Nurtured in Nature: a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Time in Greenspace among Urban-Dwelling Postpartum Women.

Spending time in nature is associated with numerous mental health benefits, including reduced depression and improved well-being. However, few studies examine the most effective ways to nudge people to spend more time outside. Furthermore, the impact of spending time in nature has not been previously studied as a postpartum depression (PPD) prevention strategy. To fill these gaps, we developed and pilot tested Nurtured in Nature, a 4-week intervention leveraging a behavioral economics framework, and included a Nature Coach, digital nudges, and personalized goal feedback. We conducted a randomized controlled trial among postpartum women (n = 36) in Philadelphia, PA between 9/9/2019 and 3/27/2020. Nature visit frequency and duration was determined using GPS data. PPD was measured using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). Participants were from low-income, majority Black neighborhoods. Compared to control, the intervention arm had a strong trend toward longer duration and higher frequency of nature visits (IRR 2.6, 95%CI 0.96-2.75, p = 0.059). When analyzing women who completed the intervention (13 of 17 subjects), the intervention was associated with three times higher nature visits compared to control (IRR 3.1, 95%CI 1.16-3.14, p = 0.025). No significant differences were found in the EPDS scores, although we may have been limited by the study's sample size. Nurture in Nature increased the amount of time postpartum women spent in nature, and may be a useful population health tool to leverage the health benefits of nature in majority Black, low-resourced communities.

Telehealth for opioid use disorder treatment in low-barrier clinic settings: an exploration of clinician and staff perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The majority of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) face access barriers to evidence-based treatment, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the United States (US) opioid overdose crisis. However, the pandemic has also ushered in rapid transitions to telehealth in the USA, including for substance use disorder treatment with buprenorphine. These changes have the potential to mitigate barriers to care or to exacerbate pre-existing treatment inequities. The objective of this study was to qualitatively explore Philadelphia-based low-barrier, harm-reduction oriented, opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment provider perspectives about and experiences with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess their desire to offer telehealth to patients at their programs in the future. METHODS: We interviewed 22 OUD treatment prescribers and staff working outpatient programs offering OUD treatment with buprenorphine in Philadelphia during July and August 2020. All participants worked at low-barrier treatment programs that provide buprenorphine using a harm reduction-oriented approach and without mandating counseling or other requirements as a condition of treatment. We analyzed the data using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Our analysis yielded three themes: 1/ Easier access for some: telehealth facilitates care for many patients who have difficulty attending in-person appointments due to logistical and psychological barriers; 2/ A layered digital divide: engagement with telehealth can be seriously limited by patients' access to and comfort with technology; and 3/ Clinician control: despite some clinic staff beliefs that patients should have the freedom to choose their treatment modality, patients' access to treatment via telehealth may hinge on clinician perceptions of patient "stability" rather than patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth may address many access issues, however, barriers to implementation remain, including patient ability and desire to attend healthcare appointments virtually. In addition, the potential for telehealth models to extend OUD care to patients currently underserved by in-person models may partially depend on clinician comfort treating patients deemed "unstable" via this modality. The ability of telehealth to expand access to OUD care for individuals who have previously struggled to engage with in-person care will likely be limited if these patients are not given the opportunity to receive treatment via telehealth.

Thematic Analysis of State Medicaid Buprenorphine Prior Authorization Requirements.

Importance: Prior authorization (PA) requirements for buprenorphine are associated with lower provision of the medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). While Medicare plans have eliminated PA requirements for buprenorphine, many Medicaid plans continue to require them. Objective: To describe and classify buprenorphine coverage requirements based on thematic analysis of state Medicaid PA forms. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used a thematic analysis of 50 states' Medicaid PA forms for buprenorphine between November 2020 and March 2021. Forms were obtained from the jurisdiction's Medicaid websites and assessed for features suggesting barriers to buprenorphine access. A coding tool was developed based on a review of a sample of forms, including fields for behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates, drug screening requirements, and dosage limitations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included PA requirements for different buprenorphine formulations. Additionally, PA forms were evaluated for various criteria such as behavioral health, drug screenings, dose-related recommendations or mandates or patient education. Results: Among the total of 50 US states in the analysis, most states' Medicaid plans required PA for at least 1 formulation of buprenorphine. However, the majority did not require a PA for buprenorphine-naloxone. Four key themes of coverage requirements were identified: restrictive surveillance (eg, requirements for urine drug screenings, random drug screenings, pill counts), behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates (eg, mandatory counseling or 12-step meeting attendance), interfering with or restricting medical decision-making (eg, maximum daily dosages of 16 mg, requiring additional steps for dosages higher than 16 mg), and patient education (eg, information about adverse effects and interactions with other medications). Eleven states (22%) required urine drug screenings, 6 states (12%) required random urine drug screenings, and 4 states (8%) required pill counts. Fourteen states' forms (28%) recommended therapy, and 7 (14%) required therapy, counseling, or participation in group sessions. Eighteen states (36%) specified dosage maximums; among them, 11 (22%) required additional steps for a daily dosage higher than 16 mg. Conclusion: In this qualitative study of state Medicaid PA requirements for buprenorphine, themes were identified that included patient surveillance with drug screenings and pill counts, behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates, patient education, and dosing guidance. These results suggest that state Medicaid plans' buprenorphine PA requirements for OUD are in conflict with existing evidence and may negatively affect states' efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.

Advancing health equity through integrated biology and population health research: A community-based sample cortisol feasibility and exploratory study.

Background: Community-based research inclusive of self-assessment and objective environmental metrics can be enhanced by the collection of biomarker data in unity toward assessing the health impacts of the totality of environmental stress driven by structural racism. Cortisol dynamic range (CDR), a measure of chronic stress burden, may underpin place-based connections to health, but a gap remains in elucidating community-based CDR methodology. Purpose: To 1) assess the feasibility of cortisol collection and CDR measurement in a community-based study with home-based, participant-directed specimen collection, and 2) explore the association between CDR and other individual and environmental measures in a sample of predominantly Black participants. Methods: In this cross-sectional, observational study in predominantly Black urban neighborhoods, participants (n = 73) completed health assessments and in-home, self-collected salivary cortisol. For feasibility, CDR (peak-nadir) was compared to cortisol awakening response (CAR) slope over time. Comparisons of CDR quartile by person and place variables were explored (ANOVA). Results: The cohort (77% Black, 39.7% <$15 k/year income, high perceived stress) completed 98.6% of cortisol collection timepoints. CDR was calculated in all participants without interruptions to sleep-wake cycle as seen with CAR collection. Participants in the lowest quartile of CDR were the oldest (p = 0.03) with lowest reported mental health (p = 0.048) with no associations seen for CAR. Conclusion: Participant-collected CDR is more feasible than cortisol measures dependent on slopes over time in a community-based, predominately Black cohort with exploratory findings supporting relevance to outcomes of interest to future work. Future community-based studies should integrate CDR with environment and psychosocial measures.

Qualitative Exploration of Barriers to Statin Adherence and Lipid Control: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Financial incentives may improve health by rewarding patients for focusing on present actions-such as medication regimen adherence-that provide longer-term health benefits. Objective: To identify barriers to improving statin therapy adherence and control of cholesterol levels with financial incentives and insights for the design of future interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study involved retrospective interviews with participants in a preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of financial incentives for statin therapy adherence. A total of 636 trial participants from several US insurer or employer populations and an academic health system were rank ordered by change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) levels. Participants with the most LDLC level improvement (high-improvement group) and those with LDLC levels that did not improve (nonimprovement group) were purposively targeted, stratified across all trial groups, for semistructured telephone interviews that were performed from April 1 to June 30, 2018. Interviews were coded using a team-based, iterative approach. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2018, to October 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mean change in LDLC level from baseline to 12 months; the secondary outcome, statin therapy adherence during the first 6 months. Results: A total of 54 patients were interviewed, divided equally between high-improvement and nonimprovement groups, with a mean (SD) age of 43.5 (10.3) years; 36 (66.7%) were women, 28 (51.9%) had diabetes, and 18 (33.3%) had cardiovascular disease. Compared with the high-improvement group, the nonimprovement group had fewer interviewees with an annual income of greater than $50 000 (11 [40.7%] vs 22 [81.5%]), worse self-reported health (fair to poor, 13 [48.1%] vs 3 [11.1%]), more Black interviewees (16 [59.3%] vs 4 [14.8%]), and lower baseline LDLC levels (>160 mg/dL, 2 [7.4%] vs 25 [92.6%]). Participants in the nonimprovement group had a greater burden of chronic illness (≥2 chronic conditions, 13 [48.1%] vs 6 [22.2%]) and were less frequently employed (full-time, 6 [22.2%] vs 12 [44.4%]). In interviews, the nonimprovement group was less focused on risks of high LDLC levels, described less engagement in LDLC level management, articulated fewer specific nutritional choices for optimizing health, and recounted greater difficulty obtaining healthy food. Participants in both groups had difficulty describing the structure of the financial incentives but did recall features of the electronic pill containers used to track adherence and how those containers affected medication routines. Conclusions and Relevance: Participants in a statin adherence trial whose LDLC levels did not improve found it more difficult to create medication routines and respond to financial incentives in the context of complex living conditions and a high burden of chronic illness. These findings suggest that future studies should be more attentive to socioeconomic circumstances of trial participants. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.

Practical alternative to hospitalization for emergency department patients (PATH): A feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the feasibility of the Practical Alternative to Hospitalization (PATH) program, an intervention that offers ED clinicians an outpatient care pathway for patients initially designated for inpatient admission or observation. METHODS: We evaluated a novel care delivery model that was piloted at a tertiary academic medical center in December 2019. An advanced practice provider screened patients designated for inpatient admission or observation and identified eligible participants. Outpatient services were customized for each patient but primarily included care coordination and monitoring through telemedicine and home health services. The primary feasibility outcome was the proportion of eligible patients who were enrolled in the program, as well as patient outcomes after discharge including return ED visits and averted ED boarding time. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients were designated for inpatient admission or observation during PATH program hours. Of 52 eligible patients, 30 (58%) were enrolled. The mean participant age was 62.5 years (SD 17.5), and 25 (83%) had non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity. The most common disease conditions were chest pain, heart failure, and hyperglycemia. 4 (13%) enrolled patients returned to an ED within 30 days. We estimate that ED boarding time was reduced by 8.2 h (SD 8.1) per patient. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians and patients were willing to use a novel service that provided an alternative disposition to hospitalization. IMPLICATIONS: alternative payment models that seek to reduce hospital utilization and cost may consider strengthening systems to monitor and coordinate care for patients after ED discharge.

Nature Prescriptions for Health: A Review of Evidence and Research Opportunities.

Nature prescription programs have emerged to address the high burden of chronic disease and increasingly sedentary and screen-based lifestyles. This study examines the base of evidence regarding such programs. We conducted a narrative review of published literature using four electronic databases. We included case studies, research design articles, and empirical studies that discussed any type of outdoor exposure or activities initiated by a health-care provider from an outpatient clinic. We examined articles for information on target populations, health outcomes, and structural and procedural elements. We also summarized evidence of the effectiveness of nature prescription programs, and discussed needs and challenges for both practice and research. Eleven studies, including eight empirical studies, have evaluated nature prescription programs with either structured or unstructured formats, referring patients either to nearby parks or to formal outdoor activity programs. Empirical studies evaluate a wide variety of health behaviors and outcomes among the most at-risk children and families. Research is too sparse to draw patterns in health outcome responses. Studies largely tested program structures to increase adherence, or patient follow-through, however findings were mixed. Three published studies explore providers' perspectives. More research is necessary to understand how to measure and increase patient adherence, short and long-term health outcomes for patients and their families, and determinants of provider participation and participation impacts on providers' own health.