Effects of the Million Hearts Model on Myocardial Infarctions, Strokes, and Medicare Spending: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Million Hearts Model paid health care organizations to assess and reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Model effects on long-term outcomes are unknown. Objective: To estimate model effects on first-time myocardial infarctions (MIs) and strokes and Medicare spending over a period up to 5 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic cluster-randomized trial ran from 2017 to 2021, with organizations assigned to a model intervention group or standard care control group. Randomized organizations included 516 US-based primary care and specialty practices, health centers, and hospital-based outpatient clinics participating voluntarily. Of these organizations, 342 entered patients into the study population, which included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 40 to 79 years with no previous MI or stroke and with high or medium CVD risk (a 10-year predicted probability of MI or stroke [ie, CVD risk score] ≥15%) in 2017-2018. Intervention: Organizations agreed to perform guideline-concordant care, including routine CVD risk assessment and cardiovascular care management for high-risk patients. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid organizations to calculate CVD risk scores for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. CMS further rewarded organizations for reducing risk among high-risk beneficiaries (CVD risk score ≥30%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included first-time CVD events (MIs, strokes, and transient ischemic attacks) identified in Medicare claims, combined first-time CVD events from claims and CVD deaths (coronary heart disease or cerebrovascular disease deaths) identified using the National Death Index, and Medicare Parts A and B spending for CVD events and overall. Outcomes were measured through 2021. Results: High- and medium-risk model intervention beneficiaries (n = 130 578) and standard care control beneficiaries (n = 88 286) were similar in age (median age, 72-73 y), sex (58%-59% men), race (7%-8% Black), and baseline CVD risk score (median, 24%). The probability of a first-time CVD event within 5 years was 0.3 percentage points lower for intervention beneficiaries than control beneficiaries (3.3% relative effect; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 [90% CI, 0.93-1.00]; P = .09). The 5-year probability of combined first-time CVD events and CVD deaths was 0.4 percentage points lower in the intervention group (4.2% relative effect; HR, 0.96 [90% CI, 0.93-0.99]; P = .02). Medicare spending for CVD events was similar between the groups (effect estimate, -$1.83 per beneficiary per month [90% CI, -$3.97 to -$0.30]; P = .16), as was overall Medicare spending including model payments (effect estimate, $2.11 per beneficiary per month [90% CI, -$16.66 to $20.89]; P = .85). Conclusions and Relevance: The Million Hearts Model, which encouraged and paid for CVD risk assessment and reduction, reduced first-time MIs and strokes. Results support guidelines to use risk scores for CVD primary prevention. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04047147.

Family Planning Reminder Systems: An Updated Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: The objective of this systematic review was to update a prior review and summarize the evidence on the impact of family planning reminder systems (e.g., daily text messages reminding oral contraception users to take a pill). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Multiple databases, including PubMed, were searched during 2016-2017 for articles published from March 1, 2011, to November 30, 2016, describing studies of reminder systems. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search strategy identified 24,953 articles, of which two studies met the inclusion criteria. In total with the initial review, four studies (including two RCTs) examined reminder systems among oral contraception users, with two of three that examined correct use finding a statistically significant positive impact, and one RCT finding a positive impact on knowledge and continuation. Of three studies (including two RCTs) that examined reminder systems among depot medroxyprogesterone acetate users, one of three that examined correct use found a statistically significant positive impact on timely injections at 3 months, and one study found no effect on continued use at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Although this review found mixed support for the effectiveness of reminder systems on family planning behaviors, the highest quality evidence yielded null findings related to correct use of oral contraception and timely depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injections beyond 3 months, and found positive findings related to oral contraception continuation and knowledge. Future studies would be strengthened by objectively measuring outcomes and examining additional contraceptive methods and outcomes at least 12 months post-intervention. THEME INFORMATION: This article is part of a theme issue entitled Updating the Systematic Reviews Used to Develop the U.S. Recommendations for Providing Quality Family Planning Services, which is sponsored by the Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Clinic-Based Programs to Prevent Repeat Teen Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: The purpose of this paper is to synthesize and evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of repeat teen pregnancy prevention programs offered in clinical settings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Multiple databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published from January 1985 to April 2016 that included key terms related to adolescent reproductive health services. Analysis of these studies occurred in 2017. Studies were excluded if they focused solely on sexually transmitted disease/HIV prevention services, or occurred outside of a clinic setting or the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. Inclusion and exclusion criteria further narrowed the studies to those that included information on at least one short-term (e.g., increased knowledge); medium-term (e.g., increased contraceptive use); or long-term (e.g., decreased repeat teen pregnancy) outcome, or identified contextual barriers or facilitators for providing adolescent-focused family planning services. Standardized abstraction methods and tools were used to synthesize the evidence and assess its quality. Only studies of clinic-based programs focused on repeat teen pregnancy prevention were included in this review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search strategy identified 27,104 citations, 940 underwent full-text review, and 120 met the adolescent-focused family planning services inclusion criteria. Only five papers described clinic-based programs focused on repeat teen pregnancy prevention. Four studies found positive (n=2) or null (n=2) effects on repeat teen pregnancy prevention; an additional study described facilitators for helping teen mothers remain linked to services. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified clinic-based repeat teen pregnancy prevention programs and few positively affect factors that may reduce repeat teen pregnancy. Access to immediate postpartum contraception or home visiting programs may be opportunities to meet adolescents where they are and reduce repeat teen pregnancy. THEME INFORMATION: This article is part of a theme issue entitled Updating the Systematic Reviews Used to Develop the U.S. Recommendations for Providing Quality Family Planning Services, which is sponsored by the Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Youth-Friendly Family Planning Services for Young People: A Systematic Review Update.

CONTEXT: Youth-friendly family planning services may improve youth reproductive health outcomes. A systematic review conducted in 2011 was updated in 2016 to incorporate recent data examining the effects of youth-friendly family planning services on reproductive health outcomes and the facilitators and barriers facing young people in accessing family planning services. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, POPLINE, EMBASE, and other databases were used to identify relevant articles published from March 2011 through April 2016. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria and were added to 19 studies from the review conducted in 2011. Of these, seven assessed the effect of youth-friendly services on outcomes: two showed a positive effect on reducing teen pregnancy, three on contraceptive use, and three on knowledge and patient satisfaction (not mutually exclusive). Facilitators or barriers were described in 32 studies. However, none were RCTs and most were at high risk for bias due to selection, self-report, and recall bias among others. CONCLUSIONS: The studies in this review suggest some positive effects of youth-friendly family planning services on reproductive health outcomes, but the need for more rigorous research persists. This review identified numerous factors relevant to young people's access to family planning services, reaffirming findings from the initial review: young people value confidentiality, supportive provider interaction, specialized provider training, and the removal of logistic barriers. Further, it illuminates the importance young people place on receiving comprehensive, client-centered family planning counseling. These findings should be considered when developing, implementing, and evaluating reproductive health services for young people. THEME INFORMATION: This article is part of a theme issue entitled Updating the Systematic Reviews Used to Develop the U.S. Recommendations for Providing Quality Family Planning Services, which is sponsored by the Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Community Education and Engagement in Family Planning: Updated Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Community education and engagement are important for informing family planning projects. The objective of this study was to update two prior systematic reviews assessing the impact of community education and engagement interventions on family planning outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Sixteen electronic databases were searched for studies relevant to a priori determined inclusion/exclusion criteria in high development settings, published from March 2011 through April 2016, updating two reviews that included studies from 1985 through February 2011. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nine relevant studies were included in this updated review related to community education, in addition to 17 from the prior review. No new community engagement studies met inclusion criteria, as occurred in the prior review. Of new studies, community education modalities included mass media, print/mail, web-based, text messaging, and interpersonal interventions. One study on mass media intervention demonstrated a positive impact on reducing teen and unintended pregnancies. Three of four studies on interpersonal interventions demonstrated positive impacts on medium-term family planning outcomes, such as contraception and condom use. Three new studies demonstrated mostly positive, but inconsistent, results on short-term family planning outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this systematic review update are in line with a previous review showing the positive impact of community education using traditional modalities on short-term family planning outcomes, identifying additional impacts on long-term outcomes, and highlighting new evidence for education using modern modalities, such as text messaging and web-based education. More research is necessary to provide a stronger evidence base for directing community education and engagement efforts in family planning contexts. THEME INFORMATION: This article is part of a theme issue entitled Updating the Systematic Reviews Used to Develop the U.S. Recommendations for Providing Quality Family Planning Services, which is sponsored by the Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Quality Primary Care and Family Planning Services for LGBT Clients: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Guidelines.

LGBT clients have unique healthcare needs but experience a wide range of quality in the care that they receive. This study provides a summary of clinical guideline recommendations related to the provision of primary care and family planning services for LGBT clients. In addition, we identify gaps in current guidelines, and inform future recommendations and guidance for clinical practice and research. PubMed, Cochrane, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality electronic bibliographic databases, and relevant professional organizations' websites, were searched to identify clinical guidelines related to the provision of primary care and family planning services for LGBT clients. Information obtained from a technical expert panel was used to inform the review. Clinical guidelines meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed to determine their alignment with Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards for the development of clinical practice guidelines and content relevant to the identified themes. The search parameters identified 2,006 clinical practice guidelines. Seventeen clinical guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Two of the guidelines met all eight IOM criteria. However, many recommendations were consistent regarding provision of services to LGBT clients within the following themes: clinic environment, provider cultural sensitivity and awareness, communication, confidentiality, coordination of care, general clinical principles, mental health considerations, and reproductive health. Guidelines for the primary and family planning care of LGBT clients are evolving. The themes identified in this review may guide professional organizations during guideline development, clinicians when providing care, and researchers conducting LGBT-related studies.

Providing quality family planning services to LGBTQIA individuals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex and asexual (LGBTQIA) individuals have unique sexual and reproductive health needs; however, facilitators and barriers to optimal care are largely understudied. The objective of this study was to synthesize findings from a systematic review of the literature regarding the provision of quality family planning services to LGBTQIA clients to inform clinical and research strategies. STUDY DESIGN: Sixteen electronic bibliographic databases (e.g., PubMed, PSYCinfo) were searched to identify articles published from January 1985 to April 2016 relevant to the analytic framework. RESULTS: The search parameters identified 7193 abstracts; 19 descriptive studies met inclusion criteria. No studies assessed the impact of an intervention serving LGBTQIA clients on client experience, behavior or health outcomes. Two included studies focused on the perspectives of health care providers towards LGBTQIA clients. Of the 17 studies that documented client perspectives, 12 elucidated factors facilitating a client's ability to enter into care, and 13 examined client experience during care. Facilitators to care included access to a welcoming environment, clinicians knowledgeable about LGBTQIA needs and medical confidentiality. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found a paucity of evidence on provision of quality family planning services to LGBTQIA clients. However, multiple contextual facilitators and barriers to family planning service provision were identified. Further research is needed to assess interventions designed to assist LGBTQIA clients in clinical settings, and to gain a better understanding of effective education for providers, needs of specific subgroups (e.g., asexual individuals) and the role of the client's partner during receipt of care.