Timing of State and Territorial COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders and Changes in Population Movement - United States, March 1-May 31, 2020.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is thought to spread from person to person primarily by the respiratory route and mainly through close contact (1). Community mitigation strategies can lower the risk for disease transmission by limiting or preventing person-to-person interactions (2). U.S. states and territories began implementing various community mitigation policies in March 2020. One widely implemented strategy was the issuance of orders requiring persons to stay home, resulting in decreased population movement in some jurisdictions (3). Each state or territory has authority to enact its own laws and policies to protect the public's health, and jurisdictions varied widely in the type and timing of orders issued related to stay-at-home requirements. To identify the broader impact of these stay-at-home orders, using publicly accessible, anonymized location data from mobile devices, CDC and the Georgia Tech Research Institute analyzed changes in population movement relative to stay-at-home orders issued during March 1-May 31, 2020, by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories.* During this period, 42 states and territories issued mandatory stay-at-home orders. When counties subject to mandatory state- and territory-issued stay-at-home orders were stratified along rural-urban categories, movement decreased significantly relative to the preorder baseline in all strata. Mandatory stay-at-home orders can help reduce activities associated with the spread of COVID-19, including population movement and close person-to-person contact outside the household.

Primary care colorectal cancer screening correlates with breast cancer screening: implications for colorectal cancer screening improvement interventions.

OBJECTIVE: National colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have plateaued. To optimize interventions targeting those unscreened, a better understanding is needed of how this preventive service fits in with multiple preventive and chronic care needs managed by primary care providers (PCPs). This study examines whether PCP practices of other preventive and chronic care needs correlate with CRC screening. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 90 PCPs and 33,137 CRC screening-eligible patients. Five PCP quality metrics (breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, HgbA1c and LDL testing, and blood pressure control) were measured. A baseline correlation test was performed between these metrics and PCP CRC screening rates. Multivariable logistic regression with clustering at the clinic-level estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for these PCP quality metrics, patient and PCP characteristics, and their relationship to CRC screening. RESULTS: PCP CRC screening rates have a strong correlation with breast cancer screening rates (r = 0.7414, p < 0.001) and a weak correlation with the other quality metrics. In the final adjusted model, the only PCP quality metric that significantly predicted CRC screening was breast cancer screening (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.11-1.42; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PCP CRC screening rates are highly concordant with breast cancer screening. CRC screening is weakly concordant with cervical cancer screening and chronic disease management metrics. Efforts targeting PCPs to increase CRC screening rates could be bundled with breast cancer screening improvement interventions to increase their impact and success.

Insurance Coverage for CT Colonography Screening: Impact on Overall Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates.

Purpose To compare overall colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates for patients who were eligible and due for CRC screening and who were with and without insurance coverage for computed tomographic (CT) colonography for CRC screening. Materials and Methods The institutional review board approved this retrospective cohort study, with a waiver of consent. This study used longitudinal electronic health record data from 2005 through 2010 for patients managed by one of the largest multispecialty physician groups in the United States. It included 33 177 patients under age 65 who were eligible and due for CRC screening and managed by the participating health system. Stratified Cox regression models provided propensity-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the relationship between CT colonography coverage and CRC screening. Results After adjustment, patients who had insurance coverage for CT colonography and were due for CRC screening had a 48% greater likelihood of being screened for CRC by any method compared with those without coverage who were due for CRC screening (HR, 1.48; 95% CI: 1.41, 1.55). Similarly, patients with CT colonography coverage had a greater likelihood of being screened with CT colonography (HR, 8.35; 95% CI: 7.11, 9.82) and with colonoscopy (HR, 1.38; 95% CI: 1.31, 1.45) but not with fecal occult blood test (HR, 1.00; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.10) than those without such insurance coverage. Conclusion Insurance coverage of CT colonography for CRC screening was associated with a greater likelihood of a patient being screened and a greater likelihood of being screened with a test that helps both to detect cancer and prevent cancer from developing (CT colonography or colonoscopy). © RSNA, 2017.

Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques.

BACKGROUND: Women are less successful than men in renewing R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health. Continuing to probe text mining as a tool to identify gender bias in peer review, we used algorithmic text mining and qualitative analysis to examine a sample of critiques from men's and women's R01 renewal applications previously analyzed by counting and comparing word categories. METHODS: We analyzed 241 critiques from 79 Summary Statements for 51 R01 renewals awarded to 45 investigators (64% male, 89% white, 80% PhD) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014. We used latent Dirichlet allocation to discover evaluative "topics" (i.e., words that co-occur with high probability). We then qualitatively examined the context in which evaluative words occurred for male and female investigators. We also examined sex differences in assigned scores controlling for investigator productivity. RESULTS: Text analysis results showed that male investigators were described as "leaders" and "pioneers" in their "fields," with "highly innovative" and "highly significant research." By comparison, female investigators were characterized as having "expertise" and working in "excellent" environments. Applications from men received significantly better priority, approach, and significance scores, which could not be accounted for by differences in productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirm our previous analyses suggesting that gender stereotypes operate in R01 grant peer review. Reviewers may more easily view male than female investigators as scientific leaders with significant and innovative research, and score their applications more competitively. Such implicit bias may contribute to sex differences in award rates for R01 renewals.

Primary Care Provider Perceptions of Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers: Implications for Designing Quality Improvement Interventions.

Aims. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Increasing CRC screening rates requires interventions targeting multiple barriers at each level of the healthcare organization (patient, provider, and system). We examined groups of primary care providers (PCPs) based on perceptions of screening barriers and the relationship to CRC screening rates to inform approaches for conducting barrier assessments prior to designing and implementing quality improvement interventions. Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking EHR and survey data. PCPs with complete survey responses for questions addressing CRC screening barriers were included (N = 166 PCPs; 39,430 patients eligible for CRC screening). Cluster analysis identified groups of PCPs. Multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for predictors of membership in one of the PCP groups. Results. We found two distinct groups: (1) PCPs identifying multiple barriers to CRC screening at patient, provider, and system levels (N = 75) and (2) PCPs identifying no major barriers to screening (N = 91). PCPs in the top half of CRC screening performance were more likely to identify multiple barriers than the bottom performers (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.43-7.08). Conclusions. High-performing PCPs can more effectively identify CRC screening barriers. Targeting high-performers when conducting a barrier assessment is a novel approach to assist in designing quality improvement interventions for CRC screening.

Predictors of primary care provider adoption of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening.

PURPOSE: To examine factors influencing primary care provider (PCP) adoption of CT colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study linking electronic health record (EHR) data with PCP survey data. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were not up-to-date with CRC screening and if they had CTC insurance coverage in the year prior to survey administration. PCPs were included if they had at least one eligible patient in their panel and completed the survey (final sample N = 95 PCPs; N = 6245 patients). Survey data included perceptions of CRC screening by any method, as well as CTC specifically. Multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for PCP and clinic predictors of CRC screening by any method and screening with CTC. RESULTS: Substantial variation in CTC use was seen among PCPs and clinics (range 0-16% of CRC screening). Predictors of higher CTC use were PCP perceptions that CTC is effective in reducing CRC mortality, higher number of perceived advantages to screening with CTC, and Internal Medicine specialty. Factors not associated with CTC use were PCP perceptions of less organizational capacity to meet demand for colonoscopy, number of perceived disadvantages to screening with CTC, PCP age and gender, and clinic factors. CONCLUSION: Significant variation in PCP adoption of CTC exists. PCP perceptions of CTC and specialty practice were related to CTC adoption. Strategies to increase PCP adoption of CTC for CRC screening should include emphasis on the effectiveness and advantages of CTC.

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

PURPOSE: Prior text analysis of R01 critiques suggested that female applicants may be disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review, particularly for renewals. NIH altered its review format in 2009. The authors examined R01 critiques and scoring in the new format for differences due to principal investigator (PI) sex. METHOD: The authors analyzed 739 critiques-268 from 88 unfunded and 471 from 153 funded applications for grants awarded to 125 PIs (76 males, 49 females) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014. The authors used seven word categories for text analysis: ability, achievement, agentic, negative evaluation, positive evaluation, research, and standout adjectives. The authors used regression models to compare priority and criteria scores, and results from text analysis for differences due to PI sex and whether the application was for a new (Type 1) or renewal (Type 2) R01. RESULTS: Approach scores predicted priority scores for all PIs' applications (P < .001), but scores and critiques differed significantly for male and female PIs' Type 2 applications. Reviewers assigned significantly worse priority, approach, and significance scores to female than male PIs' Type 2 applications, despite using standout adjectives (e.g., "outstanding," "excellent") and making references to ability in more critiques (P < .05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: The authors' analyses suggest that subtle gender bias may continue to operate in the post-2009 NIH review format in ways that could lead reviewers to implicitly hold male and female applicants to different standards of evaluation, particularly for R01 renewals.