Assessing Priorities in a Statewide Cardiovascular and Diabetes Health Collaborative Based on the Results of a Needs Assessment: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The Ohio Cardiovascular and Diabetes Health Collaborative (Cardi-OH) unites general and subspecialty medical staff at the 7 medical schools in Ohio with community and public health partnerships to improve cardiovascular and diabetes health outcomes and eliminate disparities in Ohio's Medicaid population. Although statewide collaboratives exist to address health improvements, few deploy needs assessments to inform their work. OBJECTIVE: Cardi-OH conducts an annual needs assessment to identify high-priority clinical topics, screening practices, policy changes for home monitoring devices and referrals, and preferences for the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based best practices. The results of the statewide needs assessment could also be used by others interested in disseminating best practices to primary care teams. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically via REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Vanderbilt University) to both Cardi-OH grant-funded and non-grant-funded members (ie, people who have engaged with Cardi-OH but are not funded by the grant). RESULTS: In total, 88% (103/117) of Cardi-OH grant-funded members and 8.14% (98/1204) of non-grant-funded members completed the needs assessment survey. Of these, 51.5% (53/103) of Cardi-OH grant-funded members and 47% (46/98) of non-grant-funded members provided direct clinical care. The top cardiovascular medicine and diabetes clinical topics for Cardi-OH grant-funded members (clinical and nonclinical) were lifestyle prescriptions (50/103, 48.5%), atypical diabetes (38/103, 36.9%), COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease (CVD; 38/103, 36.9%), and mental health and CVD (38/103, 36.9%). For non-grant-funded members, the top topics were lifestyle prescriptions (53/98, 54%), mental health and CVD (39/98, 40%), alcohol and CVD (27/98, 28%), and cardiovascular complications (27/98, 28%). Regarding social determinants of health, Cardi-OH grant-funded members prioritized 3 topics: weight bias and stigma (44/103, 42.7%), family-focused interventions (40/103, 38.8%), and adverse childhood events (37/103, 35.9%). Non-grant-funded members' choices were family-focused interventions (51/98, 52%), implicit bias (43/98, 44%), and adverse childhood events (39/98, 40%). Assessment of other risk factors for CVD and diabetes across grant- and non-grant-funded members revealed screening for social determinants of health in approximately 50% of patients in each practice, whereas some frequency of depression and substance abuse screening occurred in 80% to 90% of the patients. Access to best practice home monitoring devices was challenging, with 30% (16/53) and 41% (19/46) of clinical grant-funded and non-grant-funded members reporting challenges in obtaining home blood pressure monitoring devices and 68% (36/53) and 43% (20/46) reporting challenges with continuous glucose monitors. CONCLUSIONS: Cardi-OH grant- and non-grant-funded members shared the following high-priority topics: lifestyle prescriptions, CVD and mental health, family-focused interventions, alcohol and CVD, and adverse childhood experiences. Identifying high-priority educational topics and preferred delivery modalities for evidence-based materials is essential for ensuring that the dissemination of resources is practical and useful for providers.

A Medicaid-Funded Statewide Diabetes Quality Improvement Collaborative: Ohio 2020‒2022.

We used a collective impact model to form a statewide diabetes quality improvement collaborative to improve diabetes outcomes and advance diabetes health equity. Between 2020 and 2022, in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Medicaid, Medicaid Managed Care Plans, and Ohio's seven medical schools, we recruited 20 primary care practices across the state. The percentage of patients with hemoglobin A1c greater than 9% improved from 25% to 20% over two years. Applying our model more broadly could accelerate improvement in diabetes outcomes. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(12):1254-1257. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307410).

Coaching quality improvement in primary care to improve hypertension control.

BACKGROUND: Effective management of hypertension (HTN) is a priority in primary care, necessary to decrease the costs, morbidity, and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease. Strategies to support quality improvement (QI) efforts in primary care are needed to make significant improvements in population health, especially for patients who experience socioeconomic inequalities. LOCAL PROBLEM: To address the high rate (>50%) of uncontrolled HTN in the state of Ohio, a statewide QI project was implemented in high-volume Medicaid practices, aimed at improving blood pressure control and addressing racial disparities. The initiative expanded to include coaching QI to support efforts in primary care practices. METHODS: The Model for Improvement guided development of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles facilitated by QI coaching and APRN collaboration to implement key components of HTN guidelines: accurate blood pressure measurement, effective treatment, and timely follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were implemented after PDSA cycles over 18 months in two practice sites to address HTN control. Linking multiple PDSA test cycles and review of data bimonthly allowed for reflection on the impact of interventions for non-Hispanic Black patients and the overall patient population. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with controlled HTN, repeat blood pressure measurement, and timely follow-up improved in an urban primary care practice associated with an academic medical center and in a rural federally qualified health center. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices can benefit from the external support of coaching when implementing QI processes to make meaningful change. APRNs are key collaborators for expanding QI efforts in primary care.

"The coupons and stuff just made it possible": economic constraints and patient experiences of a produce prescription program.

Although produce prescription (PRx) programs have been shown to improve fruit and vegetable (FV) consumption, few studies have examined how economic constraints influence participant experience. We conducted a qualitative study of patient experience of a 3-month PRx program for hypertension (PRxHTN) including 3 safety-net clinics and 20 farmers' markets (FMs). We interviewed 23 PRxHTN participants using semistructured guides to understand their program experiences. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, and analyzed to identify a priori and emergent themes. PRxHTN participants completing qualitative interviews were mostly middle-aged (mean: 62 years) African American (100%) women (78%). Economic hardship as a barrier to maximum program participation and sustainability was a main theme identified, with three subthemes: (i) transportation issues shaped shopping and eating patterns and limited participant ability to access FMs to utilize PRxHTN vouchers; (ii) limited and unstable income shaped participant shopping and eating behavior before, during, and after PRxHTN; and (iii) participants emphasized individual-level influences like personal or perceived motivations for program participation, despite significant structural constraints, such as economic hardship, shaping their program engagement. Future PRx programs should bolster economic and institutional supports beyond FM vouchers such as transportation assistance, partnering with local food banks and expansion to local grocery stores offering year-round FV access to support sustained behavior change. Additionally, structural competency tools for providers may be warranted to reorient focus on structural influences on program engagement and away from potentially stigmatizing individual-level explanations for program success. These efforts have potential to enhance the translation of PRx programs to the needs of economically vulnerable patients who struggle to manage chronic illness and access basic nutrition.

A transdisciplinary team approach to scoping reviews: the case of pediatric polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy can be either beneficial or harmful to children. We conducted a scoping review to examine the concept of pediatric polypharmacy: its definition, prevalence, extent and gaps in research. In this manuscript, we report our transdisciplinary scoping review methodology. METHODS: After establishing a transdisciplinary team, we iteratively developed standard operating procedures for the study's search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening, and data extraction. We searched eight bibliographic databases, screened abstracts and full text articles, and extracted data from included studies using standardized forms. We held regular team meetings and performed ongoing internal validity measurements to maintain consistent and quality outputs. RESULTS: With the aid of EPPI Reviewer collaborative software, our transdisciplinary team of nine members performed dual reviews of 363 included studies after dual screening of 4398 abstracts and 1082 full text articles. We achieved overall agreement of 85% and a kappa coefficient of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.74) while screening full text articles. The screening and review processes required about seven hours per extracted study. The two pharmacists, an epidemiologist, a neurologist, and a librarian on the review team provided internal consultation in these key disciplines. A stakeholder group of 10 members with expertise in evidence synthesis, research implementation, pediatrics, mental health, epilepsy, pharmacoepidemiology, and pharmaceutical outcomes were periodically consulted to further characterize pediatric polypharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: A transdisciplinary approach to scoping reviews, including internal and external consultation, should be considered when addressing complex cross-disciplinary questions.

Addressing Disparities in Diabetes Management Through Novel Approaches to Encourage Technology Adoption and Use.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the nation's leading drivers of disability and health care utilization, with elevated prevalence among individuals with lower education, income, and racial/ethnic minorities. Health information technology (HIT) holds vast potential for helping patients, providers, and payers to address T2D and the skyrocketing rates of chronic illness and associated health care costs. Patient portals to electronic health records (EHRs) serve as a gateway to consumer use of HIT. We found that disparities in portal use portend growing T2D disparities. Little progress has been made in addressing identified barriers to technology adoption, especially among populations with elevated risk of T2D. Patients often lack digital literacy skills and continuous connectivity and fear loss of the relationship with providers. Providers may experience structural disincentives to promoting patient use of HIT and apply hidden biases that inhibit portal use. Health care systems often provide inadequate training to patients and providers in use of HIT, and lack resources devoted to obtaining and optimizing use of data generated by HIT. Lastly, technology-related barriers include inadequate consideration of user perspectives, lack of evidence for patient-focused apps, and lack of features to enable providers and health care systems to readily obtain aggregate data to improve care and facilitate research. After discussing these barriers in detail, we propose possible solutions and areas where further research is needed to ensure that individuals and health care systems obtain the full benefit of the nation's planned $38 billion HIT investment. A digital inclusion framework sheds new light on barriers posed for patients with social health inequalities. We have determined that partnerships with community organizations focused on digital inclusion could help health systems explore and study new approaches, such as universal screening and referral of patients for digital skills, health literacy, and Internet connectivity.

No moment wasted: the primary-care visit for adults with diabetes and low socio-economic status.

AIM: To better understand the type and range of health issues initiated by patients and providers in 'high-quality' primary-care for adults with diabetes and low socio-economic status (SES). BACKGROUND: Although quality of care guidelines are straightforward, diabetes visits in primary care are often more complex than adhering to guidelines, especially in adults with low SES who experience many financial and environmental barriers to good care. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using direct observation of primary-care diabetes visits at an exemplar safety net practice in 2009-2010. Findings In a mainly African American (93%) low-income population with fair cardiovascular control (mean A1c 7.5%, BP 134/81 mmHg, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 100 mg/dL), visits addressed a variety of bio-psychosocial health issues [median: 25 problems/visit (range 13-32)]. Physicians most frequently initiated discussions about chronic diseases, prevention, and health behavior. Patients most frequently initiated discussions about social environment and acute symptoms followed by prevention and health behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Primary-care visits by diabetes patients with low SES address a surprising number and diversity of problems. Emerging new models of primary-care delivery and quality measurement should allow adequate time and resources to address the range of tasks necessary for integrating biomedical and psychosocial concerns to improve the health of socio-economically disadvantaged patients.

Impact of bariatric surgery on health care costs of obese persons: a 6-year follow-up of surgical and comparison cohorts using health plan data.

IMPORTANCE: Bariatric surgery is a well-documented treatment for obesity, but there are uncertainties about the degree to which such surgery is associated with health care cost reductions that are sustained over time. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive, multiyear analysis of health care costs by type of procedure within a large cohort of privately insured persons who underwent bariatric surgery compared with a matched nonsurgical cohort. DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of 2002-2008 claims data comparing a bariatric surgery cohort with a matched nonsurgical cohort. SETTING: Seven BlueCross BlueShield health insurance plans with a total enrollment of more than 18 million persons. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 29 820 plan members who underwent bariatric surgery between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2008, and a 1:1 matched comparison group of persons not undergoing surgery but with diagnoses closely associated with obesity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standardized costs (overall and by type of care) and adjusted ratios of the surgical group's costs relative to those of the comparison group. RESULTS: Total costs were greater in the bariatric surgery group during the second and third years following surgery but were similar in the later years. However, the bariatric group's prescription and office visit costs were lower and their inpatient costs were higher. Those undergoing laparoscopic surgery had lower costs in the first few years after surgery, but these differences did not persist. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Bariatric surgery does not reduce overall health care costs in the long term. Also, there is no evidence that any one type of surgery is more likely to reduce long-term health care costs. To assess the value of bariatric surgery, future studies should focus on the potential benefit of improved health and well-being of persons undergoing the procedure rather than on cost savings.

Development of a claims-based risk score to identify obese individuals.

Obesity is underdiagnosed, hampering system-based health promotion and research. Our objective was to develop and validate a claims-based risk model to identify obese persons using medical diagnosis and prescription records. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of de-identified claims data from enrollees of 3 Blue Cross Blue Shield plans who completed a health risk assessment capturing height and weight. The final sample of 71,057 enrollees was randomly split into 2 subsamples for development and validation of the obesity risk model. Using the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups case-mix/predictive risk methodology, we categorized study members' diagnosis (ICD) codes. Logistic regression was used to determine which claims-based risk markers were associated with a body mass index (BMI) > or = 35 kg/m(2). The sensitivities of the scores > or =90(th) percentile to detect obesity were 26% to 33%, while the specificities were >90%. The areas under the receiver operator curve ranged from 0.67 to 0.73. In contrast, a diagnosis of obesity or an obesity medication alone had very poor sensitivity (10% and 1%, respectively); the obesity risk model identified an additional 22% of obese members. Varying the percentile cut-point from the 70(th) to the 99(th) percentile resulted in positive predictive values ranging from 15.5 to 59.2. An obesity risk score was highly specific for detecting a BMI > or = 35 kg/m(2) and substantially increased the detection of obese members beyond a provider-coded obesity diagnosis or medication claim. This model could be used for obesity care management and health promotion or for obesity-related research.