Lessons Learned: Recruiting Research Participants from an Underrepresented Patient Population at a Safety Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to clinical research studies is challenging, especially when conducted in safety net settings. We sought to compare the efficacy of different recruitment strategies in an NIH-funded study assessing treatment burden in patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). METHODS: Targeted mailing, in-person table-based recruitment ("tabling") in the waiting room, and telephone calling were used to enroll subjects into one of two studies of treatment burden: a survey study to validate a brief measure of treatment burden for quality assessment (study 1) or a qualitative study to develop a treatment burden clinical communication tool (study 2). RESULTS: Over 50% of subjects in each study were African American or African immigrants. In study 1, the enrollment goal of 200 was reached within 4 months. Tabling enrolled 78.5% of patients, while the remainder (21.5%) were enrolled from phone calls to eligible patients identified through the electronic medical record (EMR). In study 2, 340 eligible patients were identified through the EMR, and 7 (2.1%) were successfully enrolled via mailed invitations and responses. Retention rates (66% in study 1 and 71% in study 2) were reasonable in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Study recruiting goals in our safety net population were rapidly reached using the tabling method, which had substantively higher enrollment rates than mailings or telephone calls based on EMR reports. Future trials could compare recruitment strategies across settings and clinical populations.

Enrolling people of color to evaluate a practice intervention: lessons from the shared decision-making for atrial fibrillation (SDM4AFib) trial.

BACKGROUND: Trial recruitment of Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) is key for interventions that interact with socioeconomic factors and cultural norms, preferences, and values. We report on our experience enrolling BIPOC participants into a multicenter trial of a shared decision-making intervention about anticoagulation to prevent strokes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We enrolled patients with AF and their clinicians in 5 healthcare systems (three academic medical centers, an urban/suburban community medical center, and a safety-net inner-city medical center) located in three states (Minnesota, Alabama, and Mississippi) in the United States. Clinical encounters were randomized to usual care with or without a shared decision-making tool about anticoagulation. ANALYSIS: We analyzed BIPOC patient enrollment by site, categorized reasons for non-enrollment, and examined how enrollment of BIPOC patients was promoted across sites. RESULTS: Of 2247 patients assessed, 922 were enrolled of which 147 (16%) were BIPOC patients. Eligible Black participants were significantly less likely (p < .001) to enroll (102, 11%) than trial-eligible White participants (185, 15%). The enrollment rate of BIPOC patients varied by site. The inclusion and prioritization of clinical practices that care for more BIPOC patients contributed to a higher enrollment rate into the trial. Specific efforts to reach BIPOC clinic attendees and prioritize their enrollment had lower yield. CONCLUSIONS: Best practices to optimize the enrollment of BIPOC participants into trials that examined complex and culturally sensitive interventions remain to be developed. This study suggests a high yield from enrolling BIPOC patients from practices that prioritize their care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905032).

Deriving and validating a brief measure of treatment burden to assess person-centered healthcare quality in primary care: a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: In primary care there is a need for more quality measures of person-centered outcomes, especially ones applicable to patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). The aim of this study was to derive and validate a short-form version of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS), an established measure of treatment burden, to help fill the gap in quality measurement. METHODS: Patient interviews (30) and provider surveys (30) were used to winnow items from the PETS (60 items) to a subset targeting person-centered care quality. Results were reviewed by a panel of healthcare providers and health-services researchers who finalized a pilot version. The Brief PETS was tested in surveys of 200 clinic and 200 community-dwelling MCC patients. Surveys containing the Brief PETS and additional measures (e.g., health status, medication adherence, quality of care, demographics) were administered at baseline and follow-up. Correlations and t-tests were used to assess validity, including responsiveness to change of the Brief PETS. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated on mean differences. RESULTS: Winnowing and panel review resulted in a 34-item Brief PETS pilot measure that was tested in the combined sample of 400 (mean age = 57.9 years, 50% female, 48% white, median number of conditions = 5). Reliability of most scales was acceptable (alpha > 0.70). Brief PETS scores were associated with age, income, health status, and quality of chronic illness care at baseline (P < .05; rho magnitude range: 0.16-0.66). Furthermore, Brief PETS scores differentiated groups based on marital and education status, presence/absence of a self-management routine, and optimal/suboptimal medication adherence (P < .05; ES range: 0.25-1.00). Declines in patient-reported physical or mental health status over time were associated with worsening PETS burden scores, while improvements were associated with improving PETS burden scores (P < .05; ES range: 0.04-0.44). Among clinic patients, 91% were willing to complete the Brief PETS as part of their clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: The Brief PETS (final version: 32 items) is a reliable and valid tool for assessing person-centered care quality related to treatment burden. It holds promise as a means of giving voice to patient concerns about the complexity of disease management.

Development and acceptability of PETS-Now, an electronic point-of-care tool to monitor treatment burden in patients with multiple chronic conditions: a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a web-based tool for patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) to communicate concerns about treatment burden to their healthcare providers. METHODS: Patients and providers from primary-care clinics participated. We conducted focus groups to identify content for a prototype clinical tool to screen for treatment burden by reviewing domains and items from a previously validated measure, the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS). Following review of the prototype, a quasi-experimental pilot study determined acceptability of using the tool in clinical practice. The study protocol was modified to accommodate limitations due to the Covid-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with MCC and 18 providers participated in focus groups to review existing PETS content. The pilot tool (named PETS-Now) consisted of eight domains (Living Healthy, Health Costs, Monitoring Health, Medicine, Personal Relationships, Getting Healthcare, Health Information, and Medical Equipment) with each domain represented by a checklist of potential concerns. Administrative burden was minimized by limiting patients to selection of one domain. To test acceptability, 17 primary-care providers first saw 92 patients under standard care (control) conditions followed by another 90 patients using the PETS-Now tool (intervention). Each treatment burden domain was selected at least once by patients in the intervention. No significant differences were observed in overall care quality between patients in the control and intervention conditions with mean care quality rated high in both groups (9.3 and 9.2, respectively, out of 10). There were no differences in provider impressions of patient encounters under the two conditions with providers reporting that patient concerns were addressed in 95% of the visits in both conditions. Most intervention group patients (94%) found that the PETS-Now was easy to use and helped focus the conversation with the provider on their biggest concern (98%). Most providers (81%) felt they had learned something new about the patient from the PETS-Now. CONCLUSION: The PETS-Now holds promise for quickly screening and monitoring treatment burden in people with MCC and may provide information for care planning. While acceptable to patients and clinicians, integration of information into the electronic medical record should be prioritized.

Shared decision making for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common ongoing health problem that places patients at risk of stroke. Whether and how a patient addresses this risk depends on each patient's goals, context, and values. Consequently, leading cardiovascular societies recommend using shared decision making (SDM) to individualize antithrombotic treatment in patients with AF. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool promotes high-quality SDM and influences anticoagulation uptake and adherence in patients with AF at risk of strokes. METHODS: This study protocol describes a multicenter, encounter-level, randomized trial to assess the effect of using the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool in the clinical encounter, compared to usual care. The participating centers include an academic hospital system, a suburban community group practice, and an urban safety net hospital, all in Minnesota, USA. Patients with ongoing nonvalvular AF at risk of strokes (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 1 in men, or ≥ 2 in women) will be eligible for participation. We aim to include 999 patients and their clinicians. The primary outcome is the quality of SDM as perceived by participants, and as assessed by a post-encounter survey that ascertains (a) knowledge transfer, (b) concordance of the decision made, (c) quality of communication, and (d) satisfaction with the decision-making process. Recordings of encounters will be reviewed to assess the extent of patient involvement and how participants use the tool (fidelity). Anticoagulant use, choice of agent, and adherence will be drawn from patients' medical and pharmacy records. Strokes and bleeding events will be drawn from patient records. DISCUSSION: This study will provide a valid and precise measure of the effect of the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool on SDM quality and processes, and on the treatment choices and adherence to therapy among AF patients at risk of stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032 . Registered on 9 September 2016.