Evaluating the sustainability of a cancer screening intervention through a PRISM: The PreView experience.

Although many trials of cancer screening interventions evaluate efficacy and effectiveness, less research focuses on how to sustain interventions in non-research settings, which limit the potential reach of these interventions. Identifying the factors that influence the potential for sustainability is critical. We evaluate the factors influencing sustainability of PreView, a Cancer Screening Intervention, within the context of the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). PRISM includes organizational and patient perspectives of the intervention as well as characteristics of the organizational and patient recipients. It considers how the program or intervention design, external environment, implementation, and sustainability infrastructure and the recipients influence program adoption, implementation, and maintenance. We evaluate the attempts at sustainability of PreView within the constructs of PRISM. Encouraging patients to use PreView was more difficult outside of a clinical trial. Organizational perspectives on how the intervention fit in with other goals, patient perspectives on how the intervention is individualized (i.e. being able to choose which cancer screening to address) and focused on barriers, patient characteristics (i.e. having multiple comorbidities making cancer screening less of a priority), organizational characteristics (i.e. middle managers having competing responsibilities), external environment influences (i.e. reimbursement for achieving certain cancer screening goals), and sustainability infrastructure all affect the likelihood of PreView being sustained in clinical practice. Despite advance planning for sustainability, adapting interventions to achieve sustainability is difficult. Lessons learned from evaluating PreView within the PRISM model can inform future sustainability efforts.

Adolescent Risk Behavior Screening and Interventions in Hospital Settings: A Scoping Review.

CONTEXT: Risky behaviors are the main threats to adolescents' health; consequently, evidence-based guidelines recommend annual comprehensive risk behavior screening. OBJECTIVE: To review studies of adolescent risk behavior screening and interventions in urgent care, emergency department (ED), and hospital settings. DATA SOURCES: Our data sources included PubMed (1965-2019) and Embase (1947-2019). STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included on the basis of population (adolescents aged 10-25 years), topic (risk behavior screening or intervention), and setting (urgent care, ED, or hospital). Studies were excluded if they involved younger children or adults or only included previously identified high-risk adolescents. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extracted were risk behavior screening rates, screening and intervention tools, and attitudes toward screening and intervention. RESULTS: Forty-six studies were included; most (38 of 46) took place in the ED, and a single risk behavior domain was examined (sexual health [19 of 46], mood and suicidal ideation [12 of 46], substance use [7 of 46], and violence [2 of 46]). In 6 studies, authors examined comprehensive risk behavior screening, demonstrating low rates at baseline (∼10%) but significant increases with clinician reminder implementation. Adolescents and clinicians were highly accepting of risk behavior screening in all settings and preferred electronic screening over a face-to-face interview. Reported barriers were time constraints and limited resources. LIMITATIONS: Only 1 included study was a randomized controlled trial, and there was large heterogeneity of included studies, potentially limiting generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of adolescent risk behavior screening are low in urgent care, ED, and hospital settings. Our findings outline promising tools for improving screening and intervention, highlighting the critical need for continued development and testing of interventions in these settings to improve adolescent care.

PreView: a Randomized Trial of a Multi-site Intervention in Diverse Primary Care to Increase Rates of Age-Appropriate Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Women aged 50-70 should receive breast, cervical (until age 65), and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; men aged 50-70 should receive CRC screening and should discuss prostate cancer screening (PSA). PreView, an interactive, individually tailored Video Doctor Plus Provider Alert Intervention, adresses all cancers for which average risk 50-70-year-old individuals are due for screening or screening discussion. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 6 clinical sites. Participants were randomized to PreView or a video about healthy lifestyle. Intervention group participants completed PreView before their appointment and their clinicians received a "Provider Alert." Primary outcomes were receipt of mammography, Pap tests (with or without HPV testing), CRC screening (FIT in last year or colonoscopy in last 10 years), and PSA screening discussion. Additional outcomes included breast, cervical, and CRC screening discussion. RESULTS: A total of 508 individuals participated, 257 in the control group and 251 in the intervention group. Screening rates were relatively high at baseline. Compared with baseline screening rates, there was no significant increase in mammography or Pap smear screening, and a nonsignificant increase (18% vs 12%) in CRC screening. Intervention participants reported a higher rate of PSA discussion than did control participants (58% vs 36%: P < 0.01). Similar increases were seen in discussions about mammography, cervical cancer, and CRC screening. CONCLUSION: In clinics with relatively high overall screening rates at baseline, PreView did not result in significant increases in breast, cervical, or CRC screening. PreView led to an increase in PSA screening discussion. Clinician-patient discussion of all cancer screenings significantly increased, suggesting that interventions like PreView may be most useful when discussion of the pros and cons of screening is recommended and/or with patients reluctant to undergo screening. Future research should investigate PreView's impact on those who are hesitant or reluctant to undergo screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02264782.

Does screening for and intervening with multiple health compromising behaviours and mental health disorders amongst young people attending primary care improve health outcomes? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Adolescence and young adulthood are important developmental periods. Screening for health compromising behaviours and mental health disorders during routine primary care visits has the potential to assist clinicians to identify areas of concern and provide appropriate interventions. The objective of this systematic review is to investigate whether screening and subsequent interventions for multiple health compromising behaviours and mental health disorders in primary care settings improves the health outcomes of young people. METHODS: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, literature searches were conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases (Prospero registration number CRD42013005828) using search terms representing four thematic concepts: primary care, young people, screening, and mental health and health compromising behaviour. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to: include a measure of health outcome; include at least 75 % of participants aged under 25 years; use a screening tool that assessed more than one health domain; and be conducted within a primary care setting. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Rating Scale. RESULTS: From 5051 articles identified, nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were reviewed: two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one pilot RCT, two clustered RCTs, one randomised study with multiple intervention groups and no control group, one cluster RCT with two active arms, one longitudinal study and one pre-post study. Seven studies, including two RCTs and one clustered RCT, found positive changes in substance use, diet, sexual health or risky sexual behaviour, alcohol-related risky behaviour, social stress, stress management, helmet use, sleep and exercise. Of only two studies reporting on harms, one reported a negative health outcome of increased alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that the use of screening and intervention with young people for mental health disorder or health compromising behaviours in clinical settings improves health outcomes. Along with other evidence that young people value discussions of health risks with their providers, these discussions should be part of the routine primary care of young people. Further quality studies are needed to strengthen this evidence.

Responding to Young People's Health Risks in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Training Clinicians in Screening and Motivational Interviewing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention implementing best practice guidelines recommending clinicians screen and counsel young people across multiple psychosocial risk factors, on clinicians' detection of health risks and patients' risk taking behaviour, compared to a didactic seminar on young people's health. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial where volunteer general practices were stratified by postcode advantage or disadvantage score and billing type (private, free national health, community health centre), then randomised into either intervention or comparison arms using a computer generated random sequence. Three months post-intervention, patients were recruited from all practices post-consultation for a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview and followed up three and 12 months later. Researchers recruiting, consenting and interviewing patients and patients themselves were masked to allocation status; clinicians were not. SETTING: General practices in metropolitan and rural Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: General practices with at least one interested clinician (general practitioner or nurse) and their 14-24 year old patients. INTERVENTION: This complex intervention was designed using evidence based practice in learning and change in clinician behaviour and general practice systems, and included best practice approaches to motivating change in adolescent risk taking behaviours. The intervention involved training clinicians (nine hours) in health risk screening, use of a screening tool and motivational interviewing; training all practice staff (receptionists and clinicians) in engaging youth; provision of feedback to clinicians of patients' risk data; and two practice visits to support new screening and referral resources. Comparison clinicians received one didactic educational seminar (three hours) on engaging youth and health risk screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were patient report of (1) clinician detection of at least one of six health risk behaviours (tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use, risks for sexually transmitted infection, STI, unplanned pregnancy, and road risks); and (2) change in one or more of the six health risk behaviours, at three months or at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were likelihood of future visits, trust in the clinician after exit interview, clinician detection of emotional distress and fear and abuse in relationships, and emotional distress at three and 12 months. Patient acceptability of the screening tool was also described for the intervention arm. Analyses were adjusted for practice location and billing type, patients' sex, age, and recruitment method, and past health risks, where appropriate. An intention to treat analysis approach was used, which included multilevel multiple imputation for missing outcome data. RESULTS: 42 practices were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison arms. Two intervention practices withdrew post allocation, prior to training, leaving 19 intervention (53 clinicians, 377 patients) and 21 comparison (79 clinicians, 524 patients) practices. 69% of patients in both intervention (260) and comparison (360) arms completed the 12 month follow-up. Intervention clinicians discussed more health risks per patient (59.7%) than comparison clinicians (52.7%) and thus were more likely to detect a higher proportion of young people with at least one of the six health risk behaviours (38.4% vs 26.7%, risk difference [RD] 11.6%, Confidence Interval [CI] 2.93% to 20.3%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.7, CI 1.1 to 2.5). Patients reported less illicit drug use (RD -6.0, CI -11 to -1.2; OR 0.52, CI 0.28 to 0.96), and less risk for STI (RD -5.4, CI -11 to 0.2; OR 0.66, CI 0.46 to 0.96) at three months in the intervention relative to the comparison arm, and for unplanned pregnancy at 12 months (RD -4.4; CI -8.7 to -0.1; OR 0.40, CI 0.20 to 0.80). No differences were detected between arms on other health risks. There were no differences on secondary outcomes, apart from a greater detection of abuse (OR 13.8, CI 1.71 to 111). There were no reports of harmful events and intervention arm youth had high acceptance of the screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: A complex intervention, compared to a simple educational seminar for practices, improved detection of health risk behaviours in young people. Impact on health outcomes was inconclusive. Technology enabling more efficient, systematic health-risk screening may allow providers to target counselling toward higher risk individuals. Further trials require more power to confirm health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN16059206.

The prevention access and risk taking in young people (PARTY) project protocol: a cluster randomised controlled trial of health risk screening and motivational interviewing for young people presenting to general practice.

BACKGROUND: There are growing worldwide concerns about the ability of primary health care systems to manage the major burden of illness in young people. Over two thirds of premature adult deaths result from risks that manifest in adolescence, including injury, neuropsychiatric problems and consequences of risky behaviours. One policy response is to better reorientate primary health services towards prevention and early intervention. Currently, however, there is insufficient evidence to support this recommendation for young people. This paper describes the design and implementation of a trial testing an intervention to promote psychosocial risk screening of all young people attending general practice and to respond to identified risks using motivational interviewing. MAIN OUTCOMES: clinicians' detection of risk-taking and emotional distress, young people's intention to change and reduction of risk taking. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: pathways to care, trust in the clinician and likelihood of returning for future visits. The design of the economic and process evaluation are not detailed in this protocol. METHODS: PARTY is a cluster randomised trial recruiting 42 general practices in Victoria, Australia. Baseline measures include: youth friendly practice characteristics; practice staff's self-perceived competency in young people's care and clinicians' detection and response to risk taking behaviours and emotional distress in 14-24 year olds, attending the practice. Practices are then stratified by a social disadvantage index and billing methods and randomised. Intervention practices receive: nine hours of training and tools; feedback of their baseline data and two practice visits over six weeks. Comparison practices receive a three hour seminar in youth friendly practice only. Six weeks post-intervention, 30 consecutive young people are interviewed post-consultation from each practice and followed-up for self-reported risk taking behaviour and emotional distress three and 12 months post consultation. DISCUSSION: The PARTY trial is the first to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of a psychosocial risk screening and counselling intervention for young people attending primary care. It will provide important data on health risk profiles of young people attending general practice and on the effects of the intervention on engagement with primary care and health outcomes over 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16059206.

Young adult preventive health care guidelines: there but can't be found.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) identify adolescent and adult clinical preventive services guidelines relevant to the young adult age group; (2) review, compare, and synthesize these guidelines, with emphasis on the extent to which professional guidelines are consistent with evidence-based guidelines developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force; and (3) recommend the next steps in the establishment and integration of preventive care guidelines for young adults. DESIGN: Nonexperimental: an Internet search was conducted to identify relevant preventive care guidelines for the young adult group. SETTING: The search included federal agencies and professional organizations that focus on health areas linked to the care of young adults or that provide health care to adolescents and young adults. PARTICIPANTS: National organizations, federal agencies, health professional associations, and medical societies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preventive services guidelines for adolescents and adults that intersect with the age range of 18 to 26 years. RESULTS: When the ages of 18 to 26 years are carved out of established professional guidelines across specialty groups, there is a broad number of recommendations, with many supported by sufficient evidence to receive a US Preventive Services Task Force grade of A or B that can inform the care of young adults. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the establishment of young adult preventive health guidelines that reflect the current evidence-based recommendations that overlap with the young adult age group; we suggest clinician and health care system supports to facilitate the delivery of preventive services to young adults; and we emphasize prioritizing research in prevention areas in which sufficient evidence does not exist.

Does delivering preventive services in primary care reduce adolescent risky behavior?

PURPOSE: To determine whether the delivery of preventive services changes adolescent behavior. This exploratory study examined the trajectory of risk behavior among adolescents receiving care in three pediatric clinics, in which a preventive services intervention was delivered during well visits. METHODS: The intervention consisted of screening and brief counseling from a provider, followed by a health educator visit. At age 14 (year 1), 904 adolescents had a risk assessment and intervention, followed by a risk assessment 1 year later at age 15 (year 2). Outcomes were changes in adolescent behavior related to seat belt and helmet use; tobacco, alcohol, and drug use; and sexual behavior. Analysis involved age-related comparisons between the intervention and several cross-sectional comparison samples from the age of 14-15 years. RESULTS: The change in helmet use in the intervention sample was 100% higher (p < .05), and the change in seat belt use among males was 50% higher (p = .14); the change in smoking among males was 54% lower (p < .10), in alcohol use was no different, and in drug use was 10% higher (not significant [NS]); and the change in rate of sexual intercourse was 18% and 22% lower than cohort comparison samples (NS). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention had the strongest effect in the area of helmet use, shows promise for increasing seat belt use and reducing smoking among male adolescents, and indicates a nonsignificant trend toward delaying the onset of sexual activity. Participation in the intervention seemed to have no effect on the rates of experimentation with alcohol and drugs between the ages of 14 and 15 years.

The association of BMI status with adolescent preventive screening.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between BMI status (normal, overweight, and obese) and preventive screening among adolescents at their last checkup. METHODS: We used population-based data from the 2003-2007 California Health Interview Surveys, telephone interviews of adolescents aged 12 to 17 years with a checkup in the past 12 months (n = 9220). Respondents were asked whether they received screening for nutrition, physical activity, and emotional distress. BMI was calculated from self-reported height and weight: (1) normal weight or underweight (<85th percentile); (2) overweight (85th-94th percentile); and (3) obese (>95th percentile). Multivariate logistic regression models tested how screening by topic differed according to BMI status, adjusting for age, gender, income, race/ethnicity, and survey year. RESULTS: Screening percentages in the pooled sample (all 3 years) were higher for obese, but not overweight, adolescents for physical activity (odds ratio: 1.4; P < .01) and nutrition (odds ratio: 1.6; screening did not differ P < .01). Stratified analysis by year revealed higher screening for obese (versus normal-weight) adolescents for nutrition and physical activity in 2003 and for all 3 topics in 2005. However, by 2007, screening did not differ according to BMI status. Overall screening between 2003 and 2007 declined for nutrition (75%-59%; P < .01), physical activity (74%-60%; P < .01), and emotional distress (31%-24%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Obese adolescents receive more preventive screening versus their normal-weight peers. Overweight adolescents do not report more screening, but standards of care dictate increased attention for this group. These results are discouraging amid a rise in pediatric obesity and new guidelines that recommend screening by BMI status.

Are adolescents being screened for emotional distress in primary care?

PURPOSE: To assess primary care providers' rates of screening for emotional distress among adolescent patients. METHODS: Secondary data analysis utilizing data from: (1) well visits in pediatric clinics within a managed care plan in California, and (2) the 2003 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), a state population sample. The Pediatric clinic sample included 1089 adolescent patients, ages 13 to 17, who completed a survey about provider screening immediately upon exiting a well visit. The CHIS sample included 899 adolescents, ages 13 to 17, who had a routine physical exam within the past 3 months. As part of the survey, adolescents answered a question about whether they had talked with their provider about their emotions at the time of the exam. Logistic regressions, controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and adolescent depressive symptoms were performed. RESULTS: About one-third of adolescents reported a discussion of emotional health. Females were significantly more likely to be screened than males (36% vs. 30% in clinic; 37% vs. 26% in CHIS); as were older and Latino adolescents in the clinic sample. Although 27% of teens endorsed emotional distress, distress was not a significant predictor of talking to a provider about emotions. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians/systems need to better utilize the primary care visit to screen adolescents for emotional health.

Adolescent preventive services: rates and disparities in preventive health topics covered during routine medical care in a California sample.

PURPOSE: The objective was to examine rates and disparities in preventive health topics covered during routine medical care for adolescents, using a California sample. METHODS: Utilizing 2003 California Health Interview Survey data, the sample included 2192 adolescents attending a physical exam within the past 6 months. Adolescents reported whether nine health topics: tobacco, alcohol, drugs, seatbelts, helmets, violence, exercise, nutrition, and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) were discussed during their most recent physical exam. Outcomes were rates of health topics discussed and disparities in rates based on age, gender, race/ethnicity, income level, and insurance status. RESULTS: Rates ranged from 15% (violence) to 76% (nutrition, exercise). Compared to older teens, younger teens reported discussing safety more, but substances, nutrition, and STDs less. Compared to males, females reported discussing tobacco and helmets less, but exercise and STDs more. Compared to white youths, Hispanic youths reported more discussion of most topics, black youths reported more discussion of nutrition and less of violence, and Asian youths reported more discussion of seatbelts and helmets. Lower income and uninsured groups reported more discussion of health topics compared to higher income and insured groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of coverage of health topics are below recommended levels. Contrary to expectations, minority, uninsured, and lower income groups reported higher rates of discussing health topics. Strategies to increase the coverage of preventive health topics during routine medical care should address these findings.

Increasing clinician self-efficacy for screening and counseling adolescents for risky health behaviors: results of an intervention.

This study evaluates a training and tools intervention to increase provider self-efficacy to screen and counsel adolescents for risky behavior. Two clinics within a health maintenance organization served as intervention sites, and two as comparison sites. Self-efficacy to deliver adolescent services increased significantly in the intervention group relative to the comparison group.

Increasing the screening and counseling of adolescents for risky health behaviors: a primary care intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a systems intervention for primary care providers resulted in increased preventive screening and counseling of adolescent patients, compared with the usual standard of care. METHODS: The intervention was conducted in 2 outpatient pediatric clinics; 2 other pediatric clinics in the same health maintenance organization served as comparison sites. The intervention was implemented in 2 phases: first, pediatric primary care providers attended a training workshop (N = 37) to increase screening and counseling of adolescents in the areas of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, sexual behavior, and safety (seatbelt and helmet use). Second, screening and charting tools were integrated into the intervention clinics. Providers in the comparison sites (N = 39) continued to provide the usual standard of care to their adolescent patients. Adolescent reports were used to assess changes in provider behavior. After a well visit, 13- to 17-year olds (N = 2628) completed surveys reporting on whether their provider screened and counseled them for risky behavior. RESULTS: Screening and counseling rates increased significantly in each of the 6 areas in the intervention sites, compared with rates of delivery using the usual standard of care. Across the 6 areas combined, the average screening rate increased from 58% to 83%; counseling rates increased from 52% to 78%. There were no significant increases in the comparison sites during the same period. The training component seems to account for most of this increase, with the tools sustaining the effects of the training. CONCLUSIONS: The study offers strong support for an intervention to increase clinicians' delivery of preventive services to a wide age range of adolescent patients.

Provider self-efficacy and the screening of adolescents for risky health behaviors.

PURPOSE: To examine the extent to which providers' perceived self-efficacy to deliver adolescent preventive services relates to their screening practices. METHODS: Screening rates were determined by both provider self-reported screening practices and the independent report of the adolescent patient. First, 66 pediatric providers (pediatricians and nurse-practitioners), working in three pediatric clinics within a managed care organization, completed surveys assessing: (a) self-efficacy for screening adolescent patients in the areas of tobacco use, alcohol use, sexual behavior, seat belt use, and helmet use; and (b) self-reported screening of adolescents during well-visits over the past month. Second, a sample of patients, aged 14 years to 16 years, reported on whether their clinicians screened them for these behaviors during a well-visit. Adolescents completed reports (N = 323) immediately following the well visit. Data were analyzed using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Provider self-efficacy to deliver preventive services was correlated with self-reported screening in each of the five content areas, ranging from r = .24 (p < .05) for seat belt use to r = .51 (p < .001) for helmet use. Provider self-efficacy was significantly related to adolescent reports of screening in three of the five content areas; r = .25 (p < .05) for sexual behavior and tobacco use; and r = .23 (p = .06) for alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: Providers' self-efficacy to screen adolescents for risky behaviors was significantly related to both clinician self-report and independent adolescent reports of screening during well-visits. These findings point to the importance of enhancing clinicians' sense of competence to deliver adolescent preventive services.