Qualitative Interviews to Add Patient Perspectives in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Improvements in a Learning Health System.

Health systems are interested in increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates as CRC is a leading cause of preventable cancer death. Learning health systems are ones that use data to continually improve care. Data can and should include qualitative local perspectives to improve patient and provider education and care. This study sought to understand local perspectives on CRC screening to inform future strategies to increase screening rates across our integrated health system. Health insurance plan members who were eligible for CRC screening were invited to participate in semi-structured phone interviews. Qualitative content analysis was conducted using an inductive approach. Forty member interviews were completed and analyzed. Identified barriers included ambivalence about screening options (e.g., "If it had the same performance, I'd rather do home fecal sample test. But I'm just too skeptical [so I do the colonoscopy]."), negative prior CRC screening experiences, and competing priorities. Identified facilitators included a positive general attitude towards health (e.g., "I'm a rule follower. There are certain things I'll bend rules. But certain medical things, you just got to do."), social support, a perceived risk of developing CRC, and positive prior CRC screening experiences. Study findings were used by the health system leaders to inform the selection of CRC screening outreach and education strategies to be tested in a future simulation model. For example, the identified barrier related to ambivalence about screening options led to a proposed revision of outreach materials that describe screening types more clearly.

In Their Own Words: Content Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Responses for a More Nuanced, Local Understanding of Mental Illness Stigma.

This content analysis seeks to extend what is already known in nursing and public health about the stigma attached to mental illness, and further understand the following evaluation question: How do members of communities targeted by Make It OK, a community initiative to reduce mental illness stigma, describe that stigma? The analysis of responses to open-ended questions included in a community-based survey followed deductive and inductive coding based on published frameworks and survey responses. The domains of stigma were categorized as actions toward people living with mental illness, beliefs about mental illness, and beliefs about people living with mental illness. These identified constructs build on the existing literature base of mental illness stigma in nursing and public health, illuminate the nuance of stigma, and can help tailor anti-stigma efforts.

Primary care clinicians' opinions before and after implementation of cancer screening and prevention clinical decision support in a clinic cluster-randomized control trial: a survey research study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR)-linked clinical decision support (CDS) may impact primary care clinicians' (PCCs') clinical care opinions. As part of a clinic cluster-randomized control trial (RCT) testing a cancer prevention and screening CDS system with patient and PCC printouts (with or without shared decision-making tools [SDMT]) for patients due for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening and/or human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination compared to usual care (UC), we surveyed PCCs at study clinics pre- and post-CDS implementation. Our primary aim was to learn if PCCs' opinions changed over time within study arms. Secondary aims including examining whether PCCs' opinions in study arms differed both pre- and post-implementation, and gauging PCCs' opinions on the CDS in the two intervention arms. METHODS: This study was conducted within a healthcare system serving an upper Midwestern population. We administered pre-implementation (11/2/2017-1/24/2018) and post-implementation (2/2/2020-4/9/2020) cross-sectional electronic surveys to PCCs practicing within a RCT arm: UC; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. Bivariate analyses compared responses between study arms at both time periods and longitudinally within study arms. RESULTS: Pre-implementation (53%, n = 166) and post-implementation (57%, n = 172) response rates were similar. No significant differences in PCC responses were seen between study arms on cancer prevention and screening questions pre-implementation, with few significant differences found between study arms post-implementation. However, significantly fewer intervention arm clinic PCCs reported being very comfortable with discussing breast cancer screening options with patients compared to UC post-implementation, as well as compared to the same intervention arms pre-implementation. Other significant differences were noted within arms longitudinally. For intervention arms, these differences related to CDS areas like EHR alerts, risk calculators, and ordering screening. Most intervention arm PCCs noted the CDS provided overdue screening alerts to which they were unaware. Few PCCs reported using the CDS, but most would recommend it to colleagues, expressed high CDS satisfaction rates, and thought patients liked the CDS's information and utility. CONCLUSIONS: While appreciated by PCCs with high satisfaction rates, the CDS may lower PCCs' confidence regarding discussing patients' breast cancer screening options and may be used irregularly. Future research will evaluate the impact of the CDS on cancer prevention and screening rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly promoted for use in routine orthopaedic care with the expectation that if they are made available during encounters, they will be incorporated into clinical practice. We investigated an initiative in which PROMs were systematically collected and provided via the electronic health record but were infrequently used. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a qualitative study, we asked: (1) Why are PROM results not being used in clinical care when they are available to surgeons? (2) What aspects of PROMs are seen as useful for clinical care? (3) How are PROMs generally perceived by surgeons and orthopaedic leaders? METHODS: A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single health system in an urban setting using semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of orthopaedic surgeons and leaders who would have substantial knowledge of and experience with the organization's PROM system, which was embedded in the electronic health record and developed for use in clinical care but was not being used. We included surgeons whose practices consisted of at least 90% patients with osteoarthritis, including surgical and nonsurgical management, and thus their patients would be completing PROMs surveys, or surgeons who were leaders in one of the three orthopaedic divisions in the health plan. The senior research manager for orthopaedics identified 14 potential participants meeting these criteria, 11 of whom agreed to study participation. Participants included nine surgeons and two orthopaedic leaders; the majority were men, with a median of 13 years of clinical practice. Study interviews were conducted by an experienced interviewer not known to participants, in private conference rooms in the healthcare setting, and a median (range) of 27 minutes (16 to 40) in length. A content analysis approach was employed for data analysis, with thematic inductive saturation reached in the analysis and attention to trustworthiness and rigor during the analytic process. RESULTS: Interviewees reported that PROM scores are not being used in patient clinical care because of logistical barriers, such as access and display issues and the time required, and perceptual barriers, such as concerns about patient understanding and the validity and reliability of measures. Surgeons preferred talking with patients about the personal outcomes patients had identified as important; most patients preferred to assess progress toward their own goals than PROMs scores for other people. Surgeons also identified changes that could facilitate PROM use and reduce barriers in clinical care, including pushing PROM scores to physicians' inboxes, developing inserts for physician notes, using easy-to-understand graphical displays, and engaging patients about PROMs earlier in the care process. Participants all agreed that PROMs in aggregate use are valuable for the organization, department, and individual surgeons, but individual patient scores are not. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of PROMs, there are important barriers to incorporating and using PROMs in clinical care. Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using or incorporating them into their clinical practice can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value for the clinician, patient, or organization. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Involving front-line orthopaedic surgeons and leaders in shaping the design and structure of PROM systems is important for use in clinical care, but these interviewees seemed to see aggregate data as more valuable than individual patient scores.

Is Shared Decision-making Associated with Better Patient-reported Outcomes? A Longitudinal Study of Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although shared decision-making (SDM) has knowledge and satisfaction benefits for patients and is promising, we lack data demonstrating that SDM is associated with better patient-reported functional outcomes. Such data would support the integration and prioritization of SDM into all aspects of orthopaedic care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is a measure of SDM before total joint arthroplasty associated with better patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year postoperatively? (2) What is the relationship between the measure of SDM and two measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and patient likelihood of recommending the provider) at 1 year postoperatively? METHODS: In this observational longitudinal survey-based study, patients receiving an initial THA or TKA from a large, multispecialty medical group in the Midwestern United States were surveyed after they were scheduled for surgery and again at 12 months after their procedure. The three-item collaboRATE measure of SDM was added to existing patient surveys of PROMs. However, the surgeons and their department had no organized approach to SDM during this time. The surveys also included the Oxford knee or hip score and two validated measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and whether a patient would recommend the provider). Of the 2779 eligible primary joint arthroplasties that occurred from April 23, 2018 to May 1, 2019, 48% (1334 procedures; 859 TKAs and 485 THAs) of the patients responded to both the preoperative and 12-month postoperative surveys. Most of the patients who were included in the analytic sample were white (93%; 1255 of 1344), with only 3% (37) using Medicaid benefits at the time of surgery. Differences between responders and nonresponders were present and explored in an analysis. Patient responses were analyzed in regression models to estimate the association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford knee or hip scores, and patient experience measures 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There was a moderate, positive association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford scores at 12 months, after adjustment for potential confounders such as patient age and preoperative functional score (ß = 0.58; 95% CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.01). Similarly, patients with preoperative collaboRATE scores had marginally higher patient experience scores at 12 months postoperatively (ß = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05-0.24; p = 0.003) and were more likely to recommend their surgeon (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.84; p = 0.005). The patient experience measures were also modestly correlated with collaboRATE scores in cross-sectional associations, both preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively (0.29 ≤ r ≤ 0.54; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and Oxford hip or knee scores suggests that SDM could be one tool to encourage better outcomes. Although previous studies have shown that SDM can improve patient experience, the lack of a strong correlation in our study suggests that PROMs and experience measures are separate domains, at least partly. Improving preoperative SDM between the surgeon and patient might help improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing TKA and THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Clinician perceptions of a clinical decision support system to reduce cardiovascular risk among prediabetes patients in a predominantly rural healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: The early detection and management of uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors among prediabetes patients can prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). Prediabetes increases the risk of CVD, which is a leading cause of death in the United States. CVD clinical decision support (CDS) in primary care settings has the potential to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with prediabetes while potentially saving clinicians time. The objective of this study is to understand primary care clinician (PCC) perceptions of a CDS system designed to reduce CVD risk in adults with prediabetes. METHODS: We administered pre-CDS implementation (6/30/2016 to 8/25/2016) (n = 183, 61% response rate) and post-CDS implementation (6/12/2019 to 8/7/2019) (n = 131, 44.5% response rate) independent cross-sectional electronic surveys to PCCs at 36 randomized primary care clinics participating in a federally funded study of a CVD risk reduction CDS tool. Surveys assessed PCC demographics, experiences in delivering prediabetes care, perceptions of CDS impact on shared decision making, perception of CDS impact on control of major CVD risk factors, and overall perceptions of the CDS tool when managing cardiovascular risk. RESULTS: We found few significant differences when comparing pre- and post-implementation responses across CDS intervention and usual care (UC) clinics. A majority of PCCs felt well-prepared to discuss CVD risk factor control with patients both pre- and post-implementation. About 73% of PCCs at CDS intervention clinics agreed that the CDS helped improve risk control, 68% reported the CDS added value to patient clinic visits, and 72% reported they would recommend use of this CDS system to colleagues. However, most PCCs disagreed that the CDS saves time talking about preventing diabetes or CVD, and most PCCs also did not find the clinical domains useful, nor did PCCs believe that the clinical domains were useful in getting patients to take action. Finally, only about 38% reported they were satisfied with the CDS. CONCLUSIONS: These results improve our understanding of CDS user experience and can be used to guide iterative improvement of the CDS. While most PCCs agreed the CDS improves CVD and diabetes risk factor control, they were generally not satisfied with the CDS. Moreover, only 40-50% agreed that specific suggestions on clinical domains helped patients to take action. In spite of this, an overwhelming majority reported they would recommend the CDS to colleagues, pointing for the need to improve upon the current CDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02759055 03/05/2016.

FINDINGS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FROM A SMOKING CESSATION TRIAL UTILIZING A CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT TOOL.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of disease, death, and disability in the United States. Dental practitioners are advised to provide evidence-based smoking cessation interventions to their patients, yet dental practitioners frequently fail to deliver brief smoking cessation advice. OBJECTIVES: To test whether giving dental practitioners a clinical decisions support (CDS) system embedded in their electronic dental record would increase the rate at which patients who smoke (1) report receiving a brief intervention or referral to treatment during a recent dental visit, (2) taking action related to smoking cessation within 7 days of visit, and (3) stop smoking for 1 day or more or reduce the amount smoked by 50% within 6 months. METHODS: Two-group, parallel arm, cluster-randomized trial. From March through December 2019, 15 nonacademic primary care dental clinics were randomized via covariate adaptive randomization to either a usual care arm or the CDS arm. Adult smokers completed an initial telephone survey within 7 days of their visit and another survey after 6 months. RESULTS: Forty-three patients from 5 CDS and 13 patients from 2 usual care clinics completed the 7-day survey. While the proportion of patients who reported receipt of a brief intervention or referral to treatment was significantly greater in the CDS arm than the usual care arm (84.3% vs 58.6%; P = .005), the differences in percentage of patients who took any action related to smoking cessation within 7 days (44.4% vs 22.3%; P = .077), or stopped smoking for one day or more and/or reduced amount smoked by 50% within 6 months (63.1% vs 46.2%; P = .405) were large but not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite interruption by COVID-19, these results demonstrate a promising approach to assist dental practitioners in providing their patients with smoking cessation screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment.

"I know my body better than you:" patient focus groups to inform a decision aid on oral corticosteroid use during pregnancy.

PURPOSE: There is unmet need for decision support regarding medication use during pregnancy. We aimed to inform the development of a decision aid on oral corticosteroid (OCS) use during pregnancy through focus groups. METHODS: We invited patients from one health system who had a recent live birth and a condition for which OCSs may be prescribed (ie, asthma or other autoimmune disease) to participate in focus groups. We conducted conventional qualitative content analysis of verbatim transcripts of the focus groups using inductive coding. RESULTS: There were 30 participants across five focus groups from May to June 2019. Women endorsed the need for patient-provider discussions about OCS use during pregnancy in which the provider shares risks and benefits and the patient makes her decision. Furthermore, women generally expressed support for patient-centered handouts about OCS use during pregnancy that the provider discusses with the patient. When considering whether to take OCSs in pregnancy, women had concerns about: the medication's impact on their baby (eg, miscarriage, birth defects, long-term effects), themselves (eg, effects on mood, sleep, weight gain), pregnancy complications (eg, preterm birth, increased blood pressure), and lactation. Women wanted information on OCSs (eg, indications, length of treatment, and cost), alternative treatments, and risks of not taking OCSs. CONCLUSIONS: We established patient need for a decision aid on OCS use during pregnancy that providers can discuss with patients. To address patient concerns, the aid should at a minimum describe the medication's impact on baby, including long-term effects, maternal health, pregnancy complications, and lactation.

The impact of personalized clinical decision support on primary care patients' views of cancer prevention and screening: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the impact of clinical decision support (CDS), with or without shared decision-making tools (SDMTs), on patients' perceptions of cancer screening or prevention in primary care settings. This cross-sectional survey was conducted to understand primary care patient's perceptions on cancer screening or prevention. METHODS: We mailed surveys (10/2018-1/2019) to 749 patients aged 18 to 75 years within 15 days after an index clinical encounter at 36 primary care clinics participating in a clinic-randomized control trial of a CDS system for cancer prevention. All patients were overdue for cancer screening or human papillomavirus vaccination. The survey compared respondents' answers by study arm: usual care; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. RESULTS: Of 387 respondents (52% response rate), 73% reported having enough time to discuss cancer prevention options with their primary care provider (PCP), 64% reported their PCP explained the benefits of the cancer screening choice very well, and 32% of obese patients reported discussing weight management, with two-thirds reporting selecting a weight management intervention. Usual care respondents were significantly more likely to decide on colorectal cancer screening than CDS respondents (p < 0.01), and on tobacco cessation than CDS + SDMT respondents (p = 0.02) and both CDS and CDS + SDMT respondents (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients reported discussing cancer prevention needs with PCPs, with few significant differences between the three study arms in patient-reported cancer prevention care. Upcoming research will assess differences in screening and vaccination rates between study arms during the post-intervention follow-up period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230 , December 6, 2016.

Understanding primary care providers' perceptions of cancer prevention and screening in a predominantly rural healthcare system in the upper Midwest.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States, with the burden expected to rise in the coming decades, increasing the need for effective cancer prevention and screening options. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has suggested that a shared decision-making process be used when clinicians and patients discuss cancer screening. The electronic medical record (EMR) often provides only reminders or alerts to primary care providers (PCPs) when screenings are due, a strategy with limited efficacy. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional electronic survey to PCPs (n = 165, 53% response rate) at 36 Essentia Health primary care clinics participating in a large, National Cancer Institute-funded study on a cancer prevention clinical decision support (CDS) tool. The survey assessed PCP demographics, perceptions of the EMR's ability to help assess and manage patients' cancer risk, and experience and comfort level discussing cancer screening and prevention with patients. RESULTS: In these predominantly rural clinics, only 49% of PCPs thought the EMR was well integrated to help assess and manage cancer risk. Both advanced care practitioners and physicians agreed that cancer screening and informed discussion of cancer risks are important; however, only 53% reported their patients gave cancer screening a high priority relative to other health issues. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of EMR-linked CDS delivered to both patients and PCPs may improve cancer screening, but only if it is easy to use and saves PCPs time.

Responses to a Social Media Campaign Promoting Safe Fish Consumption Among Women.

We used a framework to systematically evaluate which Facebook advertisements promoting safe fish consumption increased traffic to our website. Keeping images and headlines constant, we tested 11 message types in 5 categories between 2 audiences over a 24-hour weekday period. We identified clear preferences in 9 of 10 comparisons and evidence to suggest that more women prefer presentation of question format compared with narratives, marketing compared with patient education copy, and uncertain compared with certain copy. Our test of messages on a social media platform is a quick and inexpensive way to select the most engaging public health messages for broad dissemination.

Understanding Primary Care Provider Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Diabetes Prevention in the Northern Midwest.

IN BRIEF We sought to fill critical gaps in understanding primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs regarding diabetes prevention and cardiovascular disease risk in the prediabetes population, including through comparison of attitudes between rural and non-rural PCPs. We used data from a 2016 cross-sectional survey sent to 299 PCPs practicing in 36 primary clinics that are part of a randomized control trial in a predominately rural northern Midwestern integrated health care system. Results showed a few significant, but clinically marginal, differences between rural and non-rural PCPs. Generally, PCPs agreed with the importance of screening for prediabetes and thoroughly and clearly discussing CV risk with high-risk patients.

Evaluating the structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey from the patient's perspective.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey is a widely used instrument to assess the patient experience with healthcare delivery. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the factorial structure of PACIC from the patient perspective. METHODS: A postal survey was mailed to 4,796 randomly selected adults with diabetes from 34 primary care clinics. Internal consistencies of PACIC subscales were assessed by Cronhach's α. Factorial structure was evaluated by confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. RESULTS: Based on responses of 2,055 patients (43% response rate), exploratory factor analysis discerned a 4-factor, not 5-factor, model dominated by patient evaluation of healthcare services (explaining 74% of the variance). The other 3 factors addressed patient involvement (goal setting, participating in the healthcare team) and social support for self-management. CONCLUSIONS: The underlying factorial structure of PACIC, which reflects the patient perspective, is dynamic, patient-centered, and differs from the original 5-factor model that was more aligned with views of healthcare delivery stakeholders.

Perceptions of Active Surveillance and Treatment Recommendations for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Results from a National Survey of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists.

BACKGROUND: With the growing concerns about overtreatment in prostate cancer, the extent to which radiation oncologists and urologists perceive active surveillance (AS) as effective and recommend it to patients are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess opinions of radiation oncologists and urologists about their perceptions of AS and treatment recommendations for low-risk prostate cancer. RESEARCH DESIGN: National survey of specialists. PARTICIPANTS: Radiation oncologists and urologists practicing in the United States. MEASURES: A total of 1366 respondents were asked whether AS was effective and whether it was underused nationally, whether their patients were interested in AS, and treatment recommendations for low-risk prostate cancer. Pearson's χ test and multivariate logistic regression were used to test for differences in physician perceptions on AS and treatment recommendations. RESULTS: Overall, 717 (52.5%) of physicians completed the survey with minimal differences between specialties (P=0.92). Although most physicians reported that AS is effective (71.9%) and underused in the United States (80.0%), 71.0% stated that their patients were not interested in AS. For low-risk prostate cancer, more physicians recommended radical prostatectomy (44.9%) or brachytherapy (35.4%); fewer endorsed AS (22.1%). On multivariable analysis, urologists were more likely to recommend surgery [odds ratio (OR): 4.19; P<0.001] and AS (OR: 2.55; P<0.001), but less likely to recommend brachytherapy (OR: 0.13; P<0.001) and external beam radiation therapy (OR: 0.11; P<0.001) compared with radiation oncologists. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most prostate cancer specialists in the United States believe AS effective and underused for low-risk prostate cancer, yet continue to recommend the primary treatments their specialties deliver.

A national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists on recommendations of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess recommendations for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in a national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists following the recent USA Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grade D recommendation. METHODS: A random sample of 1366 radiation oncologists and urologists were identified from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. From November 2011 to April 2012, a mail survey was sent to query PSA screening recommendations for men at average risk of prostate cancer for the following age groups: 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-74, 75-79 and ≥80 years. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test for differences in PSA-based screening recommendations by physician characteristics. RESULTS: Response rates were similar at 52% for radiation oncologists and urologists (P = 0.92). Overall, 51.5% of respondents recommended PSA-based screening for men aged 40-49 years, while nearly all endorsed it for those aged 50-74 years (96.1% for 50-59, 97.3% for 60-69, and 87.7% for 70-74 years). However, screening recommendations decreased to 43.9% and 12.8% for men aged 75-79 and ≥80 years, respectively. On multivariable analysis, urologists were more likely to recommend screening for men aged 40-49 (odds ratio [OR] 3.09; P < 0.001) and 50-59 years (OR 3.81; P = 0.01), but less likely for men aged 75-79 (OR 0.66; P = 0.01) and ≥80 years (OR 0.45; P = 0.002) compared with radiation oncologists. CONCLUSION: While radiation oncologists and urologists recommended PSA screening for men aged 50-69 years, there was less agreement about screening for younger (40-49 years old) and older (≥70 years) men at average risk for prostate cancer.

Survey mode and asking about future intentions did not impact self-reported colorectal cancer screening accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening behavior is often subject to over-reporting bias. We examined how the inclusion of a future intention to screen item (viz. asking about future intentions to get screened before asking about past screening) and mode of survey administration impacted the accuracy of self-reported CRC screening. METHODS: The target population was men and women between 49 and 85 years of age who lived in Olmsted County, MN, for at least 10 years at the time of the study. Eligible residents were randomized into four groups representing the presence or absence the future intention to screen item in the questionnaire and administration mode (mail vs. telephone). A total of 3,638 cases were available for analysis with 914, 838, 956, and 930 in the mail/future intention, mail/no future intention, telephone/future intention, and telephone/no future intention conditions, respectively. False positives were defined as self-reporting being screened among those with no documented history of screening in medical records and false negatives as not self-reporting screening among those with history of screening. RESULTS: Comparing false positive and false negative reporting rates for each specific screening test among the responders at the bivariate level, regardless of mode, there were no statistically significant differences by the presence or absence of a preceding future intention question. When considering all tests combined, the percentage of false negatives within the telephone mode was slightly higher for those with the future intention question (6.7% vs 4.2%, p = 0.04). Multivariate models that considered the independent impact of the future intention question and mode, affirmed the results observed at the bivariate level. However, individuals in the telephone arm (compared to mail) were slightly (though not significantly) more likely to report a false positive (36.4% vs 31.8%, OR = 1.11, p = 0.55). CONCLUSION: It may be that in the context of a questionnaire that is clearly focused on CRC and with specific descriptions of the various CRC screening tests, certain design features such as including intention to screen items or mode of administration will have very little impact on the accuracy of self-reported CRC screening.

Putting diabetes on the map: what does population health really look like at the local level?

Population health data are used to profile local conditions, call attention to areas of need, and evaluate health-related programs. Demand for data to inform health care decision making has spurred development of data sources and online systems, but these are often poorly integrated or limited in scope. Our objective was to identify existing data about diabetes mellitus-related conditions in Minnesota, build an online data resource, and identify what data are currently missing that, if available, would better inform assessment of health conditions in the state. A Web site was developed and populated with existing data and data not available elsewhere. It features functionality identified as most important by users, such as maps and county profiles. The site could serve as a flexible tool for stakeholder engagement, but issues were identified during development, including concerns about interpreting map data and open questions about sustainability, that need to be addressed.

The Impact of Text Messaging to Promote Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Completion in Orthopedic Practice: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Study.

It is difficult to achieve high response rates to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) surveys collected as part of clinical care. However, they are operationally and clinically important. To understand the impact of text message reminders on response rates to PROMs collected via email as part of routine care for hip or knee replacement surgery, initial nonresponders were randomized to receive a text reminder or not at 7 and 12 days, if needed. At day 7, the overall survey response rate was 63%. Model-derived estimates for survey return after this point were 51.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48.0%-54.2%) in the text arm compared to 34.5% (95% CI, 31.6%-37.6%) in the no text arm. The effect of text messages on response rates did not vary by subpopulations considered nor were there differences in rates of key outcomes between the 2 groups, suggesting that it did not impact any underlying response bias. Given the relative low cost of text messages, they can be an efficient means to increase response rates.

Don't Say "Beans" When Promoting Plant Protein to Family Meal Planners.

PURPOSE: To identify "headlines" that would engage recipients to consider plant protein over red meat. DESIGN: Mail and web survey. SETTING: Urban Minnesota community. SUBJECTS: 144 survey respondents from our health plan and community program distribution lists who live with at least 1 other person and eat meat. INTERVENTION: We asked respondents how likely they would be to click on each of 24 headlines with a motivator (eating plant protein for health vs for environmental reasons) and a barrier (family preferences, knowledge about plant proteins, or cooking skills). 16 headlines contained the word "beans". MEASURES: We created categorical variables for each headline construct: (1) motivator, (2) barrier, and (3) reference to beans. Using a mixed model with random effects, we compared, for each construct, respondents' self-reported likelihood to click on a headline. RESULTS: Health-related headlines performed significantly better than environmental headlines (P = .0019, 95% CI .01, .11). Family-oriented headlines performed slightly better than skills-oriented (P = .0927, 95% CI -.01, .11) and knowledge-oriented (P = .0960, 95% CI -.01, .11) headlines. Headlines containing the word "beans" performed significantly worse than those not containing "beans" (P < .0001, 95% CI -.22, -.12). CONCLUSIONS: The population represented by our survey respondents report being most likely to click on headlines that emphasize health and family. They report they are significantly less likely to click on headlines that promote beans.

Evidence to support health system prioritization of health behaviors in the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic health systems have shifted necessarily from chronic to infectious disease treatment, but chronic disease remains critical. One large health system uniquely tracks member health behaviors. This analysis compares data from select months of an ongoing monthly cross-sectional survey before and during the pandemic. METHODS: Responses in April 2019 (pre-pandemic), April 2020 (early pandemic) or April 2021 (later pandemic) were included in the primary analysis (N = 252). Differences in meeting health behavior guidelines were analyzed via logistic regression. RESULTS: A significant decline was seen for physical activity (19% not meeting guidelines pre-pandemic vs. 41% later pandemic) but not fruit/vegetable, alcohol, or sleep from early to later pandemic. Prevalence of women not meeting tobacco guidelines increased from early (5%) to later pandemic (10%) while prevalence in men decreased (10% vs 4% respectively). The percent of people not thinking about the good things that happen to them fluctuated closely with reports of new COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show the nuance of changing health behaviors throughout the pandemic. Results should be used by health systems to tailor support based on insights from the pandemic experience.