A Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Hearing Screening in Primary Care Clinics: Effect of Setting and Provider Encouragement.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of hearing loss increases with age. Untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer communication abilities and negative health consequences, such as increased risk of dementia, increased odds of falling, and depression. Nonetheless, evidence is insufficient to support the benefits of universal hearing screening in asymptomatic older adults. The primary goal of the present study was to compare three hearing screening protocols that differed in their level of support by the primary care (PC) clinic and provider. The protocols varied in setting (in-clinic versus at-home screening) and in primary care provider (PCP) encouragement for hearing screening (yes versus no). DESIGN: We conducted a multisite, pragmatic clinical trial. A total of 660 adults aged 65 to 75 years; 64.1% female; 35.3% African American/Black completed the trial. Three hearing screening protocols were studied, with 220 patients enrolled in each protocol. All protocols included written educational materials about hearing loss and instructions on how to complete the self-administered telephone-based hearing screening but varied in the level of support provided in the clinic setting and by the provider. The protocols were as follows: (1) no provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, (2) provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, and (3) provider encouragement and clinical support to complete the hearing screening after the provider visit while in the clinic. Our primary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the hearing screening within 60 days of a routine PC visit. Secondary outcomes following patient access of hearing healthcare were also considered and consisted of the percentage of patients who completed and failed the screening and who (1) scheduled, and (2) completed a diagnostic evaluation. For patients who completed the diagnostic evaluation, we also examined the percentage of those who received a hearing loss intervention plan by a hearing healthcare provider. RESULTS: All patients who had provider encouragement and support to complete the screening in the clinic completed the screening (100%) versus 26.8% with encouragement to complete the screening at home. For patients who were offered hearing screening at home, completion rates were similar regardless of provider encouragement (26.8% with encouragement versus 22.7% without encouragement); adjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval 0.80-1.94). Regarding the secondary outcomes, roughly half (38.9-57.1% depending on group) of all patients who failed the hearing screening scheduled and completed a formal diagnostic evaluation. The percentage of patients who completed a diagnostic evaluation and received a hearing loss intervention plan was 35.0% to 50.0% depending on the group. Rates of a hearing loss intervention plan by audiologists ranged from 28.6% to 47.5% and were higher compared with those by otolaryngology providers, which ranged from 15.0% to 20.8% among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the pragmatic clinical trial showed that offering provider encouragement and screening facilities in the PC clinic led to a significantly higher rate of adherence with hearing screening associated with a single encounter. However, provider encouragement did not improve the significantly lower rate of adherence with home-based hearing screening.

Effect of Fluvoxamine vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of fluvoxamine to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice daily) for 10 days compared with placebo for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to test repurposed medications in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1288 participants aged 30 years or older with test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute COVID-19 for 7 days or less were enrolled between August 6, 2021, and May 27, 2022, at 91 sites in the US. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as the third day of 3 consecutive days without symptoms). There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite outcome of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death through day 28. Results: Among 1331 participants who were randomized (median age, 47 years [IQR, 38-57 years]; 57% were women; and 67% reported receiving ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1288 completed the trial (674 in the fluvoxamine group and 614 in the placebo group). The median time to sustained recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-14 days) in the fluvoxamine group and 13 days (IQR, 12-13 days) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% credible interval, 0.86-1.06], posterior P = .21 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR >1]). For the composite outcome, 26 participants (3.9%) in the fluvoxamine group were hospitalized, had an urgent care visit, had an emergency department visit, or died compared with 23 participants (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.1 [95% credible interval, 0.5-1.8], posterior P = .35 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR <1]). One participant in the fluvoxamine group and 2 participants in the placebo group were hospitalized; no deaths occurred in either group. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days, compared with placebo, did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of fluvoxamine at this dose and duration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost hearing screening (HS) is widely available, most older adults are not asked about hearing during health care visits. A promising approach to addressing unmet needs in hearing health care is HS in primary care (PC) clinics; most PC providers (PCPs) do not inquire about hearing loss. However, no cost assessment of HS in community PC settings has been conducted in the United States. Thus, this study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HS using results from a pragmatic clinic trial that compared three HS protocols that differed in the level of support and encouragement provided by the PC office and the PCPs to older adults during their routine visits. Two protocols included HS at home (one with PCP encouragement and one without) and one protocol included HS in the PC office. METHODS: Direct costs of the HS included costs of: (1) educational materials about hearing loss, (2) PCP educational and encouragement time, and (3) access to the HS system. Indirect costs for in-office HS included cost of space and minimal staff time. Costs were tracked and modeled for each phase of care during and following the HS, including completion of a diagnostic assessment and follow-up with the recommended treatment plan. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average cost per patient is highest in the patient group who completed the HS during their clinic visit, but the average cost per patient who failed the HS is by far the lowest in that group, due to the higher failure rate, that is, rate of identification of patients with suspected hearing loss. Estimated benefits of HS in terms of improvements in quality of life were also far greater when patients completed the HS during their clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Providing HS to older adults during their PC visit is cost-effective and accrues greater estimated benefits in terms of improved quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (Registration Identification Number: NCT02928107).

Cardiovascular risk and outcomes in symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease and non coronary vascular disease: A report from the PROMISE trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-coronary vascular disease (NCVD) is associated with adverse cardiovascular events. Little is known about physician risk assessment, prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD), cardiac catheterization, and the performance of the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score in patients with NCVD. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of outpatients with angina and no known CAD from the PROMISE trial. NCVD included carotid artery stenosis ≥50%, or history of stroke or peripheral artery disease. Multivariable models of physician estimates of the probability of obstructive CAD, prevalence of non-obstructive and obstructive CAD, referral to cardiac catheterization, and all-cause death/myocardial infarction/unstable angina were performed. RESULTS: Among 10,001 patients in the PROMISE trial, 379 (3.8%) patients had NCVD. Only 8.5% of participants with NCVD were categorized as high-risk for obstructive CAD by physicians, though 15.5% (25/161) had obstructive CAD in those randomized to coronary computed tomography (CTA). NCVD was independently associated with non-obstructive (aOR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.18-2.61; P = .006) but not obstructive CAD by CTA. Adjusted referral to cardiac catheterization was similar with and without NCVD (aOR 1.04; 95% CI 0.88-1.94, P = .19). NCVD was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death/MI/UA (aOR 2.03; 95% CI 1.37-3.01, P < .001). There was no interaction between NCVD status and ASCVD risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with NCVD and angina, NCVD had increased adjusted risks of CAD and adverse outcomes which were not well described by ASCVD risk score and were underrecognized by physicians. Increased awareness and better risk stratification tools for patients with NCVD may be necessary to recognize the associated CV risk and optimize diagnostic testing and therapies.

Options for Meaningful Engagement in Clinical Research for Busy Frontline Clinicians.

In order for health care innovations to be effective and actionable, they must align with the needs and practice patterns of those delivering care at the bedside. While research has started to incorporate the patient voice, it has yet to fully invest in the expertise of frontline clinicians. Frontline clinicians carry a wealth of clinical knowledge and the lived experience of providing real-world medical care that the research community seeks to improve. We consider options for clinicians as research stakeholders along a continuum of engagement as outlined by the UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute from minimal to supportive to participatory. In order to make an effective value proposition to support reallocation of clinician time to research engagement, we advocate evaluating the impact of clinicians as stakeholders at both the process level (e.g., clinician satisfaction, study recruitment rates) and endpoint level (e.g., clinical outcomes). Investing in clinicians as research stakeholders can offer benefits for the individual, health system, and population by increasing the generalizability, adoption, and sustainability of effective interventions.

A Survey of Primary Care Practices on Their Use of the Intensive Behavioral Therapy for Obese Medicare Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To fill the gap in knowledge on systematic differences between primary care practices (PCP) that do or do not provide intensive behavioral therapy (IBT) for obese Medicare patients. METHODS: A mixed modality survey (paper and online) of primary care practices obtained from a random sample of Medicare databases and a convenience sample of practice-based research network practices. KEY RESULTS: A total of 287 practices responded to the survey, including 140 (7.4% response rate) from the random sample and 147 (response rate not estimable) from the convenience sample. We found differences between the IBT-using and non-using practices in practice ownership, patient populations, and participation in Accountable Care Organizations. The non-IBT-using practices, though not billing for IBT, did offer some other assistance with obesity for their patients. Among those who had billed for IBT, but stopped billing, the most commonly cited reason was billing difficulties. Many providers experienced denied claims due to billing complexities. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services established payment codes for PCPs to deliver IBT for obesity in 2011, very few providers submitted fee-for-service claims for these services after almost 10 years. A survey completed by both a random and convenience sample of practices using and not using IBT for obesity payment codes revealed that billing for these services was problematic, and many providers that began using the codes discontinued using them over the past 7 years.

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to evaluate implementation effectiveness of a facilitated approach to an asthma shared decision making intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the evaluation of implementation effectiveness of an asthma shared decision making (SDM) intervention at the 10 individual facilitator-led primary care practices in the ADAPT-NC Study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: Practices were scored across 40 CFIR constructs within 5 domains using a previously published scoring system of -2 to +2. Based on overall construct scores, practices were then classified as high, medium, or low adopters. To evaluate clinical outcomes, changes in asthma exacerbations were assessed for emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and oral steroid prescription orders. Using regression analysis, the absolute change in percent for each outcome relative to the CFIR score for each practice was analyzed. (Trial registration #NCT02047929). RESULTS: Implementation effectiveness was reflected in CFIR score differences with 7 high, 1 medium, and 2 low adopter practices. High adopters mostly scored well across all domains. Weaknesses were consistent amongst the 2 low adopters with lower scores in the Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process domains. While no significant correlations were seen between the practices' CFIR scores and the absolute change in ED visits, hospitalizations, or oral steroid prescription orders, practices with higher percentages of children had greater improvements in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIR was used to evaluate the asthma SDM intervention implementation at 10 facilitator-led practices. While there was no significant correlation between higher implementation effectiveness and greater improvement in clinical outcomes, practices with a higher proportion of pediatric patients did experience a significant reduction in overall exacerbations post-implementation.

General Behavioral Engagement and Changes in Clinical and Cognitive Outcomes of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Using the Time2Focus Mobile App for Diabetes Education: Pilot Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes affects 30 million Americans, representing a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Self-management support is an important component of chronic illness care and is a key pillar of the chronic care model. Face-to-face teaching and patient education materials suffer from being static or incompatible with mobile lifestyles. Digital apps provide a self-management support alternative that is convenient and scalable. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study tested the real-world deployment of a self-guided mobile app for diabetes education (Time2Focus app; MicroMass Communications Inc, Cary, NC), which utilizes evidence-based content and gamification to deliver an interactive learning experience. METHODS: Primary care providers were approached for permission to invite their patients to participate. Eligible patients were 18 to 89 years of age, had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥8% and <12% in the past 3 months, an active online patient portal account (tied to the electronic health record), and access to an iOS or Android smartphone. Interested patients were emailed a baseline survey, and once this was completed, were sent instructions for downloading the Time2Focus app. After completing all 12 levels, participants were sent a follow-up survey. The primary outcome was the change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included medication adherence, self-care activities, self-reporting of physical activities, diabetes self-efficacy, illness perceptions, diabetes distress scale, and users' engagement with and rating of the app. RESULTS: Of 1355 potentially eligible patients screened, 201 were consented. Of these 201 patients, 101 (50.2%) did not download the app. Of the 100 participants (49.8%) who downloaded the app, 16 (16.0%) completed 0 levels, 26 (26.0%) completed 1 to 4 levels, 10 (10.0%) completed 5 to 11 levels, and 48 (48.0%) completed all 12 levels of the app and the follow-up survey. Those completing one or more levels had a mean pre/post-HbA1c change of -0.41% (compared to -0.32% among those who completed zero levels); however, the unadjusted two-tailed t test indicated no significant difference between the two groups (P=.73). Diabetes self-efficacy showed a large and significant increase during app usage for completers (mean change 1.28, P<.001, d=.83). Severity of illness perceptions showed a small but significant decrease during app usage for completers (mean change -0.51, P=.004, d=.43). Diabetes distress showed a small but significant decrease during app usage for completers (mean change -0.45, P=.006, d=.41). The net promoter score was 62.5, indicating that those who completed all levels of the app rated it highly and would recommend it to others. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who engaged in all 12 levels of the Time2Focus mobile app showed an improvement in diabetes self-efficacy and a decrease in severity of illness perceptions. The decrease in HbA1c observed in app users relative to nonusers during this limited pilot study was not statistically significant. However, uptake and application of lessons learned from self-management support may be delayed. Further research is needed to address how to increase engagement through self-management support and to investigate if follow up over a longer period demonstrates a significant change in outcomes such as HbA1c.

Comparative implementation-effectiveness of three strategies to perform hearing screening among older adults in primary care clinics: study design and protocol.

BACKGROUND: The burden of hearing loss among older adults could be mitigated with appropriate care. This study compares implementation of three hearing screening strategies in primary care, and examines the reliability and validity of patient self-assessment, primary care providers (PCP) and diagnostic audiologists in the identification of 'red flag' conditions (those conditions that may require medical consultation and/or intervention). METHODS: Six primary care practices will implement one of three screening strategies (2 practices per strategy) with 660 patients (220 per strategy) ages 65-75 years with no history of hearing aid use or diagnosis of hearing loss. Strategies differ on the location and use of PCP encouragement to complete a telephone-based hearing screen (tele-HS). Group 1: instructions for tele-HS to complete at home and educational materials on warning signs and consequences of hearing loss. Group 2: PCP counseling/encouragement on importance of hearing screening, instructions to take the tele-HS from home, educational materials. Group 3: PCP counseling/encouragement, in-office tele-HS, and educational materials. Patients from all groups who fail the tele-HS will be referred for diagnostic audiological testing and medical evaluation, and complete a self-assessment of red flag conditions at this follow-up appointment. Due to the expected low incidence of ear disease in the PCP cohort, we will enroll a complementary population of patients (N = 500) from selected otolaryngology head and neck surgery clinics in a national practice-based research network to increase the likelihood of occurrence of medical conditions that might contraindicate hearing aid fitting. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who complete the tele-HS within 2 months of the PCP appointment comparing Group 3 (PCP encouragement, in-office tele-HS, education) versus Groups 2 and 1 (education and tele-HS at home, with and without PCP encouragement, respectively). The several secondary outcomes include direct and indirect costs, patient, family and provider attitudes of hearing healthcare, and accuracy of red flag condition evaluations compared with expert medical assessment by an otolaryngology provider. DISCUSSION: Determining the relative effectiveness of three different strategies for hearing screening in primary care and the assessment accuracy of red flag conditions can each lead to practice and policy changes that will reduce individual, family and societal burden from hearing loss among older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02928107; 10/10/2016 protocol version 1.

Research nurses as practice facilitators to disseminate an asthma shared decision making intervention.

BACKGROUND: Practice facilitation is a method of introducing and sustaining organizational change. It involves the use of skilled healthcare professionals called practice facilitators (PFs) to help address the challenges associated with implementing evidence-based guidelines and complex interventions into practice. PFs provide a framework for translating research into practice by building relationships, improving communication, fostering change, and sharing resources. Nurses are well positioned to serve as PFs for the implementation of complex interventions, however, there is little evidence currently available to describe nurses in this role. Additionally, the best strategies to implement complex interventions into practices are still not fully understood. Combining practice facilitation with the train-the-trainer model has the potential to spread knowledge and skills. Shared decision making (SDM), which involves patients and providers jointly engaging in decisions around treatment options, has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with asthma. The goal of this manuscript is to describe and evaluate the practice facilitation process from the ADAPT-NC Study which successfully utilized research nurses to implement a complex asthma SDM toolkit intervention into primary care practices. METHODS: As part of a larger study, 10 primary care practices were recruited for a facilitator-led dissemination intervention involving a 12-week rollout of an asthma SDM toolkit (trial registration: 1.28.2014, #NCT02047929). An experienced lead PF trained research nurses as PFs from each of the 4 participating practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in a train-the-trainer model utilizing a one-day training event and subsequent remote meetings. Evaluation of PF engagement was measured through process improvement surveys. RESULTS: Overall, the asthma SDM intervention was successfully implemented within the 4 PBRNs. All 10 facilitator-led practices remained engaged with their PFs, with 8 out of the 10 practices able to incorporate and sustain SDM visits or clinics. Responses from the surveys for process improvement yielded improved PF communication and team dynamics over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated effective use of research nurses as practice facilitators during the dissemination of an asthma SDM intervention into primary care practices, adding to the knowledge of best practices by describing a model of large-scale implementation of a complex intervention through practice facilitation with nurses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: "Comparing Traditional and Participatory Dissemination of a Shared Decision Making Intervention" was retrospectively registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ on January 28th, 2014 (NCT02047929).

Sex differences in management and outcomes of patients with stable symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease: Insights from the PROMISE trial.

BACKGROUND: Although sex differences exist in the management of acute coronary syndromes, less is known about the management and outcomes of women and men with suspected coronary artery disease being evaluated with noninvasive testing (NIT). METHODS: We investigated sex-based differences in NIT results and subsequent clinical management in 4,720 women and 4,246 men randomized to CT angiography versus stress testing in the PROMISE trial. Logistic regression models assessed relationships between sex and referral for catheterization, revascularization, and aspirin or statin use. Cox regression models assessed the relationship between sex and the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina. RESULTS: Women more often had normal NITs than men (61.0% vs 49.6%, P < .001) and less often had mild (29.3% vs 35.4%, P < .001), moderate (4.0% vs 6.8%, P < .001), or severe abnormalities (5.7% vs 8.3%, P < .001) found on NIT. Women were less likely to be referred for catheterization than men (7.6% vs 12.6%, adjusted OR 0.75 [0.62-0.90]; P = .002). Of those who underwent catheterization within 90 days of randomization (358 women, 534 men), fewer women than men had obstructive coronary artery disease (40.8% vs 60.9%, P < .001). At a 60-day visit, women were significantly less likely than men to report statin use when indicated (adjusted OR 0.81 [0.73-0.91]; P < .001) but were similarly likely to report aspirin use when indicated (adjusted OR 0.78 [0.56-1.08]; P = .13). Over a median follow-up of 25 months, women had better outcomes than men (adjusted OR 0.73 [0.57-0.94]; P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Although women more frequently had normal NITs compared with men, those with abnormalities on NIT were less likely to be referred for catheterization or to receive statin therapy. The high rates of negative NIT in women, coupled with the better outcomes compared with men, strongly support the need for a sex-specific algorithm to guide NIT and chest pain management.

Asthma dissemination around patient-centered treatments in North Carolina (ADAPT-NC): a cluster randomized control trial evaluating dissemination of an evidence-based shared decision-making intervention for asthma management.

Objective: To compare three dissemination approaches for implementing an asthma shared decision-making (SDM) intervention into primary care practices. Methods: We randomized thirty practices into three study arms: (1) a facilitator-led approach to implementing SDM; (2) a one-hour lunch-and-learn training on SDM; and (3) a control group with no active intervention. Patient perceptions of SDM were assessed in the active intervention arms using a one-question anonymous survey. Logistic regression models compared the frequency of asthma exacerbations (emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and oral steroid prescriptions) between the three arms. Results: We collected 705 surveys from facilitator-led sites and 523 from lunch-and-learn sites. Patients were more likely to report that they participated equally with the provider in making the treatment decision in the facilitator-led sites (75% vs. 66%, p = 0.001). Comparisons of outcomes for patients in the facilitator-led (n = 1,658) and lunch-and-learn (n = 2,613) arms respectively vs. control (n = 2,273) showed no significant differences for ED visits (Odds Ratio [OR] [95%CI] = 0.77[0.57-1.04]; 0.83[0.66-1.07]), hospitalizations (OR [95%CI] = 1.30[0.59-2.89]; 1.40 [0.68-3.06]), or oral steroids (OR [95%CI] =0.95[0.79-1.15]; 1.03[0.81-1.06]). Conclusion: Facilitator-led dissemination was associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients sharing equally in decision-making with the provider compared to a traditional lunch-and-learn approach. While there was no significant difference in health outcomes between the three arms, the results were most likely confounded by a concurrent statewide asthma initiative and the pragmatic implementation of the intervention. These results offer support for the use of structured approaches such as facilitator-led dissemination of complex interventions into primary care practices.

Assessing Key Stakeholders' Knowledge, Needs, and Preferences for Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Plans.

Cancer survivorship care plans (SCPs) are endorsed to support quality care for cancer survivors, but uptake is slow. We assessed knowledge, needs, and preferences for SCP content and delivery from a wide variety of stakeholders. We focused SCP content for head and neck cancer as it is a disease prone to long-term side effects requiring management from multiple providers. We conducted telephone-based, qualitative interviews. We purposively sampled head and neck cancer survivors (n = 4), primary care physicians in the community (n = 5), and providers affiliated with a large academic medical center (n = 5) who treat head and neck cancer, cancer specialists (n = 6), and nurse practitioners/supportive care staff (n = 5). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using direct content analysis. Few participants reported personal experience with SCPs, but most supported the concept. Several key themes emerged: (1) perceived ambiguity regarding roles and responsibilities for SCPs, (2) a need to tailor the content and language based on the intended recipient, (3) documentation process should be as automated and streamlined as possible, (4) concerns about using the SCP to coordinate with outside providers, and (5) that SCPs would have added value as a "living document." We also report SCP-related issues that are unique to serving patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer. Effort is needed to tailor SCPs for different recipients and optimize their potential for successful implementation, impact on care outcomes, and sustainability. Many cancer survivors may not receive a SCP as part of routine care. Survivors could engage their health care team by requesting a SCP.

Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Many patients have symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease (CAD) and are often evaluated with the use of diagnostic testing, although there are limited data from randomized trials to guide care. METHODS: We randomly assigned 10,003 symptomatic patients to a strategy of initial anatomical testing with the use of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) or to functional testing (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress testing, or stress echocardiography). The composite primary end point was death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or major procedural complication. Secondary end points included invasive cardiac catheterization that did not show obstructive CAD and radiation exposure. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 60.8±8.3 years, 52.7% were women, and 87.7% had chest pain or dyspnea on exertion. The mean pretest likelihood of obstructive CAD was 53.3±21.4%. Over a median follow-up period of 25 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 164 of 4996 patients in the CTA group (3.3%) and in 151 of 5007 (3.0%) in the functional-testing group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.29; P=0.75). CTA was associated with fewer catheterizations showing no obstructive CAD than was functional testing (3.4% vs. 4.3%, P=0.02), although more patients in the CTA group underwent catheterization within 90 days after randomization (12.2% vs. 8.1%). The median cumulative radiation exposure per patient was lower in the CTA group than in the functional-testing group (10.0 mSv vs. 11.3 mSv), but 32.6% of the patients in the functional-testing group had no exposure, so the overall exposure was higher in the CTA group (mean, 12.0 mSv vs. 10.1 mSv; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic patients with suspected CAD who required noninvasive testing, a strategy of initial CTA, as compared with functional testing, did not improve clinical outcomes over a median follow-up of 2 years. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; PROMISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01174550.).

A Multilevel Approach to Stakeholder Engagement in the Formulation of a Clinical Data Research Network.

OBJECTIVES: To ensure meaningful engagement of stakeholders (patients, clinicians, and communities) in developing the Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network (MS-CDRN), we implemented a comprehensive, multilevel approach: (1) identify barriers to involving stakeholders in governance, network design, and implementation; (2) engage stakeholders in priority setting and research topic generation; (3) develop strategies to fully integrate stakeholders in CDRN governance and oversight; and (4) solicit guidance on patient-centered tools and strategies for recruiting research participants. METHODS: We engaged stakeholders: (1) as integral research team members; (2) on oversight and advisory committees; (3) as consultants (using Community Engagement Studios); and (4) through interviews and surveys. We recruited stakeholders from community health centers, churches, barbershops, health fairs, a volunteer registry, and a patient portal. We prioritized recruitment from populations often underrepresented in research. RESULTS: During the first 18 months, we engaged 5670 stakeholders in developing the MS-CDRN. These were research team members and on governance committees (N=10), consultants (N=58), survey respondents (N=5543), and interviewees (N=59). Stakeholders identified important barriers and facilitators to engagement, developed stakeholder-informed policies, provided feedback on priority topics and research questions, and developed an intake process for data requests and interventional studies that included reviewing for appropriate patient-centeredness, patient engagement, and dissemination. DISCUSSION: Multilevel stakeholder engagement is a novel systematic approach to developing a meaningful patient-centered and patient-engaged research program. This approach allows ongoing input from highly engaged stakeholders while leveraging focused input from larger, more diverse groups to enhance the patient-centeredness of research and increase relevance to broader audiences.

Clinicians' perspectives on and interest in participating in a clinical data research network across the Southeastern United States.

BACKGROUND: Partnerships between clinicians and researchers could increase the generalizability of research findings and increase uptake of research results across populations. Yet engaging clinicians in research is challenging. Clinical Data Research Networks (CDRNs) provide access to a broad array of clinical data, patients, clinicians and health systems by building on existing health records (EHRs) to facilitate multi-site community engaged research (CEnR). METHODS: A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design was employed. Sixty semi-structured interviews with clinicians from various disciplines and healthcare settings were conducted using five open-ended questions. Inductive content analysis was used to identify emerging themes in the data. RESULTS: We identified the following emerging themes: 1) Research with relevance and benefits to clinics and provider's patient population; 2) Difficulties of engaging in research with existing patient care demands; 3) Clear and continuous two-way communication about research, coordinated with provider and clinic needs; 4) Tailored compensation approaches meet provider preferences; 5) Increasing clinician awareness about Clinical Data Research Networks (CDRNs). CONCLUSION: Our interview study provides insight into community clinician perspectives on Clinical Data Research Networks, indicating motivations and challenges to research involvement including consequences of time spent on research participation, barriers to expanding research and meaningful involvement in research governance. Findings can be used to guide the development of strategies to better engage providers in research in clinical settings, which could ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Patient, Provider, and Combined Interventions for Managing Osteoarthritis in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: A single-site study showed that a combined patient and provider intervention improved outcomes for patients with knee osteoarthritis, but it did not assess separate effects of the interventions. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patient-based, provider-based, and patient-provider interventions improve osteoarthritis outcomes. DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial with assignment to patient, provider, and patient-provider interventions or usual care. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01435109). SETTING: 10 Duke University Health System community-based primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: 537 outpatients with symptomatic hip or knee osteoarthritis. INTERVENTION: The telephone-based patient intervention focused on weight management, physical activity, and cognitive behavioral pain management. The provider intervention involved electronic delivery of patient-specific osteoarthritis treatment recommendations to providers. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were objective physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery) and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire). Linear mixed models assessed the difference in improvement among groups. RESULTS: No difference was observed in WOMAC score changes from baseline to 12 months in the patient (-1.5 [95% CI, -5.1 to 2.0]; P = 0.40), provider (2.5 [CI, -0.9 to 5.9]; P = 0.152), or patient-provider (-0.7 [CI, -4.2 to 2.8]; P = 0.69) intervention groups compared with usual care. All groups had improvements in WOMAC scores at 12 months (range, -3.7 to -7.7). In addition, no differences were seen in objective physical function or depressive symptoms at 12 months in any of the intervention groups compared with usual care. LIMITATIONS: The study involved 1 health care network. Data on provider referrals were not collected. CONCLUSION: Contrary to a previous study of a combined patient and provider intervention for osteoarthritis in a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center, this study found no statistically significant improvements in the osteoarthritis intervention groups compared with usual care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

Patients Receiving Integrative Medicine Effectiveness Registry (PRIMIER) of the BraveNet practice-based research network: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Integrative medicine (IM) provides patient-centered care and addresses the full range of physical, emotional, mental, social, spiritual, and environmental influences that affect a person's health. IM is a "whole systems" approach that employs multiple modalities as opposed to an isolated complementary therapy. Thus, studying outcomes of IM is more challenging than evaluating an isolated intervention. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) allow for clinicians/investigators at multiple diverse sites using common methodology to pool their data, increase participant sample size and increase generalizability of results. To conduct real-world, practice-based research, the Bravewell Collaborative founded BraveNet in 2007 as the first national integrative medicine PBRN. METHODS AND DESIGN: Patients Receiving Integrative Medicine Effectiveness Registry (PRIMIER) is a prospective, non-randomized, observational evaluation conducted at fourteen clinical sites. Participants receive a non-standardized, personalized, multimodal IM approach for various medical conditions. Using the REDCap electronic platform, an anticipated 10,000 study participants will complete patient-reported outcome measures including Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29, Perceived Stress Scale-4, and the Patient Activation Measure at baseline, 2, 4, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Extractions from participants' electronic health records include IM services received, as well as ICD diagnostic codes, and CPT billing codes associated with each IM visit. Repeated-measures analyses will be performed on data to assess change from baseline through 24 months with planned subgroup analyses to include specific clinical population and specific IM intervention or combinations. DISCUSSION: As the PRIMIER registry grows, we anticipate that our results would provide an indication of the promise of PBRN research efforts in IM. Analyses will incorporate a large sample of participants and an expected 10-year observation period and will provide the ability to evaluate the effect of IM on outcomes for specific clinical populations and specific IM interventions or combinations. As such, PRIMIER will serve as a national platform for future evaluations of IM best practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT01754038.

Supervised vs unsupervised exercise for intermittent claudication: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Supervised exercise (SE) is widely accepted as an effective therapy for intermittent claudication (IC), but its use is limited by cost. Unsupervised exercise (UE) represents a less costly alternative. We assessed the comparative effectiveness of SE vs UE in patients with IC. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and identified 27 unique studies (24 randomized controlled trials, 4 observational studies) that evaluated the comparative effectiveness of SE vs UE in 2074 patients with IC. Compared with UE, SE was associated with a moderate improvement in maximal walking distance at 6 months (effect size 0.77, 95% CI 0.36-1.17, P < .001) and 12 months (effect size 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.77, P < .001). Supervised exercise also improved claudication distance to a moderate extent compared with UE at 6 months (effect size 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.85, P < .001) and 12 months (effect size 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.65, P = .001). There was no difference in the Short Form-36 quality of life at 6 months (effect size -0.05, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.41, P = .84) or walking impairment questionnaire distance (effect size 0.24, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.50, P = .08) or speed (effect size 0.26, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.59, P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: In claudication patients, SE is more effective than UE at improving maximal walking and claudication distances, yet there is no difference in general quality of life or patient-reported community-based walking. Further studies are needed to investigate the relationship between functional gain and disease-specific quality of life.