Disparities in Mammography Screening: Analyzing Barriers to Access Using Individual Patient Perspectives and the Health Belief Model.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study is to explore Nepali women's beliefs about access to mammography screening, and motivations to get screened or not. This work was intended to be hypothesis generating for subsequent quantitative analysis and to inform policy and decision-making to improve access. METHODS: We conducted structured qualitative interviews among nine Nepali women in the Northeast of the United States receiving care at a local community health center and among nine white women receiving mammography care at a large academic medical center in the Northeast. We analyzed the transcripts using a mixed deductive (content analysis) and inductive (grounded theory) approach. Deductive codes were generated from the Health Belief Model which states that a person's belief in the real threat of a disease with their belief in the effectiveness of the recommended health service or behavior or action will predict the likelihood the person will adopt the behavior. We compared and contrasted qualitative results from both groups. RESULTS: We found that eligible Nepali women who had not received mammography screening had no knowledge of its availability and its importance. Primary care physicians emerged as a critical link in addressing this disparity: trust was found to be high among Nepali women with their established primary care provider. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that the role of primary care practitioners in conversations around the importance and eligibility for mammography screening is of critical importance, especially for underserved groups with limited health knowledge of screening opportunities and potential health benefits. Follow-up research should focus on primary care practices.

In this study, we interviewed Nepali women in a small, rural state in in the Northeast of the United States who are eligible for breast cancer screening yet do not seek it to better understand their motivations f. We also interviewed women who did get mammography screening to understand their motivations. We found that eligible Nepali women who had not received mammography screening had no knowledge of its availability and its importance. Primary care physicians emerged as a critical link in addressing this disparity: trust was found to be high among Nepali women with their established primary care provider. The findings of this study suggest that the role of primary care practitioners in conversations around the importance and eligibility for mammography screening is of critical importance.

Community Health Teams: a qualitative study about the factors influencing the decision-making process.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore the factors influencing how individual Community Health Teams (CHTs) make decisions about what services to offer and how to allocate their resources. METHODS: We conducted thirteen semi-structured interviews with all 13 CHTs program managers between January and March, 2021. We analyzed interviewees descriptions of their service offerings, resources allocation, and decision-making process to identify themes. RESULTS: Four major themes emerged from the interview data as factors influencing community health team program managers' decision-making process: commitment to offering high-quality care coordination, Blueprint's stable and flexible structure, use of data in priority setting, and leveraging community partnerships and local resources. CONCLUSIONS: Community-based CHTs with flexible funding allowed programs to tailor service offerings in response to community needs. It is important for teams to have access to community-level data. Teams are cultivating and leveraging community partners to increase their care coordination capacity, which is focus of their work. CHTs are a model for leveraging community partnerships to increase service capacity and pubic engagement in health services for other states to replicate.

Examining alignment of community health teams' preferences for health, equity, and spending with state all-payer waiver priorities: A discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: The state of Vermont has a statewide waiver from the centers for medicare and medicaid services to allow all-payer Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). The Vermont all-payer model (VAPM) waiver is layered upon previous reforms establishing regional community health teams (CHTs) and medical homes. The waiver is intended to incentivize healthcare value and quality and create alignment between health system payers, providers, and CHTs. The objective of this study was to examine CHT's trade-offs and preferences for health, equity, and spending and the alignment with VAPM priorities. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data were gathered from a survey and discrete choice experiment among CHT leadership and CHT team members of the 13 CHTs in Vermont. STUDY DESIGN: We used conditional logit models to model the choice as a function of its characteristics (attributes) and mixed logit models to analyze whether preferences for programs varied by persons and roles within CHTs. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: There were 60 respondents who completed the survey online with 14 choice tasks, with three program options in each task, for a total sample size of 2520. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found that CHTs prioritized programs in the community health plan and those with quantitative evidence of effectiveness. They were less likely to choose either programs targeting racial and ethnic minorities or programs having a small effect on a large population. Preferences did not vary across individual or community attributes. Program priorities of the VAPM, especially healthcare spending, were not prioritized. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the new VAPM does not automatically create system alignment: CHTs tended to prioritize local needs and voices. The statewide priorities are less important to CHTs, which have excellent internal alignment. This creates potential disconnection between state and community health goals. However, CHTs and the VAPM prioritize similar populations, indicating an opportunity to increase alignment by allowing flexible programs tailored to local needs. CHTs also prioritized programs with a strong evidence base, suggesting another potential avenue to create system alignment.

Current patterns of trauma center proliferation have not led to proportionate improvements in access to care or mortality after injury: An ecologic study.

BACKGROUND: Timely access to high-level (I/II) trauma centers (HLTCs) is essential to minimize mortality after injury. Over the last 15 years, there has been a proliferation of HLTC nationally. The current study evaluates the impact of additional HLTC on population access and injury mortality. METHODS: A geocoded list of HLTC, with year designated, was obtained from the American Trauma Society, and 60-minute travel time polygons were created using OpenStreetMap data. Census block group population centroids, county population centroids, and American Communities Survey data from 2005 and 2020 were integrated. Age-adjusted nonoverdose injury mortality was obtained from CDC Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Geographically weighted regression models were used to identify independent predictors of HLTC access and injury mortality. RESULTS: Over the 15-year (2005-2020) study period, the number of HLTC increased by 31.0% (445 to 583), while population access to HLTC increased by 6.9% (77.5-84.4%). Despite this increase, access was unchanged in 83.1% of counties, with a median change in access of 0.0% (interquartile range, 0.0-1.1%). Population-level age-adjusted injury mortality rates increased by 5.39 per 100,000 population during this time (60.72 to 66.11 per 100,000). Geographically weighted regression controlling for population demography and health indicators found higher median income and higher population density to be positively associated with majority (≥50%) HLTC population coverage and negatively associated with county-level nonoverdose mortality. CONCLUSION: Over the past 15 years, the number of HLTC increased 31%, while population access to HLTC increased only 6.9%. High-level (I/II) trauma center designation is likely driven by factors other than population need. To optimize efficiency and decrease potential oversupply, the designation process should include population level metrics. Geographic information system methodology can be an effective tool to assess optimal placement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Geographic Coverage and Verification of Trauma Centers in a Rural State: Highlighting the Utility of Location Allocationfor Trauma System Planning.

BACKGROUND: Care at verified trauma centers has improved survival and functional outcomes, yet determining the appropriate location of potential trauma centers is often driven by factors other than optimizing system-level patient care. Given the importance of transport time in trauma, we analyzed trauma transport patterns in a rural state lacking an organized trauma system and implemented a geographic information system to inform potential future trauma center locations. STUDY DESIGN: Data were collected on trauma ground transport during a 3-year period (2014 through 2016) from the Statewide Incident Reporting Network database. Geographic information system mapping and location-allocation modeling of the best-fit facility for trauma center verification was computed using trauma transport patterns, population density, road network layout, and 60-minute emergency medical services transport time based on current transport protocols. RESULTS: Location-allocation modeling identified 2 regional facilities positioned to become the next verified trauma centers. The proportion of the Vermont population without access to trauma center care within 60 minutes would be reduced from the current 29.68% to 5.81% if the identified facilities become verified centers. CONCLUSIONS: Through geospatial mapping and location-allocation modeling, we were able to identify gaps and suggest optimal trauma center locations to maximize population coverage in a rural state lacking a formal, organized trauma system. These findings could inform future decision-making for targeted capacity improvement and system design that emphasizes more equitable access to trauma center care in Vermont.