Designing and Evaluating a Prediabetes Shared Decision Aid.

BACKGROUND: Prediabetes is increasing in prevalence and is associated with risk of developing diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and retinopathy. Clinicians have limited tools to facilitate prediabetes discussions within primary care visits. PURPOSE: 1) Develop a Patient and Stakeholder Advisory Committee (PASAC) to design, evaluate, and revise a prediabetes shared decision aid, and 2) evaluate the feasibility and experience of implementing the tool within primary care practice. METHODS: A prediabetes decision aid (double-sided infographic with decision questions) was created by a PASAC that included patients, primary care clinicians, diabetes educators, endocrinologists, and pharmacists. Five clinicians within 3 primary care practices tested the prediabetes tool with 50 adult patients with prediabetes. Patients completed 2 surveys immediately after the office visit and 6 weeks later. Clinicians and PASAC members completed a postintervention survey. RESULTS: The prediabetes shared decision aid was created through a deliberative process over 3 PASAC meetings. Ninety-six percent of patients felt the tool prepared them to decide on a diabetes prevention plan, and 100% of clinicians would use the tool again and felt the tool did not extend visit length. DISCUSSION: It was feasible to cocreate a prediabetes shared decision aid within a PASAC and implement the tool within a primary care setting. Patients and clinicians reported a prediabetes discussion, which may mitigate rates of progression to diabetes and associated complications. Future research should evaluate which of the intervention components most effectively promotes discussion of prediabetes within a primary care setting.

Decision Support and Navigation to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Hispanic Patients.

BACKGROUND: Effective strategies are needed to raise colorectal cancer screening rates among Hispanics. METHODS: We surveyed and randomized 400 Hispanic primary care patients either to a Decision Support and Navigation Intervention (DSNI) Group (n = 197) or a Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 203). Both groups received a colorectal cancer screening kit [bilingual informational booklet, fecal immunochemical stool blood test (SBT), and colonoscopy screening instructions]. The DSNI Group received a telephone contact from a patient navigator. The navigator clarified screening test preference and likelihood of test performance, helped to develop a screening plan, and provided guidance through test performance. An endpoint telephone survey and medical chart review were completed. Multivariable analyses were conducted to assess 12-month screening adherence, change in decision stage, and knowledge and perceptions. RESULTS: Screening adherence was significantly higher in the DSNI Group than the SI Group [OR, 4.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.1-7.6]. The DSNI Group, compared with the SI Group, also displayed higher SBT screening [OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.6-6.7), higher colonoscopy screening (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 4.1-18.7), and greater forward change in screening decision stage (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.6-9.5). At endpoint, study groups did not differ in screening knowledge or perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: The DSNI had a greater positive impact on colorectal cancer screening outcomes than the SI. IMPACT: Health system implementation of DSNI strategies may help to reduce Hispanic colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care.

Exploring Health Beliefs Among Hispanic Adults with Prediabetes.

Diabetes and prediabetes are increasing in prevalence, corresponding to epidemic rates of obesity. Hispanic adults with prediabetes are 1.7 times more likely than non-Hispanic whites to progress to diabetes. We set out to understand health beliefs of Hispanic adults and, with that knowledge, facilitate tailored messaging to promote patient activation and lifestyle change. Using the Risk Perception Survey for Developing Diabetes along with demographic and lifestyle intervention interest questions, a 34-question survey was mailed to a registry of Hispanic adults with a diagnosis of prediabetes and an HbA1c between 5.7 and 6.4% (N = 414). Despite more than three-quarters of respondents (n = 92; 77%) indicating they had prior knowledge of their diagnosis, overall diabetes risk knowledge was low. A significant difference in diabetes risk knowledge was found between groups stratified by education level. High scores in personal control and worry were reported. Respondents overwhelmingly reported interest in exercise (n = 92; 77%) and healthy eating interventions (n = 60; 50%) over technology-based interventions. High levels of worry and personal control, combined with low to intermediate levels of risk knowledge, indicate an opportunity for education and activation in this community. Healthy eating and exercise programs are possible interventions that may slow the progression from prediabetes to diabetes.

Impact of Race Versus Education and Race Versus Income on Patients' Motivation to Participate in Clinical Trials.

Our study investigates whether levels of motivation and barriers to participation in clinical trials vary with patients' education and income. A self-administered survey asked outpatients to rank potential influential factors on a "0" to "4" significance scale for their motivation to participate in clinical trials. Principal component analysis (PCA), analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests analyzed the impact of race, education, and income on their motivation to participate. Analysis included 1841 surveys; most respondents had a high school education or some college, and listed annual income < $30,000. There was a significant interaction between race and income on our motivation scale 1 scores (p = .0261). Compared with their counterparts, subjects with less education/lower income ranked monetary compensation (p = .0420 and p < .0001, respectively) as a higher motivator. Minorities and patients with less education and lower income appear to be more influenced by their desire to please the doctor, the race and sex of the doctor, and the language spoken by the doctor being the same as theirs. For all races, education appeared to have a direct relationship with motivation to participate, except for African-Americans, whose motivation appeared to decline with more education. Income appeared to have an inverse relationship with motivation to participate for all races.

Racial Differences Among Factors Associated with Participation in Clinical Research Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether racial differences exist among various factors associated with patients' decision to participate in clinical research trials. METHODS: A self-administered, IRB-approved survey was utilized with inclusion criteria requiring subjects to be 18 years of age or older, having active patient status and ability to complete the survey without assistance. Subjects were asked to rate potential influential motivators, barriers, and facilitators on a "no influence" (0) to "most influence" (4) scale for participation in research that tests a new drug or device. Kruskal-Wallis testing was used to identify factors significantly associated with race. RESULTS: Analysis included 1643 surveys: 949 (57.8 %) Caucasian; 217 (13.2 %) African-American; 317 (19.3 %) Hispanic; 62 (3.8 %) Multiracial; and 98 (6.0 %) "Other" minorities. Statistically significant differences (p ≤ .02) by race were found for five out of ten motivating factors. "How well the research study is explained to me" had the highest mean value for all races except other minorities, for whom "Knowledge learned from my participation will benefit someone in the future" scored highest. "Risk of unknown side-effects" was the greatest barrier for all races. CONCLUSION: Racial differences exist not only between Caucasians and Minorities for the factors associated with their clinical trial participation, but also among different minority races themselves. To promote diversity in research, recruitment strategies for each individual race should be customized based on what matters to the target population.

Clinician-Reported Barriers to Group Visit Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Group visits have been shown to improve disease-oriented outcomes and satisfaction, yet many clinicians have not incorporated them into practice. We aimed to identify clinician-reported barriers that preclude clinicians from implementing group visits. METHODS: Primary care physicians from one practice-based research network were surveyed regarding their experience with and barriers to group visits. The survey, developed for this study, was mailed to 246 clinicians. RESULTS: Of 107 respondents (44% response rate), those in practice <10 years were significantly more likely to have had group visit experience than those with >10 years of experience. For those without prior group visit experience, training was named as the top barrier to incorporating group visits. Those with group visit experience named staffing concerns and recruitment as the top barriers to group visit implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians without prior group visit experience were less likely to endorse group visits. Addressing the modifiable barriers may enhance the incorporation of group visits into practice.

Patient-Reported Barriers and Limitations to Attending Diabetes Group Visits.

PURPOSE: Through this exploratory study, we sought to understand why group visit participation is low among adult patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Eligible study participants included adult patients with type 2 diabetes. After a pilot survey was sent to a random sample of 48 patients, the remaining 187 eligible patients were invited to complete a revised version of the survey. RESULTS: Most frequently cited reasons for not attending group visits included diabetes under control, work and/or other responsibilities, and time barriers. There was variability in the desired time for the visits, though the majority of patients preferred evening visits. While some patients reported copays as a challenge, the likelihood of attending did not decrease for this subgroup. Most patients surveyed (54%) indicated interest in diabetes group visits. CONCLUSION: Implementing strategies to address the patient-identified system barriers (eg, time, transportation, and copays) may increase participation in diabetes group visits.