The Costs of Implementing a Conversation Aid for Uterine Fibroids in Multiple Health Care Settings.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations considering adopting a conversation aid (CA), a type of patient decision aid innovation, need information about the costs of implementation. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to: (1) calculate the costs of introducing a CA in a study of supported implementation in 5 gynecologic settings that manage individuals diagnosed with uterine fibroids and (2) estimate the potential costs of future clinical implementation efforts in hypothetical settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used time-driven activity-based costing to estimate the costs of CA implementation at multiple steps: integration with an electronic health record, preimplementation, implementation, and sustainability. We then estimated costs for 2 disparate hypothetical implementation scenarios. SUBJECTS AND DATA COLLECTION: We conducted semistructured interviews with participants and examined internal documentation. RESULTS: We interviewed 41 individuals, analyzed 51 documents and 100 emails. Overall total implementation costs over ∼36 months of activities varied significantly across the 5 settings, ranging from $14,157 to $69,134. Factors influencing costs included size/complexity of the setting, urban/rural location, practice culture, and capacity to automate patient identification. Initial investments were substantial, comprising mostly personnel time. Settings that embedded CA use into standard workflows and automated identification of appropriate patients had the lowest initial investment and sustainability costs. Our estimates of the costs of sustaining implementation were much lower than initial investments and mostly attributable to CA subscription fees. CONCLUSION: Initiation and implementation of the interventions require significant personnel effort. Ongoing costs to maintain use are much lower and are a small fraction of overall organizational operating costs.

The CONFIDENT study protocol: a randomized controlled trial comparing two methods to increase long-term care worker confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and real-world effectiveness data for the COVID-19 vaccines have shown that they are the best defense in preventing severe illness and death throughout the pandemic. However, in the US, some groups remain more hesitant than others about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. One important group is long-term care workers (LTCWs), especially because they risk infecting the vulnerable and clinically complex populations they serve. There is a lack of research about how best to increase vaccine confidence, especially in frontline LTCWs and healthcare staff. Our aims are to: (1) compare the impact of two interventions delivered online to enhanced usual practice on LTCW COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other pre-specified secondary outcomes, (2) determine if LTCWs' characteristics and other factors mediate and moderate the interventions' effect on study outcomes, and (3) explore the implementation characteristics, contexts, and processes needed to sustain a wider use of the interventions. METHODS: We will conduct a three-arm randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 2) trial, with randomization at the participant level. Arm 1 is a dialogue-based webinar intervention facilitated by a LTCW and a medical expert and guided by an evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine decision tool. Arm 2 is a curated social media web application intervention featuring interactive, dynamic content about COVID-19 and relevant vaccines. Arm 3 is enhanced usual practice, which directs participants to online public health information about COVID-19 vaccines. Participants will be recruited via online posts and advertisements, email invitations, and in-person visits to care settings. Trial data will be collected at four time points using online surveys. The primary outcome is COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Secondary outcomes include vaccine uptake, vaccine and booster intent for those unvaccinated, likelihood of recommending vaccination (both initial series and booster), feeling informed about the vaccines, identification of vaccine information and misinformation, and trust in COVID-19 vaccine information provided by different people and organizations. Exploration of intervention implementation will involve interviews with study participants and other stakeholders, an in-depth process evaluation, and testing during a subsequent sustainability phase. DISCUSSION: Study findings will contribute new knowledge about how to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and effective informational modalities for LTCWs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05168800 at ClinicalTrials.gov, registered December 23, 2021.

Engaging Long-Term Care Workers in Research: Recruitment Approaches and Participant Characteristics From a Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the recruitment methods employed in a randomized controlled trial targeting long-term care workers, and resulting participant baseline characteristics. DESIGN: We used a multifaceted recruitment process to enroll long-term care workers in our 3-arm randomized controlled trial comparing 2 interventions to enhanced usual practice, for improving COVID-19 vaccine confidence and other outcomes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult long-term care workers living in the United States employed within the last 2 years were invited to join the study. Participants also had to meet specific screening criteria related to their degree of worry about the vaccine and/or their vaccination status. METHODS: We used a participatory approach to engage our long-term care stakeholders in codesigning and executing a combination of recruitment methods, including targeted e-recruitment, paid e-recruitment, and in-person recruitment. Participants were screened, consented, and enrolled online. We implemented a participant verification process to ensure the integrity of our study data, and used a tailored participant management platform to manage enrollment. RESULTS: We enrolled 1930 long-term care workers between May 2022 and January 2023. We met our enrollment target, despite each recruitment method having limitations. Total variable costs of approximately $102,700 were incurred and differed on a per-enrolled participant basis across methods: $25.73 for targeted e-recruitment, $57.12 for paid e-recruitment, and $64.92 for in-person methods. Our sample differed from the national population in age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, and role in long-term care. Differences were also observed between online and in-person recruitment methods. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results support the feasibility of enrolling a large number of long-term care workers in a randomized controlled trial to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Findings build upon the evidence base for engaging this important population in research, a critical step to improving long-term care resident health and well-being. Results from our trial are anticipated in 2024.

Enhancing Care Partnerships Using a Rheumatology Dashboard: Bringing Together What Matters Most to Both Patients and Clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: Dashboards can support person-centered care by helping people partner with their clinicians to coproduce care based on preferences, shared decision-making, and evidence-based treatments. We engaged caregivers of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and clinicians in a pilot study to assess their experiences and the utility and impact of an electronic previsit questionnaire and point-of-care dashboard to support coproduction of rheumatology care. METHODS: We employed a mixed-methods design to assess users' perceptions of a customized electronic health record rheumatology module at four pediatric rheumatology practices and two adult rheumatology practices. We surveyed a convenience sample of caregivers of children with JIA (n = 113), adults with RA (n = 116), and clinicians (n = 12). We conducted semistructured interviews with 13 caregivers and patients and six care teams. Experiences were evaluated using descriptive statistics and thematic analyses. RESULTS: Caregivers of children with JIA and adults with RA reported the dashboards were useful during discussions (88%) and helped them talk about what mattered most (82%), make health care decisions (83%), and create a treatment plan (77%). Clinicians provided similar feedback. Two-thirds (67%) of caregivers and adults and 55% of clinicians would recommend the dashboard to peers. System usability scores (77.1 ± 15.6) were above average. Dashboards helped users make sense of health information, communicate more effectively, and make decisions. Improvements to the dashboards and workflows could enhance patient self-management and clinician efficiency. CONCLUSION: Visual point-of-care dashboards can support caregivers, patients, and clinicians to coproduce rheumatology care. Findings demonstrate a need to spread and scale for broader benefit and impact.

Eliciting patients' healthcare goals and concerns: Do questions influence responses?

There is increasing interest in asking patients questions before their visits to elicit goals and concerns, which is part of the move to support the concept of coproducing care. The phrasing and delivery of such questions differs across settings and is likely to influence responses. This report describes a study that (i) used a three-level model to categorize the goals and concerns elicited by two different pre-visit questions, and (ii) describes associations between responses elicited and the phrasing and delivery of the two questions. The questions were administered to patients with rheumatic disease, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Paper-based responses from 150 patients with rheumatic disease and 338 patients with IBD were analyzed (163 paper, 175 electronic). The goals and concerns elicited were primarily disease or symptom-specific. The specific goal and concern examples featured in one pre-visit question were more commonly reported in responses to that question, compared to the question without examples. Questions completed electronically before the visit were associated with longer responses than those completed on paper in the waiting room. In conclusion, how and when patients' goals and concerns are elicited appears to have an impact on responses and warrants further investigation.

Translating research into practice-implementation recommendations for pediatric rheumatology; Proceedings of the childhood arthritis and rheumatology research alliance 2020 implementation science retreat.

The translation of research findings into clinical practice is challenging, especially fields like in pediatric rheumatology, where the evidence base is limited, there are few clinical trials, and the conditions are rare and heterogeneous. Implementation science methodologies have been shown to reduce the research- to- practice gap in other clinical settings may have similar utility in pediatric rheumatology. This paper describes the key discussion points from the inaugural Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Implementation Science retreat held in February 2020. The aim of this report is to synthesize those findings into an Implementation Science Roadmap for pediatric rheumatology research. This roadmap is based on three foundational principles: fostering curiosity and ensuring discovery, integration of research and quality improvement, and patient-centeredness. We include six key steps anchored in the principles of implementation science. Applying this roadmap will enable researchers to evaluate the full range of research activities, from the initial clinical design and evidence acquisition to the application of those findings in pediatric rheumatology clinics and direct patient care.

Change IS Possible: Reducing High-Risk Drinking Using a Collaborative Improvement Model.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the adoption of public health and improvement methodologies to address college students' high-risk drinking behaviors and to aid in prevention efforts. PARTICIPANTS: Members of 32 colleges and universities, content experts, and staff members of the National College Health Improvement Program (NCHIP). METHODS: A 2-year learning collaborative developed by NCHIP trained individuals from 32 different college and universities in using the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle as a method to create and implement initiatives aimed at reducing students' high-risk drinking behaviors and related harms. RESULTS: Participants experienced success ranging from noteworthy increases in type and amount of interventions directed at reducing high-risk drinking, to creating collaboratives across campus, the local community, and stakeholders. Challenges related to data collection and creating lasting cultural change remain. CONCLUSIONS: The use of quality improvement methodologies and creation of a national collaborative successfully effected meaningful change in high-risk drinking behaviors on college campuses.

Eastern Carolina Asthma Prevention Program (ECAPP): An Environmental Intervention Study Among Rural and Underserved Children with Asthma in Eastern North Carolina.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma is the most common chronic childhood condition affecting 6.3 million (US) children aged less than 18 years. Home-based, multi-component, environmental intervention studies among children with asthma have demonstrated to be effective in reducing asthma symptoms. In this study, a local hospital and university developed an environmental intervention research pilot project, Eastern Carolina Asthma Prevention Program (ECAPP), to evaluate self-reported asthma symptoms, breathing measurements, and number of asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits among low-income, minority children with asthma living in rural, eastern North Carolina. Our goal was to develop a conceptual model and demonstrate any asthma respiratory improvements in children associated with our home-based, environmental intervention. METHODS: This project used a single cohort, intervention design approach to compare self-reported asthma-related symptoms, breathing tests, and ED visits over a 6 month period between children with asthma in an intervention study group (n = 12) and children with asthma in a control study group (n = 7). The intervention study group received intense asthma education, three home visits, 2 week follow-up telephone calls, and environmental intervention products for reducing asthma triggers in the home. The control group received education at baseline and 2 week calls, but no intervention products. RESULTS: At the end of the study period, significant improvements were observed in the intervention group compared with the control group. Overall, the intervention group experienced a 58% (46 ± SD 26.9) reduction in self-reported asthma symptoms; 76% (34 ± SD 29.7) decrease in rescue medicine; 12% (145 ± SD 11.3) increase in controller medicine; 37% decrease in mean exhaled nitric oxide levels and 33% fewer ED asthma-related visits. CONCLUSION: As demonstrated, a combination of efforts appeared effective for improving asthma respiratory symptoms among children in the intervention group. ECAPP is a low cost pilot project that could readily be adapted and expanded into other communities throughout eastern North Carolina. Future efforts could include enhanced partnerships between environmental health professionals at local health departments and pediatric asthma programs at hospitals to carry out ECAPP.

Cancer screening and history of sexual violence victimization among U.S. adults.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect a history of sexual violence (SV) victimization has on the likelihood of reporting screening tests for cancer. This study investigates the association between SV victimization and cancer screening behaviors. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) from 11 states and 1 territory (U.S. Virgin Islands) that administered the SV module to describe demographic characteristics, quality of life, health status, cancer screening behaviors, healthcare coverage, and use of healthcare services for 58,665 women and men who reported SV victimization compared to women and men who did not. The SV victimization measure includes unwanted touching, exposure to sexual material, or ever experiencing completed or attempted unwanted sex. Statistical significance was determined using chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression results presented as adjusted proportions showed SV victimization was significantly associated with mammography screening for women (74.0 % victims vs. 77.1% nonvictims, p=0.02). SV victimization was not associated with cancer screening among men. Fewer women reporting SV victimization had healthcare insurance, a personal doctor or healthcare provider, and received regular checkups within the past 1-12 months. Fewer men reporting SV victimization had healthcare coverage. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that SV victimization may have a negative association on overall healthcare use, including breast cancer screening for women. Healthcare providers should consider SV victimization as a potential barrier for women who report not being up-to-date with mammography.

Refinement of an educational toolkit to promote cervical cancer screening among Hispanic immigrant women in rural southern Georgia.

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality continue to affect Hispanic women in the U.S. disproportionately. Our project sought to refine a cervical cancer intervention designed for use by community health workers, or promotoras, in rural southern Georgia. We collaborated with Hispanic promotoras to refine a Spanish language educational flipchart featuring cervical cancer topic areas for use in screening promotion.

Mammography adherence: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Regular mammography accounts for half of the recent declines in breast cancer mortality. Mammography use declined significantly in 2008. Given the success of regular breast cancer screening, understanding why mammography use decreased is important. We undertook a focus group study to explore reasons women who were previously adherent with regular mammography no longer were screened. METHODS: We conducted 20 focus groups with white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, Japanese American, and American Indian/Alaska Native women, and segmented the groups by age, race/ethnicity, and health insurance status. A conceptual framework, based on existing research, informed the development of the focus group guide. Discussion topics included previous mammography experiences, perceptions of personal breast cancer risk, barriers to mammography, and risks and benefits associated with undergoing mammography. Atlas.ti was used to facilitate data analysis. RESULTS: All focus groups (n=128 women) were completed in 2009 in five cities across the United States. Half of the groups were held with white non-Hispanic women and the remainder with other racial/ethnic groups. Major barriers to routine mammography included (1) concerns about test efficacy, (2) personal concerns about the procedure, (3) access to screening services, (4) psychosocial issues, and (5) cultural factors. For uninsured women, lack of health insurance was the primary barrier to mammography. CONCLUSIONS: Multilevel interventions at the health-care provider and system levels are needed to address barriers women experience to undergoing regular mammography screening. Ultimately, breast cancer screening with mammography is an individual behavior; therefore, individual behavioral change strategies will continue to be needed.