Community-Engaged Data Science (CEDS): A Case Study of Working with Communities to Use Data to Inform Change.

Data-informed decision making is a critical goal for many community-based public health research initiatives. However, community partners often encounter challenges when interacting with data. The Community-Engaged Data Science (CEDS) model offers a goal-oriented, iterative guide for communities to collaborate with research data scientists through data ambassadors. This study presents a case study of CEDS applied to research on the opioid epidemic in 18 counties in Ohio as part of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). Data ambassadors provided a pivotal role in empowering community coalitions to translate data into action using key steps of CEDS which included: data landscapes identifying available data in the community; data action plans from logic models based on community data needs and gaps of data; data collection/sharing agreements; and data systems including portals and dashboards. Throughout the CEDS process, data ambassadors emphasized sustainable data workflows, supporting continued data engagement beyond the HCS. The implementation of CEDS in Ohio underscored the importance of relationship building, timing of implementation, understanding communities' data preferences, and flexibility when working with communities. Researchers should consider implementing CEDS and integrating a data ambassador in community-based research to enhance community data engagement and drive data-informed interventions to improve public health outcomes.

Physician cardiovascular disease risk factor management: practice analysis in Japan versus the USA.

BACKGROUND: There is a 42% lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) death rate in Japan compared with the USA. Do physicians report differences in practice management of CVD risk factors in the two countries that might contribute to this difference? AIMS: CVD risk factor management reported by Japanese versus US primary care physicians was studied. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive study. An internet-based survey was conducted with physicians from each country. A convenience sample from the Shiga Prefecture in Japan and the state of Ohio in the USA resulted in 48 Japanese and 53 US physicians completing the survey. RESULTS: The survey group may not be representative of a larger sample. The survey demonstrated that 98% of responding Japanese physicians spend <10 minutes performing a patient visit, while 76% of US physicians spend 10 to 20 minutes (P < 0.0001) managing CVD risk factors. Eighty-seven percent of Japanese physicians (vs. 32% of US physicians) see patients in within three months for follow-up (P < 0.0001). Sixty-one percent of Japanese physicians allocate < 30% of visit time to patient education, whereas 60% of US physicians spend > 30% of visit time on patient education (P < 0.0001). Prescriptions are renewed very frequently by Japanese physicians (83% renewing less than monthly) compared with 75% of US physicians who renew medications every one to six months (P < 0.0001). Only 20% of Japanese physicians use practice guidelines routinely compared with 50% of US physicians (P = 0.0413). US physicians report disparities in care more frequently (P < 0.0001). Forty-three percent of Japanese (vs. 10% of US) physicians believe that they have relative freedom to practise medicine (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Many factors undoubtedly affect CVD in different countries. The dominant ones include social determinants of health, genetics, public health and overall culture (which in turn determine diet, exercise and other factors). Yet the medical care system is an expensive component of society and its role in managing CVD risk factors deserves study. This descriptive report poses questions that require a more definitive study either with a more representative sample or direct observation of physician practices. US physicians responding to the survey reported greater administrative efforts, frustration and disparities in their practice, yet they followed practice guidelines more carefully. Japanese physicians responding reported focusing on quick, frequent visits that may have been more medication oriented, expecting more patient responsibility in self-care, which may have resulted in better chronic disease management. There may be differences in CVD risk factor management by primary care physicians in Japan versus the USA.

Sociodemographic predictors of cervical cancer screening in women with a medical disability.

The purpose of this project was to describe cervical cancer screening rates in women with medical disabilities living in Ohio, and explore the relationship of select sociodemographic factors to cervical cancer screening participation. A chart abstraction of 350 randomly selected women, ages 20 to 80 years and enrolled in a statewide home care waiver program, was completed in July 2008. Less than half of the women (45.4%) had obtained a cervical cancer screening within the past 3 years. Controlling for age and third-party insurance, the odds of being screened decreased 20% with each activity of daily living requiring assistance (odds ratio = .815, 95% confidence interval [.696, .953]). Previous studies indicate that women with self-reported limitations are less likely to report a cervical cancer screening. The gap for screenings appears greater for women with a medical disability.

Physician cardiovascular disease risk factor management: practices in France vs the United States.

Cardiovascular risk factor management by French vs US primary care physicians was studied. A survey was conducted that found that French physicians spend >20 minutes while US physicians spend five to 10 minutes (P<.001) addressing cardiovascular risk with patients. Fifty-three percent of French (vs 33% of US) physicians focus more on lifestyle modification and less on medication management (P<.0001). Sixty-nine percent of French physicians spend 0% to 20% of their time on administration while 65% of US physicians spend 10% to 30% (P=.0028). Fifty-one percent of French physicians see patients in one to three months for follow-up, while 51% of US physicians see patients in three to six months (P<.0001). Eighty-seven percent of French (vs 39% of US) physicians have guidelines available in the examination room either frequently or very frequently. US physicians report disparities in care more frequently than do French physicians (P<.0001). Forty-nine percent of French (vs 10% of US) physicians believe that they have relative freedom to practice medicine (P<.001). US physicians report greater administrative efforts, frustration, and disparities in their practice. French physicians focus more of their efforts on lifestyle management and see their patients more frequently and for a longer visit time.