Smoking Cessation Support in the Context of Other Social and Behavioral Needs in Community Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking rates remain disproportionately high among low income populations with unmet social and behavioral health needs. To address this problem, we sought to develop and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel smoking cessation program for community health centers that serve these populations. METHODS: We implemented a randomized pilot trial of two smoking cessation programs in three county operated community health center (CHC) sites: (1) a systematic assessment of smoking habits and standard tools to assist with smoking cessation counseling ("Enhanced Standard Program" or ESP), and (2) another that added a structured assessment of social and behavioral barriers to smoking cessation, ("Connection to Health for Smokers" or CTHS). Clinical outcomes were evaluated between 10 to 16 weeks, supplemented with interviews of patient participants and health care team members. RESULTS: 141 adults were randomized and 123 completed the intervention (61 in ESP, 62 in CTHS). At follow-up, over half of participants reported ≥1 quit attempts (59.7% ESP and 56.5% CTHS; adjusted p = .66) while more in ESP (24.6% vs. 12.9%) were documented as not smoking in the last 7 days (adjusted p = 0.03). In addition to being in ESP, predictors of smoking cessation included higher baseline confidence in ability to quit (p = 0.02) and more quit attempts during the study (p = 0.04). Health care teams, however, generally preferred the more comprehensive approach of CTHS. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned from this pilot study may inform the development of effective smoking cessation programs for CHCs that combine elements of both interventions.

Associations between Social Adversity and Biomarkers of Inflammation, Stress, and Aging in Children.

BACKGROUND: Prior work has found relationships between childhood social adversity and biomarkers of stress, but knowledge gaps remain. To help address these gaps, we explored associations between social adversity and biomarkers of inflammation (interleukin-1ß [IL-1ß], IL-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-alpha [TNF-α], and salivary cytokine hierarchical "clusters" based on the three interleukins), neuroendocrine function (cortisol, cortisone, dehydroepiandrosterone, testosterone, and progesterone), neuromodulation (N-arachidonoylethanolamine, stearoylethanolamine, oleoylethanolamide, and palmitoylethanolamide), and epigenetic aging (Pediatric-Buccal-Epigenetic clock). METHODS: We collected biomarker samples of children ages 0-17 recruited from an acute care pediatrics clinic and examined their associations with caregiver-endorsed education, income, social risk factors, and cumulative adversity. We calculated regression-adjusted means for each biomarker and compared associations with social factors using Wald tests. We used logistic regression to predict being in the highest cytokine cluster based on social predictors. RESULTS: Our final sample included 537 children but varied based on each biomarker. Cumulative social adversity was significantly associated with having higher levels of all inflammatory markers and with cortisol, displaying a U-shaped distribution. There were no significant relationships between cumulative social adversity and cortisone, neuromodulation biomarkers or epigenetic aging. CONCLUSION: Our findings support prior work suggesting that social stress exposures contribute to increased inflammation in children. IMPACT: Our study is one of the largest studies examining associations between childhood social adversity and biomarkers of inflammation, neuroendocrine function, neuromodulation, and epigenetic aging. It is one of the largest studies to link childhood social adversity to biomarkers of inflammation, and the first of which we are aware to link cumulative social adversity to cytokine clusters. It is also one of the largest studies to examine associations between steroids and epigenetic aging among children, and one of the only studies of which we are aware to examine associations between social adversity and endocannabinoids among children. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02746393.

Pulmonary Specialist-Supported Health Coaching Delivered by Lay Personnel Improves Receipt of Quality Care for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: Half of people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) do not receive high-quality, evidenced-based care as described in international guidelines. We conducted secondary data analysis of a previously published study to assess the ability of a model of lay health coaching to improve provision of guideline-based care in a primary care setting. Methods: As part of a randomized controlled trial, we recruited English- and Spanish-speaking patients with moderate to severe COPD from primary care clinics serving a low-income, predominantly African American population. Participants were randomized to receive usual care or 9 months of health coaching from primary care personnel informed by a pulmonary specialist practitioner. Outcome measures included prescription of appropriate inhaler therapy, participation in COPD-related education, engagement with specialty care, prescription of smoking cessation medications, and patient ratings of the quality of care. Results: Baseline quality measures did not differ between study arms. At 9 months, coached patients were more likely (increase of 9.3% over usual care; P=0.014) to have received guideline-based inhalers compared to those in usual care. Coached patients were more likely to engage with pulmonary specialty care (increase of 8.3% over usual care with at least 1 visit; P=0.04) and educational classes (increase of 5.3% over usual care; P=0.03). Receipt of smoking cessation medications among patients smoking at baseline in the health coaching group increased 21.1 percentage points more than in usual care, a difference near statistical significance (P=0.06). Conclusions: Health coaching may improve the provision of quality chronic illness care for conditions such as COPD.

Addressing tobacco use in the context of complex social needs: A new conceptual framework and approach to address smoking cessation in community health centers.

Objective: This article presents a new conceptual framework "Connection to Health for Smokers" (CTHS), its application to address smoking cessation, and its acceptability in community health centers (CHCs). Methods: CTHS, an online interactive patient educational tool comprehensively implements the "5 A's" (ask, advise, assess, assist, and arrange) within the context of patients' social and behavioral health needs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five health educators (nurses) who administered CTHS with 62 patients to evaluate the acceptability of the program. Thematic analyses were conducted with interview transcripts. Results: CHC health educators viewed CTHS has enhanced patient-centered communication, was able to identify patients' needs beyond tobacco use, and individualize action planning to integrate social and behavioral health needs. Conclusion: CTHS received enthusiasm from CHC health educators as a helpful tool to address tobacco use among their patients. Comprehensive on-site smoking cessation programs at CHCs that provide a structured evidence-based approach informed by an understanding of each patient's coexisting social and behavioral health needs may play an important role in reducing tobacco use disparities in the United States. Innovation: CTHS offers a new promising framework to comprehensively integrate the 5A's within the context of social and behavioral determinants of health for smoking cessation.

Screening for Interpersonal Violence: Missed Opportunities and Potential Harms.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for interpersonal violence is used in healthcare settings to identify patients experiencing violence. However, using unvalidated screening tools may misclassify patients' experience with violence. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation adapted a previously validated intimate partner violence screening tool for use in assessing interpersonal violence and retained the tool's original scoring rubric, despite the new tool's broader scope. This study evaluates the scoring system for detecting safety concerns. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients at 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments (2018-2019). Surveys included the adapted 4-item Hurt Insult Threat Scream tool. Questions are scored by frequency on a Likert scale (1=never; 5=frequently). Scores of 11-20 are considered positive for safety concerns. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for descriptive analyses. Data analyses occurred in 2019-2020. RESULTS: Of 1,014 participants, 66 (6.5%) reported any frequency of physical violence. Of these, 54 (81.8%) did not reach the threshold score of 11. Of the 1,014 participants, 93 (9.2%) reported any frequency of physical violence or being threatened with harm; 76 of 93 participants (81.7%) scored <11. CONCLUSIONS: Using the original scoring criteria for the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream, >80% of participants reporting physical violence did not screen positive for potential safety concerns. The scoring criteria did not reliably identify participants experiencing or at high risk for violence. To improve patient safety, the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream scoring rubric should be updated on the basis of stakeholder input and additional validation studies.

Effects of In-Person Navigation to Address Family Social Needs on Child Health Care Utilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: While many organizations endorse screening for social risk factors in clinical settings, few studies have examined the health and utilization effects of interventions to address social needs. Objective: To compare the acute care utilization effects of a written resources handout vs an in-person navigation service intervention to address social needs. Design, Settings, and Participants: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, 1809 adult caregivers of pediatric patients seen in primary and urgent care clinics of 2 safety-net hospitals in northern California were recruited between October 13, 2013, and August 27, 2015. Each participating family was randomly assigned to an in-person navigator intervention vs active control to address the family's social needs. Analyses were conducted between February 28, 2018, and September 25, 2019. Interventions: Caregivers either received written information about relevant local resources related to social needs (active control) or met with a patient navigator focused on helping them resolve social needs (navigator intervention). After an initial in-person visit, navigation services included telephone, email, and/or in-person follow-up for up to 3 months. Main Outcome and Measures: Child emergency department visit or hospitalization within 12 months of study enrollment. Results: Among the 1300 caregivers enrolled in the study without missing follow-up data, most spoke English (878 [67.5%]) and were women (1127 [86.7%]), with a mean (SD) age of 33.0 (9.33) years. Most children were aged 0 to 5 years (779 of 1300 [59.9%]), 723 children (55.6%) had Hispanic ethnicity, and 462 children (35.5%) were in excellent health; 840 families (64.6%) were recruited from urgent care. In total, 637 families (49.0%) were randomized to the in-person navigator group and 663 (51.0%) to the active control group. There was no difference in risk of an emergency department visit between the 2 groups. Children enrolled in the in-person navigator group had a decreased risk of hospitalization within 12 months (hazard ratio, 0.59; 05% CI, 0.38-0.94; P = .03), making them 69% less likely to be hospitalized. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial evaluating heath care utilization effects of programs designed to address social needs among families, children enrolled in the navigation group were significantly less likely to be hospitalized after the intervention but equally likely to have an emergency department visit. These findings strengthen our understanding of the effects of addressing social needs in clinical settings as part of a comprehensive strategy to improve health and reduce health care utilization. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01939704.

Part I: A Quantitative Study of Social Risk Screening Acceptability in Patients and Caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: Despite recent growth in healthcare delivery-based social risk screening, little is known about patient perspectives on these activities. This study evaluates patient and caregiver acceptability of social risk screening. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of 969 adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients recruited from 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments across 9 states. Survey items included the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities' social risk screening tool and questions about appropriateness of screening and comfort with including social risk data in electronic health records. Logistic regressions evaluated covariate associations with acceptability measures. Data collection occurred from July 2018 to February 2019; data analyses were conducted in February‒March 2019. RESULTS: Screening was reported as appropriate by 79% of participants; 65% reported comfort including social risks in electronic health records. In adjusted models, higher perceived screening appropriateness was associated with previous exposure to healthcare-based social risk screening (AOR=1.82, 95% CI=1.16, 2.88), trust in clinicians (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.00, 2.40), and recruitment from a primary care setting (AOR=1.70, 95% CI=1.23, 2.38). Lower appropriateness was associated with previous experience of healthcare discrimination (AOR=0.66, 95% CI=0.45, 0.95). Higher comfort with electronic health record documentation was associated with previously receiving assistance with social risks in a healthcare setting (AOR=1.47, 95% CI=1.04, 2.07). CONCLUSIONS: A strong majority of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients reported that social risk screening was appropriate. Most also felt comfortable including social risk data in electronic health records. Although multiple factors influenced acceptability, the effects were moderate to small. These findings suggest that lack of patient acceptability is unlikely to be a major implementation barrier. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Part II: A Qualitative Study of Social Risk Screening Acceptability in Patients and Caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to better understand patient and caregiver perspectives on social risk screening across different healthcare settings. METHODS: As part of a mixed-methods multisite study, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients who had completed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities social risk screening tool between July 2018 and February 2019. Interviews, conducted in English or Spanish, asked about reactions to screening, screening acceptability, preferences for administration, prior screening experiences that informed perspectives, and expectations for social assistance. Basic thematic analysis and constant comparative methods were used to code and develop themes. RESULTS: Fifty interviews were conducted across 10 study sites in 9 states, including 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments. There was broad consensus among interviewees across all sites that social risk screening was acceptable. The following 4 main themes emerged: (1) participants believed screening for social risks is important; (2) participants expressed insight into the connections between social risks and overall health; (3) participants emphasized the importance of patient-centered implementation of social risk screening; and (4) participants recognized limits to the healthcare sector's capacity to address or resolve social risks. CONCLUSIONS: Despite gaps in the availability of social risk-related interventions in healthcare settings, patient-centered social risk screening, including empathy and attention to privacy, may strengthen relationships between patients and healthcare teams. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Self-management support for chronic disease in primary care: frequency of patient self-management problems and patient reported priorities, and alignment with ultimate behavior goal selection.

BACKGROUND: To enable delivery of high quality patient-centered care, as well as to allow primary care health systems to allocate appropriate resources that align with patients' identified self-management problems (SM-Problems) and priorities (SM-Priorities), a practical, systematic method for assessing self-management needs and priorities is needed. In the current report, we present patient reported data generated from Connection to Health (CTH), to identify the frequency of patients' reported SM-Problems and SM-Priorities; and examine the degree of alignment between patient SM-Priorities and the ultimate Patient-Healthcare team member selected Behavioral Goal. METHODS: CTH, an electronic self-management support system, was embedded into the flow of existing primary care visits in 25 primary care clinics and was used to assess patient-reported SM-Problems across 12 areas, patient identified SM-Priorities, and guide the selection of a Patient-Healthcare team member selected Behavioral Goal. SM-Problems included: BMI, diet (fruits and vegetables, salt, fat, sugar sweetened beverages), physical activity, missed medications, tobacco and alcohol use, health-related distress, general life stress, and depression symptoms. Descriptive analyses documented SM-Problems and SM-Priorities, and alignment between SM-Priorities and Goal Selection, followed by mixed models adjusting for clinic. RESULTS: 446 participants with ≥ one chronic diseases (mean age 55.4 ± 12.6; 58.5% female) participated. On average, participants reported experiencing challenges in 7 out of the 12 SM-Problems areas; with the most frequent problems including: BMI, aspects of diet, and physical activity. Patient SM-Priorities were variable across the self-management areas. Patient- Healthcare team member Goal selection aligned well with patient SM-Priorities when patients prioritized weight loss or physical activity, but not in other self-management areas. CONCLUSION: Participants reported experiencing multiple SM-Problems. While patients show great variability in their SM-Priorities, the resulting action plan goals that patients create with their healthcare team member show a lack of diversity, with a disproportionate focus on weight loss and physical activity with missed opportunities for using goal setting to create targeted patient-centered plans focused in other SM-Priority areas. Aggregated results can assist with the identification of high frequency patient SM-Problems and SM-Priority areas, and in turn inform resource allocation to meet patient needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01945918 .

Randomized Controlled Trial of Health Coaching for Vulnerable Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

RATIONALE: Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often face barriers to evidence-based care that are difficult to address in public care settings with limited resources. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefit of health coaching for patients with moderate to severe COPD relative to usual care. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of 9 months of health coaching versus usual care for English- or Spanish-speaking patients at least 40 years of age with moderate to severe COPD. Primary outcomes were COPD-related quality of life and the dyspnea subscale of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy for managing COPD, exercise capacity (6-min walk test), and number of COPD exacerbations. Additional outcomes were COPD symptoms, lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted), smoking status, bed days owing to COPD, quality of care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), COPD knowledge, and symptoms of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire). Outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were assessed by review of medical records. Generalized linear modeling was used to adjust for baseline values and account for clustering by clinic. RESULTS: Of 192 patients enrolled, 158 (82%) completed 9 months of follow-up. There were no significant differences between study arms for the primary or secondary outcomes. At 9 months, patients in the coached group reported better quality of care (mean Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care score, 3.30 vs. 3.18; adjusted P = 0.02) and were less likely to report symptoms of moderate to severe depression (Patient Health Questionnaire score, ≥15) than those in the usual care arm (6% vs. 20%; adjusted P = 0.01). During the study, patients in the coaching arm had 48% fewer hospitalizations related to COPD (0.27/patient/yr vs. 0.52/patient/yr), but this difference was not significant in the adjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These results help inform expectations regarding the limitations and benefits of health coaching for patients with COPD. They may be useful to health policy experts in assessing the potential value of reimbursement and incentives for health coaching-type activities for patients with chronic disease. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02234284).

Health coaching to improve self-management and quality of life for low income patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) severely hinders quality of life for those affected and is costly to the health care system. Care gaps in areas such as pharmacotherapy, inhaler technique, and knowledge of disease are prevalent, particularly for vulnerable populations served by community clinics. Non-professionally licensed health coaches have been shown to be an effective and cost-efficient solution in bridging care gaps and facilitating self-management for patients with other chronic diseases, but no research to date has explored their efficacy in improving care for people living with COPD. METHOD: This is multi-site, single blinded, randomized controlled trial evaluates the efficacy of health coaches to facilitate patient self-management of disease and improve quality of life for patients with moderate to severe COPD. Spirometry, survey, and an exercise capacity test are conducted at baseline and at 9 months. A short survey is administered by phone at 3 and 6 months post-enrollment. The nine month health coaching intervention focuses on enhancing disease understanding and symptom awareness, improving use of inhalers; making personalized plans to increase physical activity, smoking cessation, or otherwise improve disease management; and facilitating care coordination. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide evidence regarding the efficacy and feasibility of health coaching to improve self-management and quality of life for urban underserved patients with moderate to severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02234284 . Registered 12 August 2014.

Effects of Social Needs Screening and In-Person Service Navigation on Child Health: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Social determinants of health shape both children's immediate health and their lifetime risk for disease. Increasingly, pediatric health care organizations are intervening to address family social adversity. However, little evidence is available on the effectiveness of related interventions. Objective: To evaluate the effects of social needs screening and in-person resource navigation services on social needs and child health. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients were randomized to intervention or active control conditions by the day of the week. Primary outcomes observed at 4 months after enrollment included caregivers' reports of social needs and child health status. Recruitment occurred between October 13, 2013, and August 27, 2015, in pediatric primary and urgent care clinics in 2 safety-net hospitals. Participants were English-speaking or Spanish-speaking caregivers accompanying minor children to nonacute medical visits. Interventions: After standardized screening, caregivers either received written information on relevant community services (active control) or received in-person help to access services with follow-up telephone calls for further assistance if needed (navigation intervention). Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in reported social needs and in caregiver assessment of child's overall health reported 4 months later. Results: Among 1809 patients enrolled in the study, evenly split between the 2 sites, 31.6% (n = 572) were enrolled in a primary care clinic and 68.4% (n = 1237) were enrolled in an urgent care setting. The children were primarily Hispanic white individuals (50.9% [n = 921]) and non-Hispanic black individuals (26.2% [n = 473]) and had a mean (SD) age of 5.1 (4.8) years; 50.5% (n = 913) were female. The reported number of social needs at baseline ranged from 0 to 11 of 14 total possible items, with a mean (SD) of 2.7 (2.2). At 4 months after enrollment, the number of social needs reported by the intervention arm decreased more than that reported by the control arm, with a mean (SE) change of -0.39 (0.13) vs 0.22 (0.13) (P < .001). In addition, caregivers in the intervention arm reported significantly greater improvement in their child's health, with a mean (SE) change of -0.36 (0.05) vs -0.12 (0.05) (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: To our knowledge, this investigation is the first randomized clinical trial to evaluate health outcomes of a pediatric social needs navigation program. Compared with an active control at 4 months after enrollment, the intervention significantly decreased families' reports of social needs and significantly improved children's overall health status as reported by caregivers. These findings support the feasibility and potential effect of addressing social needs in pediatric health care settings. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01939704.

A randomized trial on screening for social determinants of health: the iScreen study.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in clinical screening for pediatric social determinants of health, but little evidence on formats that maximize disclosure rates on a wide range of potentially sensitive topics. We designed a study to examine disclosure rates and hypothesized that there would be no difference in disclosure rates on face-to-face versus electronic screening formats for items other than highly sensitive items. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial of electronic versus face-to-face social screening formats in a pediatric emergency department. Consenting English-speaking and Spanish-speaking adult caregivers familiar with the presenting child's household were randomized to social screening via tablet computer (with option for audio assist) versus a face-to-face interview conducted by a fully bilingual/bicultural researcher. RESULTS: Almost all caregivers (96.8%) reported at least 1 social need, but rates of reporting on the more sensitive issues (household violence and substance abuse) were significantly higher in electronic format, and disclosure was marginally higher in electronic format for financial insecurity and neighborhood and school safety. There was a significant difference in the proportion of social needs items with higher endorsement in the computer-based group (70%) than the face-to-face group (30%). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric clinical sites interested in incorporating caregiver-reported socioeconomic, environmental, and behavioral needs screening should consider electronic screening when feasible, particularly when assessing sensitive topics such as child safety and household member substance use.

Using the Teamlet Model to improve chronic care in an academic primary care practice.

BACKGROUND: Team care can improve management of chronic conditions, but implementing a team approach in an academic primary care clinic presents unique challenges. OBJECTIVES: To implement and evaluate the Teamlet Model, which uses health coaches working with primary care physicians to improve care for patients with diabetes and/or hypertension in an academic practice. DESIGN: Process and outcome measures were compared before and during the intervention in patients seen with the Teamlet Model and in a comparison patient group. PARTICIPANTS: First year family medicine residents, medical assistants, health workers, and adult patients with either type 2 diabetes or hypertension in a large public health clinic. INTERVENTION: Health coaches, in coordination with resident primary care physicians, met with patients before and after clinic visits and called patients between visits. MEASUREMENTS: Measurement of body mass index, assessment of smoking status, and formulation of a self-management plan prior to and during the intervention period for patients in the Teamlet Model group. Testing for LDL and HbA1C and the proportion of patients at goal for blood pressure, LDL, and HbA1C in the Teamlet Model and comparison groups in the year prior to and during implementation. RESULTS: Teamlet patients showed improvement in all measures, though improvement was significant only for smoking, BMI, and self-management plan documentation and testing for LDL (p = 0.02), with a trend towards significance for LDL at goal (p = 0.07). Teamlet patients showed a greater, but non-significant, increase in the proportion of patients tested for HbA1C and proportion reaching goal for blood pressure, HgbA1C, and LDL compared to the comparison group patients. The difference for blood pressure was marginally significant (p = 0.06). In contrast, patients in the comparison group were significantly more likely to have had testing for LDL (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Teamlet Model may improve chronic care in academic primary care practices.