Intersecting social determinants of health among patients with childcare needs: a cross-sectional analysis of social vulnerability.

INTRODUCTION: Access to childcare is an understudied social determinant of health (SDOH). Our health system established a childcare facility for patients to address childcare barriers to healthcare. Recognizing that social risk factors often co-exist, we sought to understand intersecting social risk factors among patients with childcare needs who utilized and did not utilize the childcare facility and identify residual unmet social needs alongside childcare needs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of patients who enrolled in the childcare facility from November 2020 to October 2022 to compare parameters of the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) associated with the census tract extracted from electronic medical record (EMR) data among utilizers and non-utilizers of the facility. Overall SVI and segmentation into four themes of vulnerability (socioeconomic status, household characteristics, racial/ethnic minority status, and housing type/transportation) were compared across utilizers and utilizers. Number of 90th percentile indicators were also compared to assess extreme levels of vulnerability. A sample of utilizers additionally received a patient-reported social needs screening questionnaire administered at the childcare facility. RESULTS: Among 400 enrollees in the childcare facility, 70% utilized childcare services and 30% did not. Utilizers and non-utilizers were demographically similar, though utilizers were more likely to speak Spanish (34%) compared to non-utilizers (22%). Mean SVI was similar among utilizers and non-utilizers, but the mean number of 90th percentile indicators were higher for non-utilizers compared to utilizers (4.3 ± 2.7 vs 3.7 ± 2.7, p = 0.03), primarily driven by differences in the housing type/transportation theme (p = 0.01). Non-utilizers had a lower rate of healthcare utilization compared to utilizers (p = 0.02). Among utilizers who received patient-reported screening, 84% had one unmet social need identified, of whom 62% agreed for additional assistance. Among social work referrals, 44% were linked to social workers in their medical clinics, while 56% were supported by social work integrated in the childcare facility. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of SDOH approximated by SVI showed actionable differences, potentially transportation barriers, among patients with childcare needs who utilized a health system-integrated childcare facility and patients who did not utilize services. Furthermore, residual unmet social needs among patients who utilized the facility demonstrate the multifactorial nature of social risk factors experienced by patients with childcare needs and opportunities to address intersecting social needs within an integrated intervention. Intersecting social needs require holistic examination and multifaceted interventions.

Barriers to and facilitators of implementing colorectal cancer screening evidence-based interventions in federally qualified health centers: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) uptake in Texas federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), which serve a predominantly vulnerable population with high demands. Empirical support exists for evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that are proven to increase CRCS; however, as with screening, their use remains low in FQHCs. This study aimed to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: We recruited employees involved in implementing CRCS EBIs (e.g., physicians) using data from a CDC-funded program to increase the CRCS in Texas FQHCs. Through 23 group interviews, we explored experiences with practice change, CRCS promotion and quality improvement initiatives, organizational readiness, the impact of COVID-19, and the use of CRCS EBIs (e.g., provider reminders). We used directed content analysis with CFIR constructs to identify the critical facilitators and barriers. RESULTS: The analysis revealed six primary CFIR constructs that influence implementation: information technology infrastructure, innovation design, work infrastructure, performance measurement pressure, assessing needs, and available resources. Based on experiences with four recommended EBIs, participants described barriers, including data limitations of electronic health records and the design of reminder alerts targeted at deliverers and recipients of patient or provider reminders. Implementation facilitators include incentivized processes to increase provider assessment and feedback, existing clinic processes (e.g., screening referrals), and available resources to address patient needs (e.g., transportation). Staff buy-in emerged as an implementation facilitator, fostering a conducive environment for change within clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Using CFIR, we identified barriers, such as the burden of technology infrastructure, and facilitators, such as staff buy-in. The results, which enhance our understanding of CRCS EBI implementation in FQHCs, provide insights into designing nuanced, practical implementation strategies to improve cancer control in a critical setting.

Effective Facilitator Strategies for Supporting Primary Care Practice Change: A Mixed Methods Study.

PURPOSE: Practice facilitation is an evidence-informed implementation strategy to support quality improvement (QI) and aid practices in aligning with best evidence. Few studies, particularly of this size and scope, identify strategies that contribute to facilitator effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed methods study, analyzing data from EvidenceNOW, a large-scale QI initiative. Seven regional cooperatives employed 162 facilitators to work with 1,630 small or medium-sized primary care practices. Main analyses were based on facilitators who worked with at least 4 practices. Facilitators were defined as more effective if at least 75% of their practices improved on at least 1 outcome measure-aspirin use, blood pressure control, smoking cessation counseling (ABS), or practice change capacity, measured using Change Process Capability Questionnaire-from baseline to follow-up. Facilitators were defined as less effective if less than 50% of their practices improved on these outcomes. Using an immersion crystallization and comparative approach, we analyzed observational and interview data to identify strategies associated with more effective facilitators. RESULTS: Practices working with more effective facilitators had a 3.6% greater change in the mean percentage of patients meeting the composite ABS measure compared with practices working with less effective facilitators (P <.001). More effective facilitators cultivated motivation by tailoring QI work and addressing resistance, guided practices to think critically, and provided accountability to support change, using these strategies in combination. They were able to describe their work in detail. In contrast, less effective facilitators seldom used these strategies and described their work in general terms. Facilitator background, experience, and work on documentation did not differentiate between more and less effective facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitation strategies that differentiate more and less effective facilitators have implications for enhancing facilitator development and training, and can assist all facilitators to more effectively support practice changes.

Understanding the Delivery of Patient-Centered Survivorship Care Planning: An Exploratory Interview Study With Complex Cancer Survivors.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding key elements of the survivorship care planning process, such as patient-centered communication (PCC) and health self-efficacy, are critical for delivering patient-centered survivorship care to cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions ("complex cancer survivors"). Building upon our team's recent research efforts to examine the survivorship care planning process from a patient-centered lens, this exploratory study leveraged an ongoing quasi-experimental trial to elucidate the experience of complex cancer survivors with survivorship care planning and post-treatment management. METHODS: We conducted a hypothesis-generating thematic content analysis on 8 interview transcripts. RESULTS: Survivors reported positive experiences communicating with their oncology care team but the presence of multiple chronic conditions in addition to cancer creates additional barriers to patient-centered survivorship care. CONCLUSION: These findings support the need for further in-depth research aimed at improving PCC across all care teams and enabling self-management by delivering more personalized survivorship care planning that aligns with survivor's needs, values, and preferences.

Improving Smoking and Blood Pressure Outcomes: The Interplay Between Operational Changes and Local Context.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to identify conditions and operational changes linked to improvements in smoking and blood pressure (BP) outcomes in primary care. METHODS: We purposively sampled and interviewed practice staff (eg, office managers, clinicians) from a subset of 104 practices participating in EvidenceNOW-a multisite cardiovascular disease prevention initiative. We calculated Clinical Quality Measure improvements, with targets of 10-point or greater absolute improvements in the proportion of patients with smoking screening and, if relevant, counseling and in the proportion of hypertensive patients with adequately controlled BP. We analyzed interview data to identify operational changes, transforming these into numeric data. We used Configurational Comparative Methods to assess the joint effects of multiple factors on outcomes. RESULTS: In clinician-owned practices, implementing a workflow to routinely screen, counsel, and connect patients to smoking cessation resources, or implementing a documentation change or a referral to a resource alone led to an improvement of at least 10 points in the smoking outcome with a moderate level of facilitation support. These patterns did not manifest in health- or hospital system-owned practices or in Federally Qualified Health Centers, however. The BP outcome improved by at least 10 points among solo practices after medical assistants were trained to take an accurate BP. Among larger, clinician-owned practices, BP outcomes improved when practices implemented a second BP measurement when the first was elevated, and when staff learned where to document this information in the electronic health record. With 50 hours or more of facilitation, BP outcomes improved among larger and health- and hospital system-owned practices that implemented these operational changes. CONCLUSIONS: There was no magic bullet for improving smoking or BP outcomes. Multiple combinations of operational changes led to improvements, but only in specific contexts of practice size and ownership, or dose of external facilitation.

Cervical cancer screening research in the PROSPR I consortium: Rationale, methods and baseline findings from a US cohort.

Little is known about the effect of evolving risk-based cervical cancer screening and management guidelines on United States (US) clinical practice and patient outcomes. We describe the National Cancer Institute's Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium, methods and baseline findings from its cervical sites: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Parkland Health & Hospital System/University of Texas Southwestern (Parkland-UTSW) and New Mexico HPV Pap Registry housed by University of New Mexico (UNM-NMHPVPR). Across these diverse healthcare settings, we collected data on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations, screening tests/results, diagnostic and treatment procedures/results and cancer diagnoses on nearly 4.7 million women aged 18-89 years from 2010 to 2014. We calculated baseline (2012 for UNM-NMHPVPR; 2010 for other sites) frequencies for sociodemographics, cervical cancer risk factors and key screening process measures for each site's cohort. Healthcare delivery settings, cervical cancer screening strategy, race/ethnicity and insurance status varied among sites. The proportion of women receiving a Pap test during the baseline year was similar across sites (26.1-36.1%). Most high-risk HPV tests were performed either reflexively or as cotests, and utilization pattern varied by site. Prevalence of colposcopy or biopsy was higher at Parkland-UTSW (3.6%) than other sites (1.3-1.4%). Incident cervical cancer was rare. HPV vaccination among age-eligible women not already immunized was modest across sites (0.1-7.2%). Cervical PROSPR I makes available high-quality, multilevel, longitudinal screening process data from a large and diverse cohort of women to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of US cervical cancer screening delivery.

Patient-Reported Barriers to Completing a Diagnostic Colonoscopy Following Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Among Uninsured Patients.

BACKGROUND: For colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to improve survival, patients with an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) must follow-up with a diagnostic colonoscopy. Adherence to follow-up is low and patient-level barriers for suboptimal adherence have yet to be explored. OBJECTIVE: To characterize barriers for non-completion of diagnostic colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT reported by under- and uninsured patients receiving care in a safety-net health system. DESIGN: A longitudinal, cohort study of CRC screening outreach to 8565 patients using mailed FIT kits. Patients with abnormal FIT results received telephonic navigation to arrange for a no-cost diagnostic colonoscopy. PATIENTS: Adults aged 50-64 years receiving care at a North Texas safety-net health system. APPROACH: Descriptive analyses characterized the patient sample and reasons for lack of follow-up after abnormal FIT over the 3-year outreach program. Thematic qualitative analyses characterized reasons for lack of follow-up with a colonoscopy after the abnormal FIT. KEY RESULTS: Of 689 patients with an abnormal FIT, 45% (n = 314) did not complete a follow-up colonoscopy. Among the 314 non-completers, 184 patients reported reasons for not completing a follow-up colonoscopy included health insurance-related challenges (38%), comorbid conditions (37%), social barriers such as transportation difficulties and lack of social support (29%), concerns about FIT/colonoscopy process (12%), competing life priorities (12%), adverse effects of bowel preparation (3%), and poor health literacy (3%). Among the 314 non-completers, 131 patients did not report a barrier, as 51% reported that that had completed a previous colonoscopy in the past 10 years, 10% refused with no reason, and 10% were never reached by phone. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies aimed at improving FIT screening and subsequent colonoscopy rates need to address the unique needs of patients for effective and sustainable screening programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01946282.

Burnout Among Physicians, Advanced Practice Clinicians and Staff in Smaller Primary Care Practices.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015-6/19/2017. SETTING: Sample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services. PARTICIPANTS: 10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices. MAIN MEASURE: Burnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure. KEY RESULTS: Burnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.10-1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2-5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.42; 95%CI, 1.16-1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.03-1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout.

Care coordination for complex cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net system: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The growing numbers of cancer survivors challenge delivery of high-quality survivorship care by healthcare systems. Innovative ways to improve care coordination for patients with cancer and multiple chronic conditions ("complex cancer survivors") are needed to achieve better care outcomes, improve patient experience of care, and lower cost. Our study, Project CONNECT, will adapt and implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies, shown to be effective for primary care conditions, among complex cancer survivors. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to: 1) Implement a system-level EHR-driven intervention for 500 complex cancer survivors at Parkland; 2) Test effectiveness of the strategies on system- and patient-level outcomes measured before and after implementation; and 3) Elucidate system and patient factors that facilitate or hinder implementation and result in differences in experiences of care coordination between complex patients with and without cancer. METHODS: Project CONNECT is a quasi-experimental implementation study among 500 breast and colorectal cancer survivors with at least one of the following chronic conditions: diabetes, hypertension, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart disease. We will implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies in a large, county integrated safety-net health system: 1) an EHR-driven registry to facilitate patient transitions between primary and oncology care; 2) co-locating a nurse practitioner trained in care coordination within a complex care team; 3) and enhancing teamwork through coaching. Segmented regression analysis will evaluate change in system-level (i.e. composite care quality score) and patient-level outcomes (i.e. self-reported care coordination). To evaluate implementation, we will merge quantitative findings with structured observations and physician and patient interviews. DISCUSSION: This study will result in an evaluation toolkit identifying key model elements, barriers, and facilitators that can be used to guide care coordination interventions in other safety-net settings. Because Parkland is a vanguard of safety-net healthcare nationally, findings will be widely applicable as other safety-nets move toward increased integration, enhanced EHR capability, and experience with growing patient diversity. Our proposal recognizes the complexity of interventions and scaffolds evidence-based strategies together to meet the needs of complex patients, systems of care, and service integration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02943265 . Registered 24 October 2016.

Use of Quality Improvement Strategies Among Small to Medium-Size US Primary Care Practices.

PURPOSE: Improving primary care quality is a national priority, but little is known about the extent to which small to medium-size practices use quality improvement (QI) strategies to improve care. We examined variations in use of QI strategies among 1,181 small to medium-size primary care practices engaged in a national initiative spanning 12 US states to improve quality of care for heart health and assessed factors associated with those variations. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, practice characteristics were assessed by surveying practice leaders. Practice use of QI strategies was measured by the validated Change Process Capability Questionnaire (CPCQ) Strategies Scale (scores range from -28 to 28, with higher scores indicating more use of QI strategies). Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between practice characteristics and the CPCQ strategies score. RESULTS: The mean CPCQ strategies score was 9.1 (SD = 12.2). Practices that participated in accountable care organizations and those that had someone in the practice to configure clinical quality reports from electronic health records (EHRs), had produced quality reports, or had discussed clinical quality data during meetings had higher CPCQ strategies scores. Health system-owned practices and those experiencing major disruptive changes, such as implementing a new EHR system or clinician turnover, had lower CPCQ strategies scores. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in the use of QI strategies among small to medium-size primary care practices across 12 US states. Findings suggest that practices may need external support to strengthen their ability to do QI and to be prepared for new payment and delivery models.

Association Between Primary Care Visits and Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes in the Era of Population Health Outreach.

BACKGROUND: Population outreach strategies are increasingly used to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The influence of primary care on cancer screening in this context is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between primary care provider (PCP) visits and receipt of CRC screening and colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical (FIT) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT). DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 968,072 patients ages 50-74 years who were not up to date with CRC screening in 2011 in four integrated healthcare systems (three with screening outreach programs using FIT kits) in the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. MEASURES: Demographic, clinical, PCP visit, and CRC screening data were obtained from electronic health records and administrative databases. We examined associations between PCP visits in 2011 and receipt of FIT/FOBT, screening colonoscopy, or flexible sigmoidoscopy (CRC screening) in 2012 and follow-up colonoscopy within 3 months of a positive FIT/FOBT in 2012. We used multivariable logistic regression and propensity score models to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of eligible patients completed a CRC screening test in 2012, most by FIT. Those with a greater number of PCP visits had higher rates of CRC screening at all sites. Patients with ≥1 PCP visit had nearly twice the adjusted-odds of CRC screening (OR = 1.88, 95 % CI: 1.86-1.89). Overall, 79.6 % of patients with a positive FIT/FOBT completed colonoscopy within 3 months. Patients with ≥1 PCP visit had 30 % higher adjusted odds of completing colonoscopy after positive FIT/FOBT (OR = 1.30; 95 % CI: 1.22-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a greater number of PCP visits had higher rates of both incident CRC screening and colonoscopy after positive FIT/FOBT, even in health systems with active population health outreach programs. In this era of virtual care and population outreach, primary care visits remain an important mechanism for engaging patients in cancer screening.

Association Between Sitting Time and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors After Adjustment for Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Cooper Center Longitudinal Study, 2010-2013.

INTRODUCTION: Objective estimates, based on waist-worn accelerometers, indicate that adults spend over half their day (55%) in sedentary behaviors. Our study examined the association between sitting time and cardiometabolic risk factors after adjustment for cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted with 4,486 men and 1,845 women who reported daily estimated sitting time, had measures for adiposity, blood lipids, glucose, and blood pressure, and underwent maximal stress testing. We used a modeling strategy using logistic regression analysis to assess CRF as a potential effect modifier and to control for potential confounding effects of CRF. RESULTS: Men who sat almost all of the time (about 100%) were more likely to be obese whether defined by waist girth (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.25-5.47) or percentage of body fat (OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.35-8.20) than were men who sat almost none of the time (about 0%). Sitting time was not significantly associated with other cardiometabolic risk factors after adjustment for CRF level. For women, no significant associations between sitting time and cardiometabolic risk factors were observed after adjustment for CRF and other covariates. CONCLUSION: As health professionals struggle to find ways to combat obesity and its health effects, reducing sitting time can be an initial step in a total physical activity plan that includes strategies to reduce sedentary time through increases in physical activity among men. In addition, further research is needed to elucidate the relationships between sitting time and CRF for women as well as the underlying mechanisms involved in these relationships.

Adoption, reach, implementation, and maintenance of a behavioral and mental health assessment in primary care.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend screening patients for unhealthy behaviors and mental health concerns. Health risk assessments can systematically identify patient needs and trigger care. This study seeks to evaluate whether primary care practices can routinely implement such assessments into routine care. METHODS: As part of a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial, 9 diverse primary care practices implemented My Own Health Report (MOHR)-an electronic or paper-based health behavior and mental health assessment and feedback system paired with counseling and goal setting. We observed how practices integrated MOHR into their workflows, what additional practice staff time it required, and what percentage of patients completed a MOHR assessment (Reach). RESULTS: Most practices approached (60%) agreed to adopt MOHR. How they implemented MOHR depended on practice resources, informatics capacity, and patient characteristics. Three practices mailed patients invitations to complete MOHR on the Web, 1 called patients and completed MOHR over the telephone, 1 had patients complete MOHR on paper in the office, and 4 had staff help patients complete MOHR on the Web in the office. Overall, 3,591 patients were approached and 1,782 completed MOHR (Reach = 49.6%). Reach varied by implementation strategy with higher reach when MOHR was completed by staff than by patients (71.2% vs 30.2%, P <.001). No practices were able to sustain the complete MOHR assessment without adaptations after study completion. Fielding MOHR increased staff and clinician time an average of 28 minutes per visit. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices can implement health behavior and mental health assessments, but counseling patients effectively requires effort. Practices will need more support to implement and sustain assessments.

Coping During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experiences of Complex Cancer Survivors.

Patients with cancer and multiple chronic conditions (complex cancer survivors) are vulnerable to the negative impacts of COVID-19. However, their experiences and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic have not been e.

Differences in Use of Clinical Decision Support Tools and Implementation of Aspirin, Blood Pressure Control, Cholesterol Management, and Smoking Cessation Quality Metrics in Small Practices by Race and Sex.

Importance: Practice-level evidence is needed to clarify the value of population-based clinical decision support (CDS) tools in reducing racial and sex disparities in cardiovascular care. Objective: To evaluate the association between CDS tools and racial and sex disparities in the aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation (ABCS) care quality metrics among smaller primary care practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used practice-level data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded EvidenceNOW initiative. The national initiative from May 1, 2015, to April 30, 2021, spanned 12 US states and focused on improving cardiovascular preventive care by providing quality improvement support to smaller primary care practices. A total of 576 primary care practices in EvidenceNOW submitted both survey data and electronic health record (EHR)-derived ABCS data stratified by race and sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: Practice-level estimates of disparities between Black and White patients and between male and female patients were calculated as the difference in proportions of eligible patients within each practice meeting ABCS care quality metrics. The association between CDS tools (EHR prompts, standing orders, and clinical registries) and disparities was evaluated by multiply imputed multivariable models for each CDS tool, adjusted for practice rurality, ownership, and size. Results: Across the 576 practices included in the analysis, 219 (38.0%) had patient panels that were more than half White and 327 (56.8%) had panels that were more than half women. The proportion of White compared with Black patients meeting metrics for blood pressure (difference, 5.16% [95% CI, 4.29%-6.02%]; P < .001) and cholesterol management (difference, 1.49% [95% CI, 0.04%-2.93%] P = .04) was higher; the proportion of men meeting metrics for aspirin use (difference, 4.36% [95% CI, 3.34%-5.38%]; P < .001) and cholesterol management (difference, 3.88% [95% CI, 3.14%-4.63%]; P < .001) was higher compared with women. Conversely, the proportion of women meeting practice blood pressure control (difference, -1.80% [95% CI, -2.32% to -1.28%]; P < .001) and smoking cessation counseling (difference, -1.67% [95% CI, -2.38% to -0.95%]; P < .001) metrics was higher compared with men. Use of CDS tools was not associated with differences in race or sex disparities except for the smoking metric. Practices using CDS tools showed a higher proportion of men meeting the smoking counseling metric than women (coefficient, 3.82 [95% CI, 0.95-6.68]; P = .009). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that practices using CDS tools had small disparities that were not statistically significant, but CDS tools were not associated with reductions in disparities. More research is needed on effective practice-level interventions to mitigate disparities.

Polypharmacy and prescription medication use in a population-based sample of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: We examined prescription medication use and identified correlates of polypharmacy-taking multiple medications-in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors (AYAs), who experience early-onset chronic conditions. METHODS: Our cross-sectional study pooled data (2008-2017) from the national Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We estimated prevalence of polypharmacy (≥ 5 unique prescription medications over an approximate 1-year period) in AYAs (age 18-39 years with a history of cancer) and age- and sex-matched controls, overall and by sociodemographics, clinical factors, and health indicators. We compared survivors' and controls' medication use across therapeutic classes. To identify correlates of polypharmacy among AYAs, we included factors with p < 0.20 in bivariable analysis in a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: AYAs (n = 601) had a higher prevalence of polypharmacy than controls (n = 2,402), overall (31.5% vs. 15.9%, p < .01) and by all sociodemographics, clinical factors, and health indicators. A majority of AYAs with multiple chronic conditions (58.8%, 95% CI 47.3-70.4) or disability (61.3%, 95% CI 52.6-70.0) had polypharmacy. Patterns of AYAs' medication use across therapeutic classes were consistent with their chronic conditions. Nearly one-third used opioid/narcotic analgesics (32.2% vs. 13.7% of controls, p < 0.01). Among AYAs, multiple chronic conditions (aOR 4.68, 95% CI 2.23-9.83) and disability (aOR 3.70, 95% CI 2.23-6.14) were correlated with polypharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic conditions and disabilities, including aftereffects of cancer treatment, may drive polypharmacy in AYAs. Future research should examine adverse outcomes of polypharmacy and opioid/narcotic use in AYAs. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: AYAs with chronic conditions or disabilities should be monitored for polypharmacy.

Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model.

BACKGROUND: Under- and uninsured cancer survivors have significant medical, social, and economic complexity. For these survivors, effective care coordination between oncology and primary care teams is critical for high-quality, comprehensive care. While evidence-based interventions exist to improve coordination between healthcare teams, testing implementation of these interventions for cancer survivors seen in real-world safety-net settings has been limited. This study aimed to (1) identify factors influencing implementation of a multicomponent care coordination intervention (nurse coordinator plus patient registry) focused on cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in an integrated safety-net system and (2) identify mechanisms through which the factors impacted implementation outcomes. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews (patients, providers, and system leaders), structured observations of primary care and oncology operations, and document analysis during intervention implementation between 2016 and 2020. The practice change model (PCM) guided data collection to identify barriers and facilitators of implementation; the PCM, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Implementation Research Logic Model guided four immersion/crystallization data analysis and synthesis cycles to identify mechanisms and assess outcomes. Implementation outcomes included appropriateness, acceptability, adoption, and penetration. RESULTS: The intervention was appropriate and acceptable to primary care and oncology teams based on reported patient needs and resources and the strength of the evidence supporting intervention components. Active and sustained partnership with system leaders facilitated these outcomes. There was limited adoption and penetration early in implementation because the study was narrowly focused on just breast and colorectal cancer patients. This created barriers to real-world practice where patients with all cancer types receive care. Over time, flexibility intentionally designed into intervention implementation facilitated adoption and penetration. Regular feedback from system partners and rapid cycles of implementation and evaluation led to real-time adaptations increasing adoption and penetration. DISCUSSION: Evidence-based interventions to coordinate care for underserved cancer survivors across oncology and primary care teams can be implemented successfully when system leaders are actively engaged and with flexibility in implementation embedded intentionally to continuously facilitate adoption and penetration across the health system.

Polypharmacy and medication fill nonadherence in a population-based sample of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors, 2008-2017.

PURPOSE: We examined the association between polypharmacy-an established risk factor for nonadherence in the elderly-and medication fill nonadherence in a large national sample of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors (AYAs) in the USA. METHODS: We pooled data (2008-2017) from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We defined polypharmacy as ≥ 3 unique medications prescribed, based on self-report and pharmacy data, and medication fill nonadherence as self-reported delay or inability to obtain a necessary medication. We estimated prevalence of medication fill nonadherence among AYAs (age 18-39 years with a cancer history). We used logistic regression to estimate the association between (1) polypharmacy and medication fill nonadherence in AYAs, and (2) total number of medications prescribed and medication fill nonadherence, controlling for sex, number of chronic conditions, disability, and survey year. RESULTS: AYAs (n = 598) were predominantly female (76.2%), age 30-39 years (64.9%), and non-Hispanic White (72.1%). Nearly half were poor (19.0%) or near-poor/low income (21.6%). One in ten AYAs reported medication fill nonadherence (9.75%). Of these, more than 70% cited cost-related barriers as the reason. AYAs with polypharmacy had 2.49 times higher odds of medication fill nonadherence (95%CI 1.11-5.59), compared to those without polypharmacy. Odds of medication fill nonadherence increased by 16% with each additional medication prescribed (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.25). CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy may be an important risk factor for medication fill nonadherence in AYAs in the USA. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Improving AYAs' medication adherence requires eliminating cost-related barriers, particularly for those with polypharmacy.