Interventions to Reduce Loneliness in Community-Living Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The problem of loneliness has garnered increased attention from policymakers, payors, and providers due to higher rates during the pandemic, particularly among seniors. Prior systematic reviews have in general not been able to reach conclusions about effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: Computerized databases were searched using broad terms such as "loneliness" or "lonely" or "social isolation" or "social support" from Jan 1, 2011 to June 23, 2021. We reference mined existing systematic reviews for additional and older studies. The Social Interventions Research & Evaluation Network database and Google were searched for gray literature on Feb 4, 2022. Eligible studies were RCTs and observational studies of interventions to reduce loneliness in community-living adults that used a validated loneliness scale; studies from low- or middle-income countries were excluded, and studies were excluded if restricted to populations where all persons had the same disease (such as loneliness in persons with dementia). RESULTS: A total of 5971 titles were reviewed and 60 studies were included in the analysis, 36 RCTs and 24 observational studies. Eleven RCTs and 5 observational studies provided moderate certainty evidence that group-based treatment was associated with reduced loneliness (standardized mean difference for RCTs = - 0.27, 95% CI - 0.48, - 0.08). Five RCTs and 5 observational studies provided moderate certainty evidence that internet training was associated with reduced loneliness (standardized mean difference for RCTs = - 0.22, 95% CI - 0.30, - 0.14). Low certainty evidence suggested that group exercises may be associated with very small reductions in loneliness. Evidence was insufficient to reach conclusions about group-based activities, individual in-person interactions, internet-delivered interventions, and telephone-delivered interventions. DISCUSSION: Low-to-moderate certainty evidence exists that group-based treatments, internet training, and possibly group exercises are associated with modest reductions in loneliness in community-living older adults. These findings can inform the design of supplemental benefits and the implementation of evidence-based interventions to address loneliness. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO ( CRD42021272305 ).

Veterans Health Administration (VA) vs. Non-VA Healthcare Quality: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) serves Veterans in the nation's largest integrated healthcare system. VA seeks to provide high quality of healthcare to Veterans, but due to the VA Choice and MISSION Acts, VA increasingly pays for care outside of its system in the community. This systematic review compares care provided in VA and non-VA settings, and includes published studies from 2015 to 2023, updating 2 prior systematic reviews on this topic. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychINFO from 2015 to 2023 for published literature comparing VA and non-VA care, including VA-paid community care. Records were included at the abstract or full-text level if they compared VA medical care with care provided in other healthcare systems, and included clinical quality, safety, access, patient experience, efficiency (cost), or equity outcomes. Data from included studies was abstracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were synthesized narratively and via graphical evidence maps. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included after screening 2415 titles. Twelve studies compared VA and VA-paid community care. Most studies assessed clinical quality and safety, and studies of access were second most common. Only six studies assessed patient experience and six assessed cost or efficiency. Clinical quality and safety of VA care was better than or equal to non-VA care in most studies. Patient experience in VA care was better than or equal to experience in non-VA care in all studies, but access and cost/efficiency outcomes were mixed. DISCUSSION: VA care is consistently as good as or better than non-VA care in terms of clinical quality and safety. Access, cost/efficiency, and patient experience between the two systems are not well studied. Further research is needed on these outcomes and on services widely used by Veterans in VA-paid community care, like physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Transitioning from One Electronic Health Record to Another: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Transitioning to a new electronic health record (EHR) presents different challenges than transitions from paper to electronic records. We synthesized the body of peer-reviewed literature on EHR-to-EHR transitions to evaluate the generalizability of published work and identify knowledge gaps where more evidence is needed. METHODS: We conducted a broad search in PubMed through July 2022 and collected all publications from two prior reviews. Peer-reviewed publications reporting on data from an EHR-to-EHR transition were included. We extracted data on study design, setting, sample size, EHR systems involved, dates of transition and data collection, outcomes reported, and key findings. RESULTS: The 40 included publications were grouped into thematic categories for narrative synthesis: clinical care outcomes (n = 15), provider perspectives (n = 11), data migration (n = 8), patient experience (n = 4), and other topics (n = 5). Many studies described single sites that are early adopters of technology with robust research resources, switching from a homegrown system to a commercial system, and emphasized the dynamic effect of transitioning on important clinical care and other outcomes over time. DISCUSSION: The published literature represents a heterogeneous mix of study designs and outcome measures, and while some of the stronger studies in this review used longitudinal approaches to compare outcomes across more sites, the current literature is primarily descriptive and is not designed to offer recommendations that can guide future EHR transitions. Transitioning from one EHR to another constitutes a major organizational change that requires nearly every person in the organization to change how they do their work. Future research should include human factors as well as diverse methodological approaches such as mixed methods and implementation science.

Effect of interventions for non-emergent medical transportation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Transportation is an important social determinant of health. We conducted a systematic review of the associations on health and health care utilization of interventions aimed at reducing barriers to non-emergency transportation and non-medical transportation. METHODS: We searched three databases and the gray literature through mid-January 2022. Included studies needed to assess an intervention targeted at non-emergency or non-medical transportation barriers, report missed (or kept) visits, health care utilization, costs, or health outcomes. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and included information about study design, results, and risk of bias. Primary outcomes were frequency of missed appointments, health care utilization, costs, and health outcomes. Synthesis was both narrative and meta-analytic using a random effects model. RESULTS: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, three randomized trials, one controlled trial, and eight observational studies. All included studies had some element of risk of bias. Populations studied usually had chronic or serious health conditions or were poor. Interventions included van rides, bus or taxi vouchers, ride-sharing services, and others. Meta-analysis of seven studies (three trials, four observational studies) yielded a pooled estimate of missed appointments = 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48, 0.83) favoring interventions. Evidence on cost, utilization, and health outcomes were too sparse to support conclusions. Evidence on the effect of non-medical transportation is limited to a single study. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Interventions aimed at non-emergency transportation barriers to access health care are associated with fewer missed appointments; the association with costs, utilization or health outcomes is insufficiently studied to reach conclusions. This review was registered in PROSPERO as ID CRD42020201875.

Sitters as a Patient Safety Strategy to Reduce Hospital Falls: A Systematic Review.

Background: Bedside "sitters" are often used for patients at high risk for falls, but they are expensive and their effectiveness is unclear. Purpose: To review evidence about the effect of sitters and alternatives to sitters on patient falls in acute care hospitals. Data Sources: PubMed searches to 8 October 2019, other databases from inception to December 2018, citation searches on key articles, and a Google search (22 October 2019). Study Selection: English-language studies of any design that assessed the effect of adding sitters to usual care or compared alternatives to sitters (for example, video monitors or "close observation units") for adult patients on general wards of acute care hospitals and reported falls as a primary outcome. Data Extraction: Dual-reviewer extraction of study data and risk of bias; single reviewer with group discussion for GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) certainty of evidence. Data Synthesis: Of 20 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 2 added sitters to usual care and 18 compared alternatives to sitters. There were no randomized trials, 11 time-series studies, 1 retrospective quasi-experimental study, and 8 pre-post studies. All studies had at least 1 methodological limitation. Two studies provided very-low-certainty evidence that adding sitters reduced falls. Eight studies provided moderate-certainty evidence that interventions that included video monitoring reduced sitter use and either did not affect or reduced the number of falls. Very-low-certainty evidence suggested that interventions that included nurse assessment tools (3 studies) or a close observation unit (2 studies) were effective alternatives to sitters. Limitation: No studies had low risk of bias, publication bias is likely, and studies may have been missed. Conclusion: Despite a compelling rationale, evidence is scant that adding sitters to usual care reduces falls. Primary Funding Source: Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO: CRD42019127424).

What Is the Optimal Primary Care Panel Size?: A Systematic Review.

Background: Primary care for a panel of patients is a central component of population health, but the optimal panel size is unclear. Purpose: To review evidence about the association of primary care panel size with health care outcomes and provider burnout. Data Sources: English-language searches of multiple databases from inception to October 2019 and Google searches performed in September 2019. Study Selection: English-language studies of any design, including simulation models, that assessed the association between primary care panel size and safety, efficacy, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, equity, or provider burnout. Data Extraction: Independent, dual-reviewer extraction; group consensus rating of certainty of evidence. Data Synthesis: Sixteen hypothesis-testing studies and 12 simulation modeling studies met inclusion criteria. All but 1 hypothesis-testing study were cross-sectional assessments of association. Three studies each provided low-certainty evidence that increasing panel size was associated with no or modestly adverse effects on patient-centered and effective care. Eight studies provided low-certainty evidence that increasing panel size was associated with variable effects on timely care. No studies assessed the effect of panel size on safety, efficiency, or equity. One study provided very-low-certainty evidence of an association between increased panel size and provider burnout. The 12 simulation studies evaluated 5 models; all used access as the only outcome of care. Five and 2 studies, respectively, provided moderate-certainty evidence that adjusting panel size for case mix and adding clinical conditions to the case mix resulted in better access. Limitation: No studies had concurrent comparison groups, and published and unpublished studies may have been missed. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient to make evidence-based recommendations about the optimal primary care panel size for achieving beneficial health outcomes. Primary Funding Source: Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.

Sustaining Successful Clinical-community Partnerships in Medically Underserved Urban Areas: A Qualitative Case Study.

Clinical-community partnerships can improve access and receipt of preventive health services in community settings. Understanding how to sustain their potential benefits is warranted. Qualitative case-study of the Faith Community Health Partnership (FCHP), a collaboration between faith-community nurses and community organizations sustained over 25 years. We used content analysis principles to report on partnership sustainability themes identified through semi-structured interviews with FCHP partners (n = 18). Factors supporting partnership sustainability: Maintaining partners' commitment over time; strategic resource-sharing; facilitating engagement; and preserving partnership flexibility. Sustaining clinical-community partnerships is a dynamic and continuous process requiring significant time, effort, and resources on behalf of partners.

Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments.

BACKGROUND: Organizational readiness assessments have a history of being developed as important support tools for successful implementation. However, it remains unclear how best to operationalize readiness across varied projects or settings. We conducted a synthesis and content analysis of published readiness instruments to compare how investigators have operationalized the concept of organizational readiness for change. METHODS: We identified readiness assessments using a systematic review and update search. We mapped individual assessment items to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which identifies five domains affecting implementation (outer setting, inner setting, intervention characteristics, characteristics of individuals, and implementation process) and multiple constructs within each domain. RESULTS: Of 1370 survey items, 897 (68%) mapped to the CFIR domain of inner setting, most commonly related to constructs of readiness for implementation (n = 220); networks and communication (n = 207); implementation climate (n = 204); structural characteristics (n = 139); and culture (n = 93). Two hundred forty-two items (18%) mapped to characteristics of individuals (mainly other personal attributes [n = 157] and self-efficacy [n = 52]); 80 (6%) mapped to outer setting; 51 (4%) mapped to implementation process; 40 (3%) mapped to intervention characteristics; and 60 (4%) did not map to CFIR constructs. Instruments were typically tailored to specific interventions or contexts. DISCUSSION: Available readiness instruments predominantly focus on contextual factors within the organization and characteristics of individuals, but the specificity of most assessment items suggests a need to tailor items to the specific scenario in which an assessment is fielded. Readiness assessments must bridge the gap between measuring a theoretical construct and factors of importance to a particular implementation.

Sequelae of an Evidence-based Approach to Management for Access to Care in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Access to health care is a critical concept in the design, delivery, and evaluation of high quality care. Meaningful evaluation of access requires research evidence and the integration of perspectives of patients, providers, and administrators. OBJECTIVE: Because of high-profile access challenges, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) invested in research and implemented initiatives to address access management. We describe a 2-year evidence-based approach to improving access in primary care. METHODS: The approach included an Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) report, a 22-site in-person qualitative evaluation of VA initiatives, and in-person and online stakeholder panel meetings facilitated by the RAND corporation. Subsequent work products were disseminated in a targeted strategy to increase impact on policy and practice. RESULTS: The ESP report summarized existing research evidence in primary care management and an evaluation of ongoing initiatives provided organizational data and novel metrics. The stakeholder panel served as a source of insights and information, as well as a knowledge dissemination vector. Work products included the ESP report, a RAND report, peer-reviewed manuscripts, presentations at key conferences, and training materials for VA Group Practice Managers. Resulting policy and practice implications are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The commissioning of an evidence report was the beginning of a cascade of work including exploration of unanswered questions, novel research and measurement discoveries, and policy changes and innovation. These results demonstrate what can be achieved in a learning health care system that employs evidence and expertise to address complex issues such as access management.

Synthesizing the Strength of the Evidence of Complementary and Integrative Health Therapies for Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Pain and opioid use are highly prevalent, leading for calls to include nonpharmacological options in pain management, including complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies. More than 2,000 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and many systematic reviews have been conducted on CIH therapies, making it difficult to easily understand what type of CIH therapy might be effective for what type of pain. Here we synthesize the strength of the evidence for four types of CIH therapies on pain: acupuncture, therapeutic massage, mindfulness techniques, and tai chi. DESIGN: We conducted searches of English-language systematic reviews and RCTs in 11 electronic databases and previously published reviews for each type of CIH. To synthesize that large body of literature, we then created an "evidence map," or a visual display, of the literature size and broad estimates of effectiveness for pain. RESULTS: Many systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria: acupuncture (86), massage (38), mindfulness techniques (11), and tai chi (21). The evidence for acupuncture was strongest, and largest for headache and chronic pain. Mindfulness, massage, and tai chi have statistically significant positive effects on some types of pain. However, firm conclusions cannot be drawn for many types of pain due to methodological limitations or lack of RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: There is sufficient strength of evidence for acupuncture for various types of pain. Individual studies indicate that tai chi, mindfulness, and massage may be promising for multiple types of chronic pain. Additional sufficiently powered RCTs are warranted to indicate tai chi, mindfulness, and massage for other types of pain.

Benefits and Harms of Cranial Electrical Stimulation for Chronic Painful Conditions, Depression, Anxiety, and Insomnia: A Systematic Review.

Background: Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) is increasingly popular as a treatment, yet its clinical benefit is unclear. Purpose: To review evidence about the benefits and harms of CES for adult patients with chronic painful conditions, depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Data Sources: Several databases from inception to 10 October 2017 without language restrictions and references from experts, prior reviews, and manufacturers. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials of CES versus usual care or sham CES that reported pain, depression, anxiety, or sleep outcomes in any language. Data Extraction: Single-reviewer extraction checked by another; dual independent quality assessment; strength-of-evidence grading by the first author with subsequent group discussion. Data Synthesis: Twenty-eight articles from 26 randomized trials met eligibility criteria. The 2 trials that compared CES with usual care were small, and neither reported a statistically significant benefit in pain or anxiety outcomes for patients with fibromyalgia or anxiety, respectively. Fourteen trials with sham or placebo controls involving patients with painful conditions, such as headache, neuromuscular pain, or musculoskeletal pain, had conflicting results. Four trials done more than 40 years ago and 1 from 2014 provided low-strength evidence of a possible modest benefit compared with sham treatments in patients with anxiety and depression. Trials in patients with insomnia (n = 2), insomnia and anxiety (n = 1), or depression (n = 3) had inconclusive or conflicting results. Low-strength evidence suggested that CES does not cause serious side effects. Limitation: Most trials had small sample sizes and short durations; all had high risk of bias due to inadequate blinding. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient that CES has clinically important effects on fibromyalgia, headache, neuromusculoskeletal pain, degenerative joint pain, depression, or insomnia; low-strength evidence suggests modest benefit in patients with anxiety and depression. Primary Funding Source: Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO: CRD42016023951).

Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Acute low back pain is common and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a treatment option. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have reported different conclusions about the effectiveness of SMT. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies of the effectiveness and harms of SMT for acute (≤6 weeks) low back pain. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 1, 2011, through February 6, 2017, as well as identified systematic reviews and RCTs, for RCTs of adults with low back pain treated in ambulatory settings with SMT compared with sham or alternative treatments, and that measured pain or function outcomes for up to 6 weeks. Observational studies were included to assess harms. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was done in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Risk of Bias tool. This tool has 11 items in the following domains: randomization, concealment, baseline differences, blinding (patient), blinding (care provider [care provider is a specific quality metric used by the CBN Risk of Bias tool]), blinding (outcome), co-interventions, compliance, dropouts, timing, and intention to treat. Prior research has shown the CBN Risk of Bias tool identifies studies at an increased risk of bias using a threshold of 5 or 6 as a summary score. The evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pain (measured by either the 100-mm visual analog scale, 11-point numeric rating scale, or other numeric pain scale), function (measured by the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index [range, 0-100]), or any harms measured within 6 weeks. FINDINGS: Of 26 eligible RCTs identified, 15 RCTs (1711 patients) provided moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in pain (pooled mean improvement in the 100-mm visual analog pain scale, -9.95 [95% CI, -15.6 to -4.3]). Twelve RCTs (1381 patients) produced moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in function (pooled mean effect size, -0.39 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.07]). Heterogeneity was not explained by type of clinician performing SMT, type of manipulation, study quality, or whether SMT was given alone or as part of a package of therapies. No RCT reported any serious adverse event. Minor transient adverse events such as increased pain, muscle stiffness, and headache were reported 50% to 67% of the time in large case series of patients treated with SMT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associated with modest improvements in pain and function at up to 6 weeks, with transient minor musculoskeletal harms. However, heterogeneity in study results was large.

Electronic health record-based interventions for improving appropriate diagnostic imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: One driver of increasing health care costs is the use of radiologic imaging procedures. More appropriate use could improve quality and reduce costs. PURPOSE: To review interventions that use the computerized clinical decision-support (CCDS) capabilities of electronic health records to improve appropriate use of diagnostic radiologic test ordering. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles in PubMed from 1995 to September 2014 and searches in Web of Science and PubMed of citations related to key articles. STUDY SELECTION: 23 studies, including 3 randomized trials, 7 time-series studies, and 13 pre-post studies that assessed the effect of CCDS on diagnostic radiologic test ordering in adults. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 independent reviewers extracted data on functionality, study outcomes, and context and assessed the quality of included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirteen studies provided moderate-level evidence that CCDS improves appropriateness (effect size, -0.49 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.26]) and reduces use (effect size, -0.13 [CI, -0.23 to -0.04]). Interventions with a "hard stop" that prevents a clinician from overriding the CCDS without outside consultation, as well as interventions in integrated care delivery systems, may be more effective. Harms have rarely been assessed but include decreased ordering of appropriate tests and physician dissatisfaction. LIMITATION: Potential for publication bias, insufficient reporting of harms, and poor description of context and implementation. CONCLUSION: Computerized clinical decision support integrated with the electronic health record can improve appropriate use of diagnostic radiology by a moderate amount and decrease use by a small amount. Before widespread adoption can be recommended, more data are needed on potential harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007469).

Inpatient fall prevention programs as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review.

Falls are common among inpatients. Several reviews, including 4 meta-analyses involving 19 studies, show that multicomponent programs to prevent falls among inpatients reduce relative risk for falls by as much as 30%. The purpose of this updated review is to reassess the benefits and harms of fall prevention programs in acute care settings and to identify factors associated with successful implementation of these programs. We searched for new evidence using PubMed from 2005 to September 2012. Two new, large, randomized, controlled trials supported the conclusions of the existing meta-analyses. An optimal bundle of components was not identified. Harms were not systematically examined, but potential harms included increased use of restraints and sedating drugs and decreased efforts to mobilize patients. Eleven studies showed that the following themes were associated with successful implementation: leadership support, engagement of front-line staff in program design, guidance of the prevention program by a multidisciplinary committee, pilot-testing interventions, use of information technology systems to provide data about falls, staff education and training, and changes in nihilistic attitudes about fall prevention. Future research would advance knowledge by identifying optimal bundles of component interventions for particular patients and by determining whether effectiveness relies more on the mix of the components or use of certain implementation strategies.

Redesign of an electronic clinical reminder to prevent falls in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Falls are the leading cause of unintentional injury among US older adults. Guidelines recommend screening patients for fall risk, and providing exercise for patients with gait and balance problems. We redesigned an electronic clinical reminder to improve identification and management of Veterans at high risk for falls, and piloted the reminder in 3 Veterans Health Administration community-based outpatient clinics. METHODS: This project had 5 key elements: (1) case finding, (2) efficient collection of condition-specific clinical data, (3) clinical reminders to prompt appropriate care, (4) patient and family education materials, and (5) primary care provider (PCP) decision support/PCP and staff education. We reviewed clinical reminder reports, interviewed nurses and PCPs, directly observed clinic operations, and watched nurses and PCPs use the clinical reminder with a dummy patient record to determine areas in need of improvement. RESULTS: Over a 1-year period, 2943 Veterans aged 75 years and older visited the 3 clinics, with 2264 screened for fall risk by the intake nurse, yielding 472 positive screens. PCPs completed gait, balance, and strength evaluations on 231 screen-positive Veterans. Among the 162 Veterans who had a gait, balance, or strength problem on evaluation and were free of advanced dementia or poor prognosis, 39 were offered physical therapy or exercise. PCPs and nurses held divergent opinions about the clinical reminder and the project, with PCPs more negative and nurses more positive. CONCLUSIONS: A fall prevention clinical reminder can be incorporated into routine care, but low referral rates to exercise programs suggest that further quality improvement cycles are needed.

Care coordination across healthcare systems: development of a research agenda, implications for practice, and recommendations for policy based on a modified Delphi panel.

OBJECTIVE: For large, integrated healthcare delivery systems, coordinating patient care across delivery systems with providers external to the system presents challenges. We explored the domains and requirements for care coordination by professionals across healthcare systems and developed an agenda for research, practice and policy. DESIGN: The modified Delphi approach convened a 2-day stakeholder panel with moderated virtual discussions, preceded and followed by online surveys. SETTING: The work addresses care coordination across healthcare systems. We introduced common care scenarios and differentiated recommendations for a large (main) healthcare organisation and external healthcare professionals that contribute additional care. PARTICIPANTS: The panel composition included health service providers, decision makers, patients and care community, and researchers. Discussions were informed by a rapid review of tested approaches to fostering collaboration, facilitating care coordination and improving communication across healthcare systems. OUTCOME MEASURES: The study planned to formulate a research agenda, implications for practice and recommendations for policy. RESULTS: For research recommendations, we found consensus for developing measures of shared care, exploring healthcare professionals' needs in different care scenarios and evaluating patient experiences. Agreed practice recommendations included educating external professionals about issues specific to the patients in the main healthcare system, educating professionals within the main healthcare system about the roles and responsibilities of all involved parties, and helping patients better understand the pros and cons of within-system and out-of-system care. Policy recommendations included supporting time for professionals with high overlap in patients to engage regularly and sustaining support for care coordination for high-need patients. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations from the stakeholder panel created an agenda to foster further research, practice and policy innovations in cross-system care coordination.

Pathways for primary care practice adoption of patient engagement strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To identify potential orderings of primary care practice adoption of patient engagement strategies overall and separately for interpersonally and technologically oriented strategies. DATA SOURCES: We analyzed physician practice survey data (n = 71) on the adoption of 12 patient engagement strategies. STUDY DESIGN: Mokken scale analysis was used to assess latent traits among the patient engagement strategies. DATA COLLECTION: Three groupings of patient engagement strategies were analyzed: (1) all 12 patient engagement strategies, (2) six interpersonally oriented strategies, and (3) six technologically oriented strategies. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We did not find scalability among all 12 patient engagement strategies, however, separately analyzing the subgroups of six interpersonally and six technologically oriented strategies demonstrated scalability (Loevinger's H coefficient of scalability [range]: interpersonal strategies, H = 0.54 [0.49-0.60], technological strategies, H = 0.42 [0.31, 0.54]). Ordered patterns emerged in the adoption of strategies for both interpersonal and technological types. CONCLUSIONS: Common pathways of practice adoption of patient engagement strategies were identified. Implementing interpersonally intensive patient engagement strategies may require different physician practice capabilities than technological strategies. Rather than simultaneously adopting multiple patient engagement strategies, gradual and purposeful practice adoption may improve the impact of these strategies and support sustainability.

Association of Promoting Housing Affordability and Stability With Improved Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Housing insecurity-that is, difficulty with housing affordability and stability-is prevalent and results in increased risk for both homelessness and poor health. However, whether interventions that prevent housing insecurity upstream of homelessness improve health remains uncertain. Objective: To review evidence characterizing associations of primary prevention strategies for housing insecurity with adult physical health, mental health, health-related behaviors, health care use, and health care access. Evidence Review: Pairs of independent reviewers systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, EconLit, and the Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network for quantitative studies published from 2005 to 2021 that evaluated interventions intended to directly improve housing affordability and/or stability either by supporting at-risk households (targeted primary prevention) or by enhancing community-level housing supply and affordability in partnership with the health sector (structural primary prevention). Risk of bias was appraised using validated tools, and the evidence was synthesized using modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. Findings: A total of 26 articles describing 3 randomized trials and 20 observational studies (16 longitudinal designs and 4 cross-sectional quasi-waiting list control designs) were included. Existing interventions have focused primarily on mitigating housing insecurity for the most vulnerable individuals rather than preventing housing insecurity outright. Moderate-certainty evidence was found that eviction moratoriums were associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths. Certainty of evidence was low or very low for health associations of other targeted primary prevention interventions, including emergency rent assistance, legal assistance with waiting list priority for public housing, long-term rent subsidies, and homeownership assistance. No studies evaluated health system-partnered structural primary prevention strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found mixed and mostly low-certainty evidence that interventions that promote housing affordability and stability were associated with improved adult health outcomes. Existing interventions may need to be paired with other efforts to address the structural determinants of health. As health care systems and insurers respond to increasing opportunities to invest in housing as a determinant of health, further research is needed to clarify where along the housing insecurity pathway interventions should focus for the most effective and equitable health impact.

Formative evaluation of the telecare fall prevention project for older veterans.

BACKGROUND: Fall prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults have been found to reduce falls in some research studies. However, wider implementation of fall prevention activities in routine care has yielded mixed results. We implemented a theory-driven program to improve care for falls at our Veterans Affairs healthcare facility. The first project arising from this program used a nurse advice telephone line to identify patients' risk factors for falls and to triage patients to appropriate services. Here we report the formative evaluation of this project. METHODS: To evaluate the intervention we: 1) interviewed patient and employee stakeholders, 2) reviewed participating patients' electronic health record data and 3) abstracted information from meeting minutes. We describe the implementation process, including whether the project was implemented according to plan; identify barriers and facilitators to implementation; and assess the incremental benefit to the quality of health care for fall prevention received by patients in the project. We also estimate the cost of developing the pilot project. RESULTS: The project underwent multiple changes over its life span, including the addition of an option to mail patients educational materials about falls. During the project's lifespan, 113 patients were considered for inclusion and 35 participated. Patient and employee interviews suggested support for the project, but revealed that transportation to medical care was a major barrier in following up on fall risks identified by nurse telephone triage. Medical record review showed that the project enhanced usual medical care with respect to home safety counseling. We discontinued the program after 18 months due to staffing limitations and competing priorities. We estimated a cost of $9194 for meeting time to develop the project. CONCLUSIONS: The project appeared feasible at its outset but could not be sustained past the first cycle of evaluation due to insufficient resources and a waning of local leadership support due to competing national priorities. Future projects will need both front-level staff commitment and prolonged high-level leadership involvement to thrive.