Applying the Hornik & Woolf Approach to Identify Messaging Themes and Improve COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence Among Federally Qualified Health Centers' Workforce in Wisconsin.

The Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in Wisconsin serve the most under-resourced communities in the state and are trusted sources in local communities. Although healthcare workers can be leveraged to champion COVID-19 vaccines, existing vaccine hesitancy among the FQHC workforce itself calls for research to identify promising messaging themes that can boost their vaccine confidence. In spring 2021, through a partnership with the Wisconsin Primary Health Association, we took a community-engaged approach to develop and field a survey including 46 beliefs (Ms = 1.36-4.25, SDs = 0.81-1.46, all on 5-point Likert scales) among employees of 10 out of the 17 FQHCs in Wisconsin. In total, 347 clinical team members and 349 non-clinical staff members (a) indicated their levels of (dis)agreement with all 46 belief items and (b) reported vaccine acceptance (dichotomized, acceptance = 77.6%) as well as recommendation intentions (dichotomized, yes = 73.9%). We carried out the Hornik & Woolf analyses in a multilevel logistic regression framework with bootstrapping to rank order all beliefs, segmented by subgroup and behavioral outcome. Our results suggest that communication-based interventions should promote beliefs such as those related to perceived safety and efficacy, rather than normative pressure from peers, while aiming to reduce doubts about information withholding and manipulation, the safety of the mRNA technology, the approval process, and "unnatural" ingredients in the vaccines. Subgroup-specific belief rankings are also provided. This study demonstrates the usefulness of incorporating the H&W approach into community-engaged research with local healthcare systems to improve health messaging for vaccine promotion.

Adapting and Testing the Care Partner Hospital Assessment Tool for Use in Dementia Care: Protocol for a 2 Sequential Phase Study.

BACKGROUND: Research and policy demonstrate the value of and need for systematically identifying and preparing care partners for their caregiving responsibilities while their family member or friend living with dementia is hospitalized. The Care Partner Hospital Assessment Tool (CHAT) has undergone content and face validation and has been endorsed as appropriate by clinicians to facilitate the timely identification and preparation of care partners of older adult patients during their hospitalization. However, the CHAT has not yet been adapted or prospectively evaluated for use with care partners of hospitalized people living with dementia. Adapting and testing the CHAT via a pilot study will provide the necessary evidence to optimize feasibility and enable future efficacy trials. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to describe the study protocol for the adaptation and testing of the CHAT for use among care partners of hospitalized people living with dementia to better prepare them for their caregiving responsibilities after hospital discharge. METHODS: Our protocol is based on the National Institutes of Health Stage Model and consists of 2 sequential phases, including formative research and the main trial. In phase 1, we will use a participatory human-centered design process that incorporates people living with dementia and their care partners, health care administrators, and clinicians to adapt the CHAT for dementia care (ie, the Dementia CHAT [D-CHAT]; stage IA). In phase 2, we will partner with a large academic medical system to complete a pilot randomized controlled trial to examine the feasibility and estimate the size of the effect of the D-CHAT on care partners' preparedness for caregiving (stage IB). We anticipate this study to take approximately 60 months to complete, from study start-up procedures to dissemination. The 2 phases will take place between December 1, 2022, and November 30, 2027. RESULTS: The study protocol will yield (1) a converged-upon, ready-for-feasibility testing D-CHAT; (2) descriptive and feasibility characteristics of delivering the D-CHAT; and (3) effect size estimates of the D-CHAT on care partner preparedness. We anticipate that the resultant D-CHAT will provide clinicians with guidance on how to identify and better prepare care partners for hospitalized people living with dementia. In turn, care partners will feel equipped to fulfill caregiving roles for their family members or friends living with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The expected results of this study are to favorably impact hospital-based care processes and outcomes for people living with dementia and their care partners and to elucidate the essential caregiving role that so many care partners of people living with dementia assume. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05592366; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05592366. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/46808.

Patient and Provider Perceptions About Communication After Bariatric Surgery: A Qualitative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Communication between patients and providers can strongly influence patient behavior after surgery. The objective of this study was to assess patient and provider perceptions of how communication affected weight-related behaviors after bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semistructured interviews with bariatric surgery patients and providers were conducted from April-November 2020. Patients who had Medicaid within 3 y of surgery were defined as socioeconomically disadvantaged. Interview guides were derived from Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services and Torain's Framework for Surgical Disparities. Participants described postoperative experiences regarding diet, physical activity, and follow-up care. A codebook was developed deductively based on the two theories. Directed content analysis identified themes pertaining to patient-provider communication. RESULTS: Forty-five participants were interviewed, including 24 patients (83% female; 79% White), six primary care providers, four health psychologists, five registered dietitians, and six bariatric surgeons. Four themes regarding communication emerged: (1) Patients experiencing weight regain did not want to follow-up with providers to discuss their weight; (2) Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds had less trust and required more rapport-building from providers to enhance trust; (3) Patients felt that providers did not get to know them personally, which was perceived as a lack of personalized communication; and (4) Providers often changed their language to be simpler, so patients could understand them. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-provider communication after bariatric surgery is essential, but perceptions about the elements of communication differ between patients and providers. Reassuring patients who have attained less weight loss than expected and establishing trust with socioeconomically vulnerable patients could strengthen care after bariatric surgery.

Insights into measuring health disparities using electronic health records from a statewide network of health systems: A case study.

Within Wisconsin, our residents experience some of the worst health disparities in the nation. Public reporting on disparities in the quality of care is important to achieving accountability for reducing disparities over time and has been associated with improvements in care. Disparities reporting using statewide electronic health records (EHR) data would allow efficient and regular reporting, but there are significant challenges with missing data and data harmonization. We report our experience in creating a statewide, centralized EHR data repository to support health systems in reducing health disparities through public reporting. We partnered with the Wisconsin Collaborative for Healthcare Quality (the "Collaborative"), which houses patient-level EHR data from 25 health systems including validated metrics of healthcare quality. We undertook a detailed assessment of potential disparity indicators (race and ethnicity, insurance status and type, and geographic disparity). Challenges for each indicator are described, with solutions encompassing internal (health system) harmonization, central (Collaborative) harmonization, and centralized data processing. Key lessons include engaging health systems in identifying disparity indicators, aligning with system priorities, measuring indicators already collected in the EHR to minimize burden, and facilitating workgroups with health systems to build relationships, improve data collection, and develop initiatives to address disparities in healthcare.

Identifying Substantial Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Outcomes and Care in Wisconsin Using Electronic Health Record Data.

BACKGROUND: Our goal was to identify racial and ethnic disparities in health outcome and care measures in Wisconsin. METHODS: We used electronic health record data from 25 health systems submitting to the Wisconsin Collaborative for Healthcare Quality to identify disparities in measures, including vaccinations, screenings, risk factors for chronic disease, and chronic disease management. RESULTS: American Indian/Alaska Native and Black populations experienced substantial disparities across multiple measures. Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, and White populations experienced substantial disparities for 2 measures each. DISCUSSION: Reducing health disparities is a statewide imperative. Root causes of health disparities, such as systemic racism and socioeconomic factors, should be addressed for groups experiencing multiple disparities, with focused efforts on selected measures when indicated.

Barriers and Strategies for Recruitment of Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Perspectives from Neurological Clinical Research Coordinators.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard within evidence-based research. Low participant accrual rates, especially of underrepresented groups (e.g., racial-ethnic minorities), may jeopardize clinical studies' viability and strength of findings. Research has begun to unweave clinical trial mechanics, including the roles of clinical research coordinators, to improve trial participation rates. METHODS: Two semi-structured focus groups were conducted with a purposive sample of 29 clinical research coordinators (CRCs) at consecutive international stroke conferences in 2013 and 2014 to gain in-depth understanding of coordinator-level barriers to racial-ethnic minority recruitment and retention into neurological trials. Coded transcripts were used to create themes to define concepts, identify associations, summarize findings, and posit explanations. RESULTS: Barriers related to translation, literacy, family composition, and severity of medical diagnosis were identified. Potential strategies included a focus on developing personal relationships with patients, community and patient education, centralized clinical trial administrative systems, and competency focused training and education for CRCs. CONCLUSION: Patient level barriers to clinical trial recruitment are well documented. Less is known about barriers facing CRCs. Further identification of how and when barriers manifest and the effectiveness of strategies to improve CRCs recruitment efforts is warranted.