A mixed methods analysis of the medication review intervention centered around the use of the 'Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing' Assistant (STRIPA) in Swiss primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Electronic clinical decision support systems (eCDSS), such as the 'Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing' Assistant (STRIPA), have become promising tools for assisting general practitioners (GPs) with conducting medication reviews in older adults. Little is known about how GPs perceive eCDSS-assisted recommendations for pharmacotherapy optimization. The aim of this study was to explore the implementation of a medication review intervention centered around STRIPA in the 'Optimising PharmacoTherapy In the multimorbid elderly in primary CAre' (OPTICA) trial. METHODS: We used an explanatory mixed methods design combining quantitative and qualitative data. First, quantitative data about the acceptance and implementation of eCDSS-generated recommendations from GPs (n = 21) and their patients (n = 160) in the OPTICA intervention group were collected. Then, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with GPs from the OPTICA intervention group (n = 8), and interview data were analyzed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: In quantitative findings, GPs reported averages of 13 min spent per patient preparing the eCDSS, 10 min performing medication reviews, and 5 min discussing prescribing recommendations with patients. On average, out of the mean generated 3.7 recommendations (SD=1.8). One recommendation to stop or start a medication was reported to be implemented per patient in the intervention group (SD=1.2). Overall, GPs found the STRIPA useful and acceptable. They particularly appreciated its ability to generate recommendations based on large amounts of patient information. During qualitative interviews, GPs reported the main reasons for limited implementation of STRIPA were related to problems with data sourcing (e.g., incomplete data imports), preparation of the eCDSS (e.g., time expenditure for updating and adapting information), its functionality (e.g., technical problems downloading PDF recommendation reports), and appropriateness of recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative findings help explain the relatively low implementation of recommendations demonstrated by quantitative findings, but also show GPs' overall acceptance of STRIPA. Our results provide crucial insights for adapting STRIPA to make it more suitable for regular use in future primary care settings (e.g., necessity to improve data imports). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03724539, date of first registration: 29/10/2018.

Implementation of Provider-Focused Education to Improve Laboratory Screening for Pediatric Patients With Elevated Body Mass Index in Primary Care: A Quality Improvement Project.

INTRODUCTION: Children with elevated body mass index (BMI) do not consistently receive recommended laboratory screenings. This project aimed to increase provider screening rates and knowledge of screening guidelines for this population. METHOD: This project utilized the Rosswurm and Larrabee evidence-based practice model. Providers completed education with pretest and posttest design. Laboratory screening rates were measured with retrospective chart reviews, and a project satisfaction survey was conducted. RESULTS: Nine (82%) of 11 providers showed an increase in knowledge of screening for children with elevated BMI. Laboratory screening increased (27% to 39%) above the preintervention median (25%) for children with obesity and was above the median (22%) for one month of the project (15% to 26%) for children with overweight. CONCLUSIONS: Project results suggest education improved knowledge and compliance with guidelines for laboratory screening of children with an elevated BMI. Asynchronous education and sharing of compliance rates are adaptable to similar quality improvement projects.

Deprescribing in primary care without deterioration of health-related outcomes: A real-life, quality improvement project.

Medication reviews focusing on deprescribing can reduce potentially inappropriate medication; however, evidence regarding effects on health-related outcomes is sparse. In a real-life quality improvement project using a newly developed chronic care model, we investigated how a general practitioner-led medication review intervention focusing on deprescribing affected health-related outcomes. We performed a before-after intervention study including care home residents and community-dwelling patients affiliated with a large Danish general practice. The primary outcomes were changes in self-reported health status, general condition and functional level from baseline to 3-4 months follow-up. Of the 105 included patients, 87 completed the follow-up. From baseline to follow-up, 255 medication changes were made, of which 83% were deprescribing. Mean self-reported health status increased (0.55 [95% CI: 0.22 to 0.87]); the proportion with general condition rated as 'average or above' was stable (0.06 [95% CI: -0.02 to 0.14]); and the proportion with functional level 'without any disability' was stable (-0.05 [95% CI: -0.09 to 0.001]). In conclusion, this general practitioner-led medication review intervention was associated with deprescribing and increased self-reported health status without the deterioration of general condition or functional level in real-life primary care patients. The results should be interpreted carefully given the small sample size and lack of control group.

Exploring the feasibility of an artificial intelligence based clinical decision support system for cutaneous melanoma detection in primary care - a mixed method study.

Objective: Skin examination to detect cutaneous melanomas is commonly performed in primary care. In recent years, clinical decision support systems (CDSS) based on artificial intelligence (AI) have been introduced within several diagnostic fields.Setting: This study employs a variety of qualitative and quantitative methodologies to investigate the feasibility of an AI-based CDSS to detect cutaneous melanoma in primary care.Subjects and Design: Fifteen primary care physicians (PCPs) underwent near-live simulations using the CDSS on a simulated patient, and subsequent individual semi-structured interviews were explored with a hybrid thematic analysis approach. Additionally, twenty-five PCPs performed a reader study (diagnostic assessment on the basis of image interpretation) of 18 dermoscopic images, both with and without help from AI, investigating the value of adding AI support to a PCPs decision. Perceived instrument usability was rated on the System Usability Scale (SUS).Results: From the interviews, the importance of trust in the CDSS emerged as a central concern. Scientific evidence supporting sufficient diagnostic accuracy of the CDSS was expressed as an important factor that could increase trust. Access to AI decision support when evaluating dermoscopic images proved valuable as it formally increased the physician's diagnostic accuracy. A mean SUS score of 84.8, corresponding to 'good' usability, was measured.Conclusion: AI-based CDSS might play an important future role in cutaneous melanoma diagnostics, provided sufficient evidence of diagnostic accuracy and usability supporting its trustworthiness among the users.

Effective primary care is important for discovering cutaneous melanoma, the deadliest and an increasingly prevalent form of skin cancer. 'Trust', 'usability and user experience', and 'the clinical context' are the qualitative themes that emerged from the qualitative analysis. These areas need to be considered for the successful adoption of AI assisted decision support tools by PCPs.The AI CDSS tool was rated by the PCPs at grade B (average 84.8) on the System Usability Scale (SUS), which is equivalent to 'good' usability.A reader study, (diagnostic assessment on the basis of image interpretation) with 25 PCPs rating dermoscopic images, showed increased value of adding an AI decision support to their clinical assessment.

Primary Care Providers Experiences Implementing Low-Dose Computed Tomography Recommendations for Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Describe primary care providers' (PCPs) barriers and facilitators to implementation of lung cancer screening programs in rural settings. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with PCPs practicing in rural Oregon from November 2019 to September 2020. The interview questions and analytic framework were informed by the 2009 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We used inductive and deductive approaches for analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 key participants from 12 distinct health care systems. We identified several Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research factors affecting lung cancer screening implementation. 1) Most PCPs did not have workflows to assist in discussing screening and relied on their memory and knowledge of the patient's history to prompt discussions. PCPs supported screening and managed the patient throughout the process. 2) PCPs reported several patient-level barriers, including geographic access to lung cancer screening scans and out-of-pocket cost concerns. 3) PCPs reported that champions are necessary to create opportunities for local practices to adopt lung cancer screening programs. CONCLUSIONS: Rural-practicing PCPs were supportive of lung cancer screening, however workflow processes, time challenges, and patient-reported barriers remain impediments to improved screening in their clinics. We identified several areas for improvement in lung cancer screening implementation in rural primary care practices, ranging from designing clinic workflows and processes to designating clinic staff to support referral, screening, and follow-up care for patients.

Mayor uso de teleconsultas programadas y mensajería asincrónica del portal en atención primaria / Increased Use of Scheduled Teleconsultations and Asynchronous Portal Messaging in Primary Care

Introducción: durante la pandemia de COVID-19 hubo un auge sin precedentes de la telemedicina, probablemente por la forzada adopción de tecnología ante las medidas restrictivas. El presente estudio se propuso comparar la interacción y la comunicación entre médicos de cabecera (MC) y pacientes, antes y durante el período de pandemia, en términos de consultas ambulatorias programadas y mensajes del Portal de Salud. Materiales y métodos: corte transversal con muestreo consecutivo de turnos programados y mensajes, ocurridos entre las semanas epidemiológicas (SE) 10 y 23, de 2019 y 2020, respectivamente. Se incluyeron 147 médicos del Servicio de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria, y una cápita de 73 427 pacientes afiliados al Plan de Salud del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Se realizó análisis cuantitativo y cualitativo. Resultados: hubo una reducción del 70% de las consultas presenciales (de 76 375 en 2019 a 23 200 en 2020) y un aumento concomitante de teleconsultas (de 255 en la SE13 a 1089 en la SE23). En simultáneo, los mensajes aumentaron sustancialmente (de 28 601 en 2019 a 84 916 en 2020), con un inicio abrupto al comienzo del confinamiento, y una tendencia decreciente a lo largo del tiempo. Antes de la pandemia, el contenido estuvo relacionado con órdenes electrónicas de estudios complementarios, control de resultados, recetas de medicación crónica y/o interconsultas a especialistas, mientras que los dominios más frecuentes durante la pandemia fueron necesidades informativas epidemiológicas, como medidas preventivas para COVID-19, vacuna antineumocócica, vacuna antigripal, casos o sospechas, resultados de hisopados, entre otras. Conclusión: el auge de las tecnologías de la comunicación e información durante la pandemia permitió dar continuidad a los procesos asistenciales en salud pese al distanciamiento físico. Hubo mayor utilización de mensajería por necesidades informativas de los pacientes, y la relación médico-paciente se ha modificado. (AU)

Introduction: during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unprecedented boom in telemedicine, probably due to the forced adoption of technology in the face of restrictive measures. This study aimed to compare the interaction and communication between general practitioners and patients before and during the pandemic based on scheduled outpatient consultations and Health Portal messages. Materials and methods: Cross-sectional study with a consecutive sampling of scheduled appointments and messages, occurring between epidemiological weeks (EW) 10 and 23 of 2019 and 2020, respectively. We included 147 physicians from the Family and Community Medicine Service and a capita of 73427 patients affiliated with the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires health plan. We conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis. Results: there was a 70% reduction in face-to-face consultations (from 76375 in 2019 to 23200 in 2020) and a concomitant increase in teleconsultations (from 255 in EW13 to 1089 in EW23). Concurrently, messages increased substantially (from 28601 in 2019 to 84916 in 2020), with an abrupt onset at the beginning of confinement and a decreasing trend over time. Before the pandemic, the content involved electronic orders for complementary studies, outcome monitoring, chronic medication prescriptions, or expert consultations. The most frequent domains during the pandemic were epidemiological information needs, such as preventive measures for COVID-19, pneumococcal vaccine, influenza vaccine, cases or suspicions, and swab results, among others. Conclusion: the rise of communication and information technologies during the pandemic allowed the continuity of healthcare processes despite the physical distance. There was increased use of messaging for patients' information needs, and the doctor-patient relationship has changed. (AU)

Adapting and implementing breast cancer follow-up in primary care: protocol for a mixed methods hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Advances in detection and treatment for breast cancer have led to an increase in the number of individuals managing significant late and long-term treatment effects. Primary care has a role in caring for patients with a history of cancer, yet there is little guidance on how to effectively implement survivorship care evidence into primary care delivery. METHODS: This protocol describes a multi-phase, mixed methods, stakeholder-driven research process that prioritizes actionable, evidence-based primary care improvements to enhance breast cancer survivorship care by integrating implementation and primary care transformation frameworks: the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework and the Practice Change Model (PCM). Informed by depth interviews and a four round Delphi panel with diverse stakeholders from primary care and oncology, we will implement and evaluate an iterative clinical intervention in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized design in twenty-six primary care practices. Multi-component implementation strategies will include facilitation, audit and feedback, and learning collaboratives. Ongoing data collection and analysis will be performed to optimize adoption of the intervention. The primary clinical outcome to test effectiveness is comprehensive breast cancer follow-up care. Implementation will be assessed using mixed methods to explore how organizational and contextual variables affect adoption, implementation, and early sustainability for provision of follow-up care, symptom, and risk management activities at six- and 12-months post implementation. DISCUSSION: Study findings are poised to inform development of scalable, high impact intervention processes to enhance long-term follow-up care for patients with a history of breast cancer in primary care. If successful, next steps would include working with a national primary care practice-based research network to implement a national dissemination study. Actionable activities and processes identified could also be applied to development of organizational and care delivery interventions for follow-up care for other cancer sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2, 2022: NCT05400941.

The Spanish language version of the TAPS tool: protocol for a validation and implementation study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The TAPS Tool ("Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription drug, and illicit Substance use") is a screening and brief assessment for detecting unhealthy substance use in healthcare settings that was developed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network and validated in a multisite study. Our team developed a Spanish language version of the TAPS Tool that supports provider- and self-administration screening using a mobile/web-based platform, the TAPS Electronic Spanish Platform (TAPS-ESP). METHODS: This article describes the protocol and rationale for a study to validate the TAPS-ESP in a sample of Spanish-speaking primary care patients recruited from a network of community-based clinics in Texas (target N = 1,000). The TAPS-ESP will be validated against established substance use disorder diagnostic measures, alternative screening tools, and substance use biomarkers. The study will subsequently examine barriers and facilitators to screening with the TAPS-ESP from a provider workflow perspective using qualitative interviews with providers. DISCUSSION: Validating a Spanish language version of the TAPS Tool could expand access to evidence-based, linguistically accurate, and culturally relevant substance use screening and brief assessment for an underserved health disparity population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov : NCT05476588, 07/22/2022.

Validated frailty measures using electronic primary care records: a review of diagnostic test accuracy.

INTRODUCTION: Identification of people who have or are at risk of frailty enables targeted interventions, and the use of tools that screen for frailty using electronic records (which we term as validated electronic frailty measures (VEFMs)) within primary care is incentivised by NHS England. We carried out a systematic review to establish the sensitivity and specificity of available primary care VEFMs when compared to a reference standard in-person assessment. METHODS: Medline, Pubmed, CENTRAL, CINHAL and Embase searches identified studies comparing a primary care VEFM with in-person assessment. Studies were quality assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies revised tool. Sensitivity and specificity values were extracted or were calculated and pooled using StatsDirect. RESULTS: There were 2,245 titles screened, with 10 studies included. These described three different index tests: electronic frailty index (eFI), claims-based frailty index (cFI) and polypharmacy. Frailty Phenotype was the reference standard in each study. One study of 60 patients examined the eFI, reporting a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.55, 0.98) and a specificity of 0.78 (0.64, 0.89). Two studies of 7,679 patients examined cFI, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI = 0.23, 0.74) and a specificity of 0.80 (0.53, 0.98). Seven studies of 34,328 patients examined a polypharmacy as a screening tool (defined as more than or equal to five medications) with a pooled sensitivity of 0.61 (95% CI = 0.50, 0.72) and a specificity of 0.66 (0.58, 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: eFI is the best-performing VEFM; however, based on our analysis of an average UK GP practice, it would return a high number of false-positive results. In conclusion, existing electronic frailty tools may not be appropriate for primary care-based population screening.

Factors facilitating the implementation of a clinical decision support system in primary care practices: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how to implement innovations in primary care practices is key to improve primary health care. Aiming to contribute to this understanding, we investigate the implementation of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) as part of the innovation fund project AdAM (01NVF16006). Originating from complexity theory, the practice change and development model (PCD) proposes several interdependent factors that enable organizational-level change and thus accounts for the complex settings of primary care practices. Leveraging the PCD, we seek to answer the following research questions: Which combinations of internal and external factors based on the PCD contribute to successful implementation in primary care practices? Given these results, how can implementation in the primary care setting be improved? METHODS: We analyzed the joint contributions of internal and external factors on implementation success using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). QCA is a set-theoretic approach that allows to identify configurations of multiple factors that lead to one outcome (here: successful implementation of a CDSS in primary care practices). Using survey data, we conducted our analysis based on a sample of 224 primary care practices. RESULTS: We identified two configurations of internal and external factors that likewise enable successful implementation. The first configuration enables implementation based on a combination of Strong Inside Motivation, High Capability for Development, and Strong Outside Motivation; the second configuration based on a combination of Strong Inside Motivators, Many Options for Development and the absence of High Capability for Development. CONCLUSION: In line with the PCD, our results demonstrate the importance of the combination of internal and external factors for implementation outcomes. Moreover, the two identified configurations show that different ways exist to achieve successful implementation in primary care practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: AdAM was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03430336 ) on February 6, 2018.

A Multilevel Primary Care Intervention to Improve Follow-Up of Overdue Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Realizing the benefits of cancer screening requires testing of eligible individuals and processes to ensure follow-up of abnormal results. Objective: To test interventions to improve timely follow-up of overdue abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening results. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 44 primary care practices within 3 health networks in the US enrolling patients with at least 1 abnormal cancer screening test result not yet followed up between August 24, 2020, and December 13, 2021. Intervention: Automated algorithms developed using data from electronic health records (EHRs) recommended follow-up actions and times for abnormal screening results. Primary care practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to (1) usual care, (2) EHR reminders, (3) EHR reminders and outreach (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a phone call at week 4), or (4) EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a navigator outreach phone call at week 4). Patients, physicians, and practices were unblinded to treatment assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days of study enrollment. The secondary outcomes included completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days of enrollment and completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days and 240 days for specific cancer types and levels of risk. Results: Among 11 980 patients (median age, 60 years [IQR, 52-69 years]; 64.8% were women; 83.3% were White; and 15.4% were insured through Medicaid) with an abnormal cancer screening test result for colorectal cancer (8245 patients [69%]), cervical cancer (2596 patients [22%]), breast cancer (1005 patients [8%]), or lung cancer (134 patients [1%]) and abnormal test results categorized as low risk (6082 patients [51%]), medium risk (3712 patients [31%]), or high risk (2186 patients [18%]), the adjusted proportion who completed recommended follow-up within 120 days was 31.4% in the EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group (n = 3455), 31.0% in the EHR reminders and outreach group (n = 2569), 22.7% in the EHR reminders group (n = 3254), and 22.9% in the usual care group (n = 2702) (adjusted absolute difference for comparison of EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group vs usual care, 8.5% [95% CI, 4.8%-12.0%], P < .001). The secondary outcomes showed similar results for completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days and by subgroups for cancer type and level of risk for the abnormal screening result. Conclusions and Relevance: A multilevel primary care intervention that included EHR reminders and patient outreach with or without patient navigation improved timely follow-up of overdue abnormal cancer screening test results for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03979495.

The impact of vaginal surgical mesh devices on consultation rates by type and health care provider in UK primary care: A cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVES: To examine consultation rates by type of consultation and health care provider in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and/or pelvic organ prolapse (POP), with and without surgical mesh implants. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal open cohort study from April 2006 to November 2018 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of consultations with general practitioners (GPs), nurses, other clinicians and administrators by consultation type (face-to-face, telephone or administrative), and types of administrative consultations, estimated using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Of 220,544 women eligible for inclusion, 74 % (n = 162,687) had SUI, 37 % (n = 82,123) had POP, and 11 % (n = 24,266) had both. Face-to-face consultation rates were stable over time, at about 9 per year. Administrative consultations with GPs and administrators increased between 2006 and 2018, but averaged 31 per year. After adjustment, for both SUI and POP mesh surgery, there were lower rates of face-to-face consultations with GPs, higher rates of face-to-face consultations with other clinicians, higher rates of telephone consultations with GPs and other clinicians, and higher rates of administrative consultations with GPs, nurses and administrators. The higher rate of consultations with GPs coded as administrative consisted of results recording and administrative codes, and the higher rates of consultations with administrators were coded as repeat issue, other, administration and third-party consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Caring for women with mesh places a higher administrative burden on GPs and administrators. There may be potential to reduce this workload through a more streamlined care pathway.

eConsult Provides a Novel Opportunity to Evaluate Hematuria Referrals for Medicaid Patients in the "Real-World" Community.

INTRODUCTION: We utilized an eConsult program to assess the appropriateness and completeness of hematuria evaluation among one of the largest Medicaid networks in California, the Inland Empire Health Plan. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all hematuria consults from May 2018 to August 2020. Patient demographic and clinical data were extracted from the electronic health record and dialogues between primary care provider and specialist including laboratory results and imaging. We calculated the proportions of imaging types and the outcome of the eConsults among patients. χ2 and Fisher's exact tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 106 hematuria eConsults were submitted. Primary care provider evaluation for risk factors rates were low: 37% gross hematuria, 29% voiding symptoms/dysuria, 49% other urothelial risk factors or benign etiology, and 63% smoking. Only 50% of all referrals were deemed appropriate based on a history of gross hematuria or ≥3 red blood cells/high-power field on urinalysis without evidence of infection or contamination. Thirty-one percent of patients received a renal ultrasound, 2.8% received CT urography, 5.7% received other cross-sectional imaging, and 64% received no imaging. By the conclusion of the eConsult only 54% of patients were referred for a face-to-face visit. CONCLUSIONS: The use of eConsults allows for urological access in the safety-net population and presents a means to assess the urological needs in the community. Our findings suggest eConsults represent an opportunity to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with hematuria among safety-net patients who are otherwise less likely to receive a proper evaluation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening to Identify Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Screening for Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is recommended for people aged above 65 years. Screening for AF in asymptomatic individuals can be beneficial by enabling earlier diagnosis and the commencement of interventions to reduce the risk of early events, thus improving patient outcomes. This study systematically reviews the literature about the cost-effectiveness of various screening methods for previously undiagnosed AF. METHODS: Four databases were searched to identify articles that are cost-effectiveness studies conducted on screening for AF published from January 2000 to August 2022. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist was used to assess the quality of the selected studies. A previously published approach was used to assess the usefulness of each study for health policy makers. RESULTS: The database search yielded 799 results, with 26 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Articles were categorised into four subgroups: (i) population screening, (ii) opportunistic screening, (iii) targeted, and (iv) mixed methods of screening. Most of the studies screened adults ≥65 years of age. Most studies were performed from a 'health care payer perspective' and almost all studies used 'not screening' as a comparator. Almost all screening methods assessed were found to be cost-effective in comparison to 'not screening'. The reporting quality varied between 58% to 89%. The majority of the studies were found to be of limited usefulness for health policy makers, as none of the studies made any clear statements about policy change or implementation direction. CONCLUSION: All approaches of AF screening were found to be cost-effective compared with no screening, while opportunistic screening was found to be the optimal approach in some studies. However, screening for AF in asymptomatic individuals is context specific and likely to be cost-effective depending on the population screened, screening approach, frequency, and the duration of screening.

Seeking lifestyle counselling at primary health care centres: a cross-sectional study in the Swedish population.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people follow an unhealthy lifestyle in terms of tobacco consumption, hazardous use of alcohol, poor eating habits, and insufficient physical activity. Healthy lifestyles can to a large extent prevent and/or delay progression of non-communicable diseases. Factors influencing persons health-seeking behaviour regarding unhealthy lifestyles are of importance for sustainable health-promotive and disease-preventive work in primary health care. Generally, lifestyle interventions within primary health care are seen as feasible, but rarely reach all members of the general population. Few studies have been conducted about the likelihood among the general population to voluntarily contact a primary health care centre for support regarding lifestyle changes. The present study therefore aimed to investigate the general population's likelihood of contacting a primary health care centre regarding their lifestyles, and factors associated with a lower such likelihood. METHODS: A probability sample of adults living in Sweden (n = 3 750) were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey regarding how societal developments affect attitudes and behaviours of the adult Swedish population. Data were collected between September and December 2020. Participants completed a questionnaire about lifestyle changes, and the data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 52.0% (n = 1 896). Few persons responded that they would be likely to contact a primary health care centre for support regarding their lifestyles. Factors predicting a lower likelihood of contacting primary health care included few yearly visits to a primary health care centre, male sex, and living in a rural area. CONCLUSIONS: Primary health care centres are not the first choice for lifestyle counselling for the majority of adults living in Sweden. We have identified factors predicting low likelihood of using the support available at these centres. In order to work with sustainable and visible health-promotive and disease-preventive strategies at primary health care centres, these settings need to find valid methods to involve and collaborate with the members of the general community, to meet the needs of a population struggling with unhealthy lifestyles.

[Multicomponent treatment of tobacco in primary care: Follow-up over 5years]. / Tratamiento multicomponente del tabaquismo en Atención Primaria: seguimiento transcurridos más de 5 años.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the effectiveness of a multicomponent treatment for smoking cessation carried out in primary care and to evaluate the evolution of the consumption of tobacco that the people who participated had, more than 5 years after the end of the treatment. DESIGN: Longitudinal study of 307 participants in a multicomponent program in group format of tobacco cessation. EMPLACEMENT: Santander (Spain) Primary Care Health Center. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers from the basic health zone who wanted to quit smoking between 2006 and 2012 and requested help. INTERVENTIONS: Multicomponent treatment of 5face-to-face sessions and follow-up for up to 12 months. PRIMARY MEASUREMENTS: The activity was evaluated in 263 participants more than 5years after the end of treatment. The results of continuous and punctual withdrawal were obtained by self-declaration and the data recorded in the medical record. The punctual was also validated with co-oximetry. RESULTS: After a year 42.7% of participants declared continuous abstinence. From 5 to 12 years later, the continuous declared abstinence further than 12 months was 40.7%. They did not smoke again since the end of the treatment 66 people; 68.0% of those who relapsed made new attempts and 45.5% of them requested help to quit smoking. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed multi-component treatment is effective. Abstinence at 12 months predicts long-term maintenance and participating in disabling groups favors further attempts in case of relapse and the request for help to quit smoking.

An implementation science approach to the systematic study of access to gynecologic cancer care.

INTRODUCTION: Barriers to access to cancer care are profoundly threatening to patients with gynecologic malignancies. Implementation science focuses on empirical investigation of factors influencing delivery of clinical best practices, as well as interventions designed to improve delivery of evidence-based care. We outline one prominent framework for conducting implementation research and discuss its application to improving access to gynecologic cancer care. METHODS: Literature on the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was reviewed. Delivery of cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma was selected as an illustrative case of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) in gynecologic oncology. CFIR domains were applied to the context of cytoreductive surgical care, highlighting examples of empirically-assessable determinants of care delivery. RESULTS: CFIR domains include Innovation, Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Individuals, and Implementation Process. "Innovation" relates to characteristics of the surgical intervention itself; "Inner Setting" relates to the environment in which surgery is delivered. "Outer Setting" refers to the broader care environment influencing the Inner Setting. "Individuals" highlights attributes of persons directly involved in care delivery, and "Implementation Process" focuses on integration of the Innovation within the Inner Setting. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritization of implementation science methods in the study of access to gynecologic cancer care will help ensure that patients are able to utilize interventions with the greatest prospect of benefiting them.

AuTomaTed Alcohol Misuse INterventions in a Bariatric Surgery Population: The ATTAIN Bariatric Pilot.

Introduction Alcohol screening and brief intervention has been shown to reduce unhealthy alcohol use, although widespread adoption into primary care practice has been slow. Patients undergoing bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of unhealthy alcohol use. The authors compared a novel, web-based screening tool called ATTAIN to usual care for real-world effectiveness and accuracy among bariatric surgery registry patients. Methods The authors analyzed the results of a quality improvement project that tested ATTAIN among bariatric surgery registry patients. Participants were stratified into 3 groups by surgery status (preoperative vs postoperative) and prior screening for unhealthy alcohol use (screened vs not screened in the past year). Participants in these 3 groups were divided into intervention plus usual care (n = 2249) and control (n = 2130) groups, with intervention being an email to complete ATTAIN, and control being usual care (eg, office-based screening). Primary outcomes included screening and positivity rates for unhealthy drinking behavior between groups. Secondary outcomes included positivity rates via ATTAIN vs usual care for individuals who were screened by both modalities. Chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. Results The overall screening rates were 67.4% (intervention arm) and 38.6% (control). The ATTAIN response rate was 47% of those invited. The overall positive screen rate was 7.7% (intervention) and 2.6% (control); p < .001 for both. For dual screened intervention participants, the positive screen rate was 10% (ATTAIN) vs 2% (usual care) with p < .001. Conclusion ATTAIN is a promising method of increasing screening and detection rates for unhealthy drinking behavior.

Sustainability of Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention Services in Primary Care After Removal of Implementation Supports.

OBJECTIVE: Although many health care organizations have sought to increase the integration of substance use services into clinical practice, such practice changes can prove difficult to sustain. METHOD: Seven primary care clinics participated in an implementation study of screening and brief intervention (BI) services for adolescent patients (ages 12-17). All sites delivered screening and brief advice (BA) for low-risk use using a uniform protocol. Clinics were randomized to deliver BI using generalist (provider-delivered) or specialist (behavioral health clinician-delivered) models. Implementation was facilitated by multiple supporting activities (e.g., trainings, local "champion," electronic health record [EHR] integration of screening and documentation, individualized feedback, project-specific materials, etc.). Data on the penetration of screening, BA, and BI delivery (N = 14,486 adolescent patient visits) were abstracted from the EHR for the 20-month implementation phase and a 12-month sustainability phase (during which implementation supports were removed). RESULTS: Penetration of screening continued to slowly increase across the implementation-to-sustainability phases (62% vs. 70%; p = .04). Although uptake during implementation was low for BA (29%) and BI (22%), there was no significant decrease in service provision during the sustainability phase. Although overall delivery of BI was significantly higher in generalist compared with specialist sites (p < .001), sustainability did not differ by generalist versus specialist conditions. There were considerable differences in penetration across clinic sites. CONCLUSIONS: Clinics sustained a high level of substance use screening. Uptake of intervention services was low but did not decrease further following the cessation of implementation supports. This study illustrates the challenges of successfully implementing and sustaining substance use services in adolescent primary care.