Expanding a Behavioral View on Digital Health Access: Drivers and Strategies to Promote Equity.

The potential and threat of digital tools to achieve health equity has been highlighted for over a decade, but the success of achieving equitable access to health technologies remains challenging. Our paper addresses renewed concerns regarding equity in digital health access that were deepened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our viewpoint is that (1) digital health tools have the potential to improve health equity if equitable access is achieved, and (2) improving access and equity in digital health can be strengthened by considering behavioral science-based strategies embedded in all phases of tool development. Using behavioral, equity, and access frameworks allowed for a unique and comprehensive exploration of current drivers of digital health inequities. This paper aims to present a compilation of strategies that can potentially have an actionable impact on digital health equity. Multilevel factors drive unequal access, so strategies require action from tool developers, individual delivery agents, organizations, and systems to effect change. Strategies were shaped with a behavioral medicine focus as the field has a unique role in improving digital health access; arguably, all digital tools require the user (individual, provider, and health system) to change behavior by engaging with the technology to generate impact. This paper presents a model that emphasizes using multilevel strategies across design, delivery, dissemination, and sustainment stages to advance digital health access and foster health equity.

Recruitment Strategies in the Integration of Mobile Health Into Sickle Cell Disease Care to Increase Hydroxyurea Utilization Study (meSH): Multicenter Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxyurea is an evidence-based disease-modifying therapy for sickle cell disease (SCD) but is underutilized. The Integration of Mobile Health into Sickle Cell Disease Care to Increase Hydroxyurea Utilization (meSH) multicenter study leveraged mHealth to deliver targeted interventions to patients and providers. SCD studies often underenroll; and recruitment strategies in the SCD population are not widely studied. Unanticipated events can negatively impact enrollment, making it important to study strategies that ensure adequate study accrual. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate enrollment barriers and the impact of modified recruitment strategies among patients and providers in the meSH study in response to a global emergency. METHODS: Recruitment was anticipated to last 2 months for providers and 6 months for patients. The recruitment strategies used with patients and providers, new recruitment strategies, and recruitment rates were captured and compared. To document recruitment adaptations and their reasons, study staff responsible for recruitment completed an open-ended 9-item questionnaire eliciting challenges to recruitment and strategies used. Themes were extrapolated using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Total enrollment across the 7 sites included 89 providers and 293 patients. The study acceptance rate was 85.5% (382/447) for both patients and providers. The reasons patients declined participation were most frequently a lack of time and interest in research, while providers mostly declined because of self-perceived high levels of SCD expertise, believing they did not need the intervention. Initially, recruitment involved an in-person invitation to participate during clinic visits (patients), staff meetings (providers), or within the office (providers). We identified several important recruitment challenges, including (1) lack of interest in research, (2) lack of human resources, (3) unavailable physical space for recruitment activities, and (4) lack of documentation to verify eligibility. Adaptive strategies were crucial to alleviate enrollment disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These included remote approaching and consenting (eg, telehealth, email, and telephone) for patients and providers. Additionally, for patients, recruitment was enriched by simplification of enrollment procedures (eg, directly approaching patients without a referral from the provider) and a multitouch method (ie, warm introductions with flyers, texts, and patient portal messages). We found that patient recruitment rates were similar between in-person and adapted (virtual with multitouch) approaches (167/200, 83.5% and 126/143, 88.1%, respectively; P=.23). However, for providers, recruitment was significantly higher for in-person vs remote recruitment (48/50, 96% and 41/54, 76%, respectively, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found that timely adaptation in recruitment strategies secured high recruitment rates using an assortment of enriched remote recruitment strategies. Flexibility in approach and reducing the burden of enrollment procedures for participants aided enrollment. It is important to continue identifying effective recruitment strategies in studies involving patients with SCD and their providers and the impact and navigation of recruitment challenges. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT03380351; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03380351. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/16319.

Associations of geographic-based socioeconomic factors and HPV vaccination among male and female children in five US states.

BACKGROUND: We assessed whether five geographic-based socioeconomic factors (medically underserved area (MUA); healthcare provider shortage area (HPSA); persistent poverty; persistent child poverty; and social vulnerability index (SVI)) were associated with the odds of HPV vaccination initiation, series completion, and parental vaccine hesitancy, and whether the observed relationships varied by gender of the child. METHODS: An online panel service, administered through Qualtrics®, was used to recruit parents of adolescents 9-17 years of age to complete a one-time survey in 2021. Coverage of the panel included five US states: Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Southern Illinois. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to assess population-level associations between five geographic-based socioeconomic factors (MUA; HPSA; persistent poverty; persistent child poverty; and SVI) and three HPV vaccination outcomes (initiation, series completion, and hesitancy). All GEE models were adjusted for age of child and clustering at the state level. RESULTS: Analyses were conducted using responses from 926 parents about their oldest child in the target age range (9-17 years). The analytic sample consisted of 471 male children and 438 female children across the five states. In adjusted GEE models, persistent child poverty and HPSA were negatively associated with HPV vaccination initiation and series completion among female children, respectively. Among male children, high social vulnerability was negatively associated with HPV vaccine series completion. Additionally, persistent poverty and high social vulnerability were negatively associated with HPV vaccine hesitancy in male children. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that geographic-based socioeconomic factors, particularly, HPSA, persistent poverty, and SVI, should be considered when implementing efforts to increase HPV vaccine coverage for adolescents. The approaches to targeting these geographic factors should also be evaluated in future studies to determine if they need to be tailored for male and female children.

The association of caregiver attitudes, information sources, and trust with HPV vaccine initiation among adolescents.

This study described caregiver attitudes and the information sources they access about HPV vaccination for adolescents and determined their influence on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination initiation. An online survey was administered to 1,016 adults in July 2021. Participants were eligible if they were the caregiver of a child aged 9-17 residing in Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and select counties in Southern Illinois. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the association of caregiver attitudes and information sources with HPV vaccination. Information from doctors or healthcare providers (87.4%) and internet sources other than social media (31.0%) were the most used sources for HPV vaccine information. The highest proportion of caregivers trusted their doctor or healthcare providers (92.4%) and family or friends (68.5%) as sources of information. The HPV vaccine series was more likely to be initiated in children whose caregivers agreed that the vaccine is beneficial (AOR = 4.39, 95% CI = 2.05, 9.39), but less likely with caregivers who were concerned about side effects (AOR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.42, 0.88) and who received HPV vaccination information from family or friends (AOR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.93). This study found that caregivers' attitudes, information sources, and trust in those sources were associated with their adolescent's HPV vaccination status. These findings highlight the need to address attitudes and information sources and suggest that tailored interventions considering these factors could increase HPV vaccination rates.

Multicomponent Strategy Improves Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Rates Among Adolescents with Sickle Cell Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a vaccine strategy bundle to increase human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine initiation and completion in a specialty clinic setting. STUDY DESIGN: Our Hematology clinic utilized an implementation framework from October 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, involving nurses, nursing coordinators, and clinicians in administering the HPV vaccination series to our adolescent sickle cell sample of nearly 500 patients. The bundle included education for staff on the need for HPV vaccine administration, provider incentives, vaccines offered to patients in SCD clinics, and verification of patients' charts of vaccine completion. RESULTS: Following the implementation of the bundle, the cumulative incidence of HPV vaccination initiation and completion improved from 28% to 46% and 7% to 49%, respectively. Both rates remained higher postimplementation as well. HPV vaccination series completion was associated with a decreased distance to the health care facility, lower state deprivation rank, and increased hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: Our clinic's implementation strategy successfully improved vaccine completion rates among adolescents with sickle cell disease (SCD) while continuing to educate staff, patients, and families on the importance of cancer prevention among people living with SCD.

Self-sampling tools to increase cancer screening among underserved patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening can reduce cancer mortality, but uptake is suboptimal and characterized by disparities. Home-based self-sampling can facilitate screening for colorectal cancer (with stool tests, eg, fecal immunochemical tests) and for cervical cancer (with self-collected human papillomavirus tests), especially among patients who face barriers to accessing health care. Additional data are needed on feasibility and potential effects of self-sampling tools for cancer screening among underserved patients. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with patients (female, ages 50-65 years, out of date with colorectal and cervical cancer screening) recruited from federally qualified health centers in rural and racially segregated counties in Pennsylvania. Participants in the standard-of-care arm (n = 24) received screening reminder letters. Participants in the self-sampling arm (n = 24) received self-sampling tools for fecal immunochemical tests and human papillomavirus testing. We assessed uptake of screening (10-week follow-up), self-sampling screening outcomes, and psychosocial variables. Analyses used Fisher exact tests to assess the effect of study arm on outcomes. RESULTS: Cancer screening was higher in the self-sampling arm than the standard-of-care arm (colorectal: 75% vs 13%, respectively, odds ratio = 31.32, 95% confidence interval = 5.20 to 289.33; cervical: 79% vs 8%, odds ratio = 72.03, 95% confidence interval = 9.15 to 1141.41). Among participants who returned the self-sampling tools, the prevalence of abnormal findings was 24% for colorectal and 18% for cervical cancer screening. Cancer screening knowledge was positively associated with uptake (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Self-sampling tools can increase colorectal and cervical cancer screening among unscreened, underserved patients. Increasing the use of self-sampling tools can improve primary care and cancer detection among underserved patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: STUDY00015480.

A multilevel mHealth intervention boosts adherence to hydroxyurea in individuals with sickle cell disease.

Hydroxyurea reduces sickle cell disease (SCD) complications, but medication adherence is low. We tested 2 mobile health (mHealth) interventions targeting determinants of low adherence among patients (InCharge Health) and low prescribing among providers (HU Toolbox) in a multi-center, non-randomized trial of individuals with SCD ages 15-45. We compared the percentage of days covered (PDC), labs, healthcare utilization, and self-reported pain over 24 weeks of intervention and 12 weeks post-study with a 24-week preintervention interval. We enrolled 293 patients (51% male; median age 27.5 years, 86.8% HbSS/HbSß0-thalassemia). The mean change in PDC among 235 evaluable subjects increased (39.7% to 56.0%; P < 0.001) and sustained (39.7% to 51.4%, P < 0.001). Mean HbF increased (10.95% to 12.78%; P = 0.03). Self-reported pain frequency reduced (3.54 to 3.35 events/year; P = 0.041). InCharge Health was used ≥1 day by 199 of 235 participants (84.7% implementation; median usage: 17% study days; IQR: 4.8-45.8%). For individuals with ≥1 baseline admission for pain, admissions per 24 weeks declined from baseline through 24 weeks (1.97 to 1.48 events/patient, P = 0.0045) and weeks 25-36 (1.25 events/patient, P = 0.0015). PDC increased with app use (P < 0.001), with the greatest effect in those with private insurance (P = 0.0078), older subjects (P = 0.033), and those with lower pain interference (P = 0.0012). Of the 89 providers (49 hematologists, 36 advanced care providers, 4 unreported), only 11.2% used HU Toolbox ≥1/month on average. This use did not affect change in PDC. Tailoring mHealth solutions to address barriers to hydroxyurea adherence can potentially improve adherence and provide clinical benefits. A definitive randomized study is warranted. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04080167.

Provider prescription of hydroxyurea in youth and adults with sickle cell disease: A review of prescription barriers and facilitators.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited red blood cell disorder associated with frequent painful events and organ damage. Hydroxyurea (HU) is the recommended evidence-based treatment of SCD. However, among patients eligible for HU, prescription rates are low. Utilizing a scoping review approach, we summarized and synthesized relevant findings regarding provider barriers and facilitators to the prescription of HU in youth and adults with SCD and provided suggestions for future implementation strategies to improve prescription rates. Relevant databases were searched using specified search terms. Articles reporting provider barriers and/or facilitators to prescribing HU were included. A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Common barriers to the prescription of HU identified by providers included: doubts around patients' adherence to HU and their engaging in required testing, concerns about side effects, lack of knowledge, cost and patient concerns about side effects. Facilitators to the prescription of HU included beliefs in the effectiveness of HU, provider demographics and knowledge. Findings suggest significant provider biases exist, particularly in the form of negative perceptions towards patients' ability to adhere to taking HU and engaging in the required follow-up. Improving provider knowledge and attitudes towards HU and SCD may help improve low prescription rates.

Understanding disruptions in cancer care to reduce increased cancer burden.

Background: This study seeks to understand how and for whom COVID-19 disrupted cancer care to understand the potential for cancer health disparities across the cancer prevention and control continuum. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, participants age 30+residing in an 82-county region in Missouri and Illinois completed an online survey from June-August 2020. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables separately and by care disruption status. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to determine the correlates of care disruption. Results: Participants (N=680) reported 21% to 57% of cancer screening or treatment appointments were canceled/postponed from March 2020 through the end of 2020. Approximately 34% of residents stated they would need to know if their doctor's office is taking the appropriate COVID-related safety precautions to return to care. Higher education (OR = 1.26, 95% CI:1.11-1.43), identifying as female (OR = 1.60, 95% CI:1.12-2.30), experiencing more discrimination in healthcare settings (OR = 1.40, 95% CI:1.13-1.72), and having scheduled a telehealth appointment (OR = 1.51, 95% CI:1.07-2.15) were associated with higher odds of care disruption. Factors associated with care disruption were not consistent across races. Higher odds of care disruption for White residents were associated with higher education, female identity, older age, and having scheduled a telehealth appointment, while higher odds of care disruption for Black residents were associated only with higher education. Conclusions: This study provides an understanding of the factors associated with cancer care disruption and what patients need to return to care. Results may inform outreach and engagement strategies to reduce delayed cancer screenings and encourage returning to cancer care. Funding: This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute's Administrative Supplements for P30 Cancer Center Support Grants (P30CA091842-18S2 and P30CA091842-19S4). Kia L. Davis, Lisa Klesges, Sarah Humble, and Bettina Drake were supported by the National Cancer Institute's P50CA244431 and Kia L. Davis was also supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Callie Walsh-Bailey was supported by NIMHD T37 MD014218. The content does not necessarily represent the official view of these funding agencies and is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Strategies to Bridge Equitable Implementation of Telehealth.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid scaling of telehealth limited the extent to which proactive planning for equitable implementation was possible. The deployment of telehealth will persist in the postpandemic era, given patient preferences, advances in technologies, growing acceptance of telehealth, and the potential to overcome barriers to serve populations with limited access to high-quality in-person care. However, aspects and unintended consequences of telehealth may leave some groups underserved or unserved, and corrective implementation plans that address equitable access will be needed. The purposes of this paper are to (1) describe equitable implementation in telehealth and (2) integrate an equity lens into actionable equitable implementation.

Symptom management care pathway adaptation process and specific adaptation decisions.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial heterogeneity in symptom management provided to pediatric patients with cancer. The primary objective was to describe the adaptation process and specific adaptation decisions related to symptom management care pathways based on clinical practice guidelines. The secondary objective evaluated if institutional factors were associated with adaptation decisions. METHODS: Fourteen previously developed symptom management care pathway templates were reviewed by an institutional adaptation team composed of two clinicians at each of 10 institutions. They worked through each statement for all care pathway templates sequentially. The institutional adaptation team made the decision to adopt, adapt or reject each statement, resulting in institution-specific symptom management care pathway drafts. Institutional adaption teams distributed the 14 care pathway drafts to their respective teams; their feedback led to care pathway modifications. RESULTS: Initial care pathway adaptation decision making was completed over a median of 4.2 (interquartile range 2.0-5.3) weeks per institution. Across all institutions and among 1350 statements, 551 (40.8%) were adopted, 657 (48.7%) were adapted, 86 (6.4%) were rejected and 56 (4.1%) were no longer applicable because of a previous decision. Most commonly, the reason for rejection was not agreeing with the statement (70/86, 81.4%). Institutional-level factors were not significantly associated with statement rejection. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptability of the 14 care pathways was evident by most statements being adopted or adapted. The adaptation process was accomplished over a relatively short timeframe. Future work should focus on evaluation of care pathway compliance and determination of the impact of care pathway-consistent care on patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04614662. Registered 04/11/2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04614662?term=NCT04614662&draw=2&rank=1 .

Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control.

BACKGROUND: In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. METHODS: In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. RESULTS: Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.

Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Care Within a Community-Based Health Care System.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary lung cancer care is assumed to improve care delivery by increasing transparency, objectivity, and shared decision making; however, there is a lack of high-level evidence demonstrating its benefits, especially in community-based health care systems. We used implementation and team science principles to establish a colocated multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic in a large community-based health care system and evaluated patient experience and outcomes within and outside this clinic. METHODS: We conducted a prospective frequency-matched comparative effectiveness study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02123797) evaluating the thoroughness of lung cancer staging, receipt of stage-appropriate treatment, and survival between patients receiving care in the multidisciplinary clinic and those receiving usual serial care. Target enrollment was 150 patients on the multidisciplinary arm and 300 on the serial care arm. We frequency-matched patients by clinical stage, performance status, insurance type, race, and age. RESULTS: A total of 526 patients were enrolled: 178 on the multidisciplinary arm and 348 on the serial care arm. After adjusting for other factors, multidisciplinary patients had significantly higher odds (odds ratio [OR]: 2.3 [95% CI, 1.5 to 3.4]) of trimodality staging compared with serial care. Patients on the multidisciplinary arm also had higher odds of receiving invasive stage confirmation (OR: 2.0 [95% CI, 1.4 to 3.1]) and mediastinal stage confirmation (OR: 1.9 [95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8]). Additionally, patients receiving multidisciplinary care were significantly more likely to receive stage-appropriate treatment (OR: 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1 to 3.0]). We found no significant difference in overall or progression-free survival between study arms. CONCLUSION: The multidisciplinary clinic delivered significant improvements in evidence-based quality care on multiple levels. Even in the absence of a demonstrable survival benefit, these findings provide a strong rationale for recommending this model of care.

Cancer disparities in the context of rurality: risk factors and screening across various U.S. rural classification codes.

PURPOSE: Prior cancer research is limited by inconsistencies in defining rurality. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of cancer risk factors and cancer screening behaviors across various county-based rural classification codes, including measures reflecting a continuum, to inform our understanding of cancer disparities according to the extent of rurality. METHODS: Using an ecological cross-sectional design, we examined differences in cancer risk factors and cancer screening behaviors from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and National Health Interview Survey (2008-2013) across rural counties and between rural and urban counties using four rural-urban classification codes for counties and county-equivalents in 2013: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, National Center for Health Statistics, USDA Economic Research Service's rural-urban continuum codes, and Urban Influence Codes. RESULTS: Although a rural-to-urban gradient was not consistently evident across all classification codes, the prevalence of smoking, obesity, physical inactivity, and binge alcohol use increased (all ptrend < 0.03), while colorectal, cervical and breast cancer screening decreased (all ptrend < 0.001) with increasing rurality. Differences in the prevalence of risk factors and screening behaviors across rural areas were greater than differences between rural and urban counties for obesity (2.4% vs. 1.5%), physical activity (2.9% vs. 2.5%), binge alcohol use (3.4% vs. 0.4%), cervical cancer screening (6.8% vs. 4.0%), and colorectal cancer screening (4.4% vs. 3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Rural cancer disparities persist across multiple rural-urban classification codes, with marked variation in cancer risk factors and screening evident within rural regions. Focusing only on a rural-urban dichotomy may not sufficiently capture subpopulations of rural residents at greater risk for cancer and cancer-related mortality.

The Influence of Race, Sex, and Social Disadvantage on Self-reported Health in Patients Presenting With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to better address sociodemographic-related health disparities. This study examined which sociodemographic variables most strongly correlate with self-reported health in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. DESIGN: This single-center, cross-sectional study examined adult patients, followed by a physiatrist for chronic (≥4 yrs) musculoskeletal pain. Sociodemographic variables considered were race, sex, and disparate social disadvantage (measured as residential address in the worst vs. best Area Deprivation Index national quartile). The primary comparison was the adjusted effect size of each variable on physical and behavioral health (measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]). RESULTS: In 1193 patients (age = 56.3 ± 13.0 yrs), disparate social disadvantage was associated with worse health in all domains assessed (PROMIS Physical Function Β = -2.4 points [95% confidence interval = -3.8 to -1.0], Pain Interference = 3.3 [2.0 to 4.6], Anxiety = 4.0 [1.8 to 6.2], and Depression = 3.7 [1.7 to 5.6]). Black race was associated with greater anxiety than white race (3.2 [1.1 to 5.3]), and female sex was associated with worse physical function than male sex (-2.5 [-3.5 to -1.5]). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with race and sex, social disadvantage is more consistently associated with worse physical and behavioral health in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Investment to ameliorate disadvantage in geographically defined communities may improve health in sociodemographically at-risk populations.

Opioid use and social disadvantage in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

BACKGROUND: Historically, marginalized patients were prescribed less opioid medication than affluent, white patients. However, because of persistent differential access to nonopioid pain treatments, this direction of disparity in opioid prescribing may have reversed. OBJECTIVE: To compare social disadvantage and health in patients with chronic pain who were managed with versus without chronic opioid therapy. It was hypothesized that patients routinely prescribed opioids would be more likely to live in socially disadvantaged communities and report worse health. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a retrospective cohort defined from medical records from 2000 to 2019. SETTING: Single tertiary safety net medical center. PATIENTS: Adult patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain who were managed longitudinally by a physiatric group practice from at least 2011 to 2015 (n = 1173), subgrouped by chronic (≥4 years) adherent opioid usage (n = 356) versus no chronic opioid usage (n = 817). INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the unadjusted between-group difference in social disadvantage, defined by living in the worst national quartile of the Area Deprivation Index (ADI). An adjusted effect size was also calculated using logistic regression, with age, sex, race, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference and Physical Function scores as covariates. Secondary outcomes included adjusted differences in health by chronic opioid use (measured by PROMIS). RESULTS: Patients managed with chronic opioid therapy were more likely to live in a zip code within the most socially disadvantaged national quartile (34.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 29.9-39.9%; vs. 24.9%; 95% CI 21.9-28.0%; P < .001), and social disadvantage was independently associated with chronic opioid use (odds ratio [OR] 1.01 per ADI percentile [1.01-1.02]). Opioid use was also associated with meaningfully worse PROMIS Depression (3.8 points [2.4-5.1]), Anxiety (3.0 [1.4-4.5]), and Pain Interference (2.6 [1.7-3.5]) scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patients prescribed chronic opioid treatment were more likely to live in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods, and chronic opioid use was independently associated with worse behavioral health. Improving access to multidisciplinary, nonopioid treatments for chronic pain may be key to successfully overcoming the opioid crisis.

Multilevel Associations with Cancer Screening Among Women in Rural, Segregated Communities Within the Northeastern USA: a Mixed-Methods Study.

We recruited women (primarily non-Hispanic White) from 14 rural, segregated counties in a Northeastern US state for an explanatory sequential study: 100 women (ages 50-65 years) completed a survey, and 16 women participated in focus groups. We sought to identify personal (e.g., healthcare mistrust) and environmental (e.g., travel time to healthcare providers) factors related to colorectal and cervical cancer screening. Quantitatively, 89% of participants were up-to-date for cervical screening, and 65% for colorectal screening. Factors interacted such that compounding barriers were associated with lower odds of screening (e.g., insurance status and healthcare mistrust: interaction p = .02 for cervical; interaction p = .05 for colorectal). Qualitatively, three themes emerged regarding barriers to screening: privacy concerns, logistical barriers, and lack of trust in adequacy of healthcare services. While cancer screening was common in rural, segregated counties, women who reported both environmental and personal barriers to screening had lower uptake. Future interventions to promote screening can target these barriers.

Identifying barriers to evidence-based care for sickle cell disease: results from the Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium cross-sectional survey of healthcare providers in the USA.

OBJECTIVES: Sickle cell disease (SCD) leads to chronic and acute complications that require specialised care to manage symptoms and optimise clinical results. The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) evidence-based guidelines assist providers in caring for individuals with SCD, but adoption of these guidelines by providers has not been optimal. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to treating individuals with SCD. METHODS: The SCD Implementation Consortium aimed to investigate the perception and level of comfort of providers regarding evidence-based care by surveying providers in the regions of six clinical centres across the USA, focusing on non-emergency care from the providers' perspective. RESULTS: Respondents included 105 providers delivering clinical care for individuals with SCD. Areas of practice were most frequently paediatrics (24%) or haematology/SCD specialist (24%). The majority (77%) reported that they were comfortable managing acute pain episodes while 63% expressed comfort with managing chronic pain. Haematologists and SCD specialists showed higher comfort levels prescribing opioids (100% vs 67%, p=0.004) and managing care with hydroxyurea (90% vs 51%, p=0.005) compared with non-haematology providers. Approximately 33% of providers were unaware of the 2014 NHLBI guidelines. Nearly 63% of providers felt patients' medical needs were addressed while only 22% felt their mental health needs were met. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of providers did not know about NHLBI's SCD care guidelines. Barriers to providing care for patients with SCD were influenced by providers' specialty, training and practice setting. Increasing provider knowledge could improve hydroxyurea utilisation, pain management and mental health support.

Barriers to symptom management care pathway implementation in pediatric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Objectives were to describe barriers to pediatric cancer symptom management care pathway implementation and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research evaluating their implementation. METHODS: We included 25 pediatric oncology hospitals in the United States that supported a grant submission to perform a cluster randomized trial in which the intervention encompassed care pathways for symptom management. A survey was distributed to site principal investigators prior to randomization to measure contextual elements related to care pathway implementation. Questions included the inner setting measures of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), study-specific potential barriers and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare characteristics of institutions that agreed that their department supported the implementation of symptom management care pathways vs. institutions that did not agree. RESULTS: Of the 25 sites, one withdrew because of resource constraints and one did not respond, leaving 23 institutions. Among the seven CFIR constructs, the least supported was implementation climate; 57% agreed there was support, 39% agreed there was recognition and 39% agreed there was prioritization for symptom management care pathway implementation at their institution. Most common barriers were lack of person-time to create care pathways and champion their use (35%), lack of interest from physicians (30%) and lack of information technology resources (26%). Most sites reported no negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across research activities. Sites with fewer pediatric cancer patients were more likely to agree that staff are supported to implement symptom management care pathways (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were lack of support, recognition and prioritization. The COVID-19 pandemic may not be a major barrier to clinical research activities in pediatric oncology.