! by patients continues to grow each year, facility self-reported program staffing and space/equipment challenges are potential barriers to long-term program maintenance. Evidence-based weight management treatment can be delivered at VHA medical centers and community-based outpatient clinics, but the REACH remains limited after several years of implementation. Intense and sustained treatment with MOVE! results in a modest positive impact on short-term weight loss outcomes, but a relatively small proportion of patients engage in this level of care. Increasing reach, improving effectiveness of care, and keeping patients engaged in treatment are areas for future policy, practice, and research.

Knowledge and use of finasteride for the prevention of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The knowledge about and use of chemopreventive agents for prostate cancer by physicians has not been described. The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) showed that finasteride was effective in reducing the incidence of prostate cancer. We examined the influence of the PCPT on finasteride prescribing within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). METHODS: We assessed trends on monthly new and total prescriptions for finasteride filled within the VHA from January 2000 to December 2005. Additionally, all VHA urologists and a random sample of VHA primary care physicians (PCP) were surveyed about their use of finasteride. RESULTS: The number of men starting finasteride grew over the study period. Publication of the PCPT was not significantly associated with any change in this pattern (P = 0.45). Fifty-seven percent of urologists and 40% of PCPs endorsed prescribing finasteride more frequently in 2006 than 5 years prior. However, among those who reported changing prescribing patterns, fewer than 2% reported being influenced by the PCPT. Sixty-four percent of urologists and 80% of PCPs never prescribe finasteride for prostate cancer chemoprevention; 55% of urologists cited concerns of inducing high-grade tumors, whereas 52% of PCPs did not know it could be used for chemoprevention. CONCLUSIONS: The number of men starting finasteride in the VHA increased over time, but the change did not seem to be due to increased use of finasteride for chemoprevention. Publication of the PCPT seemed to have little influence over the study period. IMPACT: Physicians may not readily accept the use of chemopreventive agents for prostate cancer.

Obesity and receipt of clinical preventive services in veterans.

Although obese individuals utilize health care at higher rates than their normal weight counterparts, they may be less likely to receive certain preventive services. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of veterans with visits to 136 national Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient clinics in the United States in the year 2000. The cohort included 1,699,219 patients: 94% men, 48% white, and 76% overweight or obese. Overweight and obese patients had higher adjusted odds of receiving each of the targeted clinical preventive services as recommended over 5 years compared with normal weight patients. The odds for receiving vaccinations increased linearly with BMI category: influenza (men: odds ratio (OR) = 1.13 for overweight to OR = 1.42 for obese class 3; women: OR = 1.15 for overweight to OR = 1.61 for obese class 3) and pneumococcus (men: OR = 1.02 for overweight to OR = 1.15 for obese class 3; women: OR = 1.08 for overweight to OR = 1.28 for obese class 3). The odds for receiving the cancer screening services typically peaked in the mild-moderately obese categories. The highest OR for prostate cancer screening was in obese class 2 (OR = 1.29); for colorectal cancer, obese class 1 (men: OR = 1.15; women OR = 1.10); for breast cancer screening, obese class 2 (OR = 1.19); and for cervical cancer screening, obese class 2 (OR = 1.06). In a large national sample, obese patients received preventive services at higher, not lower, rates than their normal weight peers. This may be due to the VA health service coverage and performance directives, a more homogeneous patient demographic profile, and/or unmeasured factors related to service receipt.

Design and dissemination of the MOVE! Weight-Management Program for Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Practitioners in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) identified comprehensive weight management as a high priority in early 2001. PROGRAM DESIGN: The MOVE! Weight-Management Program for Veterans was developed on the basis of published guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and other organizations. Testing of program feasibility occurred at 17 VHA sites, and the program was refined during early implementation throughout 2005. DISSEMINATION: MOVE! was disseminated nationally in January 2006. Local program coordinators and physician champions were named, and toolkits, online training, marketing materials, and ongoing field support were provided. EVALUATION: MOVE! has been implemented at nearly all VHA medical centers. By June 2008, more than 100,000 patients had participated in MOVE! during more than 500,000 visits. An evaluation based on an established framework is under way. CONCLUSION: MOVE! is an example of the large-scale translation of research into practice. It has the potential to reduce the burden of disease from obesity and related conditions.

The MD-MPH program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In 1997, the Schools of Medicine and Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) developed a formal MD-MPH program, called the Health Care and Prevention (HC&P) Program, located in the Public Health Leadership Program in the UNC School of Public Health. Since then, and especially since 2003, the number of UNC medical students taking a year out of their medical studies to pursue an MPH has increased dramatically. At present, more than 20% of UNC medical students enter an MPH program at some point between entering medical school and leaving for residency. The HC&P Program is designed to introduce clinicians to the population sciences and to create physicians who can think in both individual and population terms. The curriculum is a rigorous, 12-month program that includes a practicum experience and a master's paper. Several of the traditional MPH introductory courses have been redesigned to be more relevant to physicians. The program allows a maximum number of electives and places a value on flexibility so that students, together with faculty, can design the educational experience that best meets their needs. Many members of the faculty of the program themselves have both MD and MPH degrees, and some have dual appointments in the schools of medicine and public health. The authors have begun a longitudinal cohort study of program graduates and other medical graduates to understand the effect of the program on students' perceptions of their competency and their ability to exert leadership in various areas of population health.