Cardiovascular health assessment in routine cancer follow-up in community settings: survivor risk awareness and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend cardiovascular risk assessment and counseling for cancer survivors. For effective implementation, it is critical to understand survivor cardiovascular health (CVH) profiles and perspectives in community settings. We aimed to (1) Assess survivor CVH profiles, (2) compare self-reported and EHR-based categorization of CVH factors, and (3) describe perceptions regarding addressing CVH during oncology encounters. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis utilized data from an ongoing NCI Community Oncology Research Program trial of an EHR heart health tool for cancer survivors (WF-1804CD). Survivors presenting for routine care after potentially curative treatment recruited from 8 oncology practices completed a pre-visit survey, including American Heart Association Simple 7 CVH factors (classified as ideal, intermediate, or poor). Medical record abstraction ascertained CVD risk factors and cancer characteristics. Likert-type questions assessed desired discussion during oncology care. RESULTS: Of 502 enrolled survivors (95.6% female; mean time since diagnosis = 4.2 years), most had breast cancer (79.7%). Many survivors had common cardiovascular comorbidities, including high cholesterol (48.3%), hypertension or high BP (47.8%) obesity (33.1%), and diabetes (20.5%); 30.5% of survivors received high cardiotoxicity potential cancer treatment. Less than half had ideal/non-missing levels for physical activity (48.0%), BMI (18.9%), cholesterol (17.9%), blood pressure (14.1%), healthy diet (11.0%), and glucose/ HbA1c (6.0%). While > 50% of survivors had concordant EHR-self-report categorization for smoking, BMI, and blood pressure; cholesterol, glucose, and A1C were unknown by survivors and/or missing in the EHR for most. Most survivors agreed oncology providers should talk about heart health (78.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Tools to promote CVH discussion can fill gaps in CVH knowledge and are likely to be well-received by survivors in community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03935282, Registered 10/01/2020.

Role of Sex in the Association of Socioeconomic Status With Cardiovascular Health in Black Americans: The Jackson Heart Study.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with cardiovascular health (CVH). Potential differences by sex in this association remain incompletely understood in Black Americans, where SES disparities are posited to be partially responsible for cardiovascular inequities. The association of SES measures (income, education, occupation, and insurance) with CVH scores was examined in the Jackson Heart Study. METHODS AND RESULTS: American Heart Association CVH components (non-high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure, diet, tobacco use, physical activity, sleep, glycemia, and body mass index) were scored cross-sectionally at baseline (scale: 0-100). Differences in CVH and 95% CIs (Estimate, 95% CI) were calculated using linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, and discrimination. Heterogeneity by sex was assessed. Participants had a mean age of 54.8 years (SD 12.6 years), and 65% were women. Lower income, education, occupation (non-management/professional versus management/professional occupations), and insurance status (uninsured, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, or Medicare versus private insurance) were associated with lower CVH scores (all P<0.01). There was heterogeneity by sex, with greater magnitude of associations of SES measures with CVH in women versus men. The lowest education level (high school) was associated with 8.8-point lower (95% CI: -10.2 to -7.3) and 5.4-point lower (95% CI: -7.2 to -3.6) CVH scores in women and men, respectively (interaction P=0.003). The lowest (<25 000) versus highest level of income (≥$75 000) was associated with a greater reduction in CVH scores in women than men (interaction P=0.1142). CONCLUSIONS: Among Black Americans, measures of SES were associated with CVH, with a greater magnitude in women compared with men for education and income. Interventions aimed to address CVH through SES should consider the role of sex.

Segregated Patterns of Hospital Care Delivery and Health Outcomes.

Importance: Residential segregation has been shown to be a root cause of racial inequities in health outcomes, yet little is known about current patterns of racial segregation in where patients receive hospital care or whether hospital segregation is associated with health outcomes. Filling this knowledge gap is critical to implementing policies that improve racial equity in health care. Objective: To characterize contemporary patterns of racial segregation in hospital care delivery, identify market-level correlates, and determine the association between hospital segregation and health outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of US hospital referral regions (HRRs) used 2018 Medicare claims, American Community Survey, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Social Determinants of Health data. Hospitalization patterns for all non-Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic White Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with at least 1 inpatient hospitalization in an eligible hospital were evaluated for hospital segregation and associated health outcomes at the HRR level. The data analysis was performed between August 10, 2022, and September 6, 2023. Exposures: Dissimilarity index and isolation index for HRRs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health outcomes were measured using Prevention Quality Indicator (PQI) acute and chronic composites per 100 000 Medicare beneficiaries, and total deaths related to heart disease and stroke per 100 000 residents were calculated for individuals aged 74 years or younger. Correlation coefficients were used to compare residential and hospital dissimilarity and residential and hospital isolation. Linear regression was used to examine the association between hospital segregation and health outcomes. Results: This study included 280 HRRs containing data for 4386 short-term acute care and critical access hospitals. Black and White patients tended to receive care at different hospitals, with a mean (SD) dissimilarity index of 23 (11) and mean (SD) isolation index of 13 (13), indicating substantial variation in segregation across HRRs. Hospital segregation was correlated with residential segregation (correlation coefficients, 0.58 and 0.90 for dissimilarity and isolation, respectively). For Black patients, a 1-SD increase in the hospital isolation index was associated with 204 (95% CI, 154-254) more acute PQI hospitalizations per 100 000 Medicare beneficiaries (28% increase from the median), 684 (95% CI, 488-880) more chronic PQI hospitalizations per 100 000 Medicare beneficiaries (15% increase), and 6 (95% CI, 2-9) additional deaths per 100 000 residents (6% increase) compared with 68 (95% CI, 24-113; 6% increase), 202 (95% CI, 131-274; 8% increase), and 2 (95% CI, 0 to 4; 3% increase), respectively, for White patients. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that higher segregation of hospital care was associated with poorer health outcomes for both Black and White Medicare beneficiaries, with significantly greater negative health outcomes for Black populations, supporting racial segregation as a root cause of health disparities. Policymakers and clinical leaders could address this important public health issue through payment reform efforts and expansion of health insurance coverage, in addition to supporting upstream efforts to reduce racial segregation in hospital care and residential settings.

Using the sociotechnical model to conduct a focused usability assessment of a breast reconstruction decision tool.

INTRODUCTION: BREASTChoice is a web-based breast reconstruction decision aid. The previous clinical trial-prior to the adaptation of this refined tool in which we explored usability-measured decision quality, quality of life, patient activation, shared decision making, and treatment choice. The current usability study was designed to elicit patients' and clinicians' perspectives on barriers and facilitators for implementing BREASTChoice into the clinical workflow. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with patients and clinicians from two Midwestern medical specialty centers from August 2020 to April 2021. Interviews were first double coded until coders achieved a kappa > 0.8 and percent agreement > 95%, then were coded independently. We used a sociotechnical framework to evaluate BREASTChoice's implementation and sustainability potential according to end-users, human-computer interaction, and contextual factors. RESULTS: Twelve clinicians and ten patients completed interviews. Using the sociotechnical framework we determined the following. People Using the Tool: Patients and clinicians agreed that BREASTChoice could help patients make more informed decisions about their reconstruction and prepare better for their first plastic surgery appointment. Workflow and Communications: They felt that BREASTChoice could improve communication and process if the patient could view the tool at home and/or in the waiting room. Clinicians suggested the information from BREASTChoice about patients' risks and preferences be included in the patient's chart or the clinician electronic health record (EHR) inbox for accessibility during the consultation. Human Computer Interface: Patients and clinicians stated that the tool contains helpful information, does not require much time for the patient to use, and efficiently fills gaps in knowledge. Although patients found the risk profile information helpful, they reported needing time to read and digest. CONCLUSION: BREASTChoice was perceived as highly usable by patients and clinicians and has the potential for sustainability. Future research will implement and test the tool after integrating the stakeholder-suggested changes to its delivery process and content. It is critical to conduct usability assessments such as these prior to decision aid implementation to ensure success of the tool to improve risk communication.

Electronic health record data quality assessment and tools: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We extended a 2013 literature review on electronic health record (EHR) data quality assessment approaches and tools to determine recent improvements or changes in EHR data quality assessment methodologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We completed a systematic review of PubMed articles from 2013 to April 2023 that discussed the quality assessment of EHR data. We screened and reviewed papers for the dimensions and methods defined in the original 2013 manuscript. We categorized papers as data quality outcomes of interest, tools, or opinion pieces. We abstracted and defined additional themes and methods though an iterative review process. RESULTS: We included 103 papers in the review, of which 73 were data quality outcomes of interest papers, 22 were tools, and 8 were opinion pieces. The most common dimension of data quality assessed was completeness, followed by correctness, concordance, plausibility, and currency. We abstracted conformance and bias as 2 additional dimensions of data quality and structural agreement as an additional methodology. DISCUSSION: There has been an increase in EHR data quality assessment publications since the original 2013 review. Consistent dimensions of EHR data quality continue to be assessed across applications. Despite consistent patterns of assessment, there still does not exist a standard approach for assessing EHR data quality. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are needed for EHR data quality assessment to improve the efficiency, transparency, comparability, and interoperability of data quality assessment. These guidelines must be both scalable and flexible. Automation could be helpful in generalizing this process.

The Evolution of Primary Care Telehealth Disparities During COVID-19: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth has become widely used as a novel way to provide outpatient care during the COVID-19 pandemic, but data about telehealth use in primary care remain limited. Studies in other specialties raise concerns that telehealth may be widening existing health care disparities, requiring further scrutiny of trends in telehealth use. OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to further characterize sociodemographic differences in primary care via telehealth compared to in-person office visits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine if these disparities changed throughout 2020. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a large US academic center with 46 primary care practices from April-December 2019 to April-December 2020. Data were subdivided into calendar quarters and compared to determine evolving disparities throughout the year. We queried and compared billed outpatient encounters in General Internal Medicine and Family Medicine via binary logic mixed effects regression model and estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. We used sex, race, and ethnicity of the patient attending each encounter as fixed effects. We analyzed socioeconomic status of patients in the institution's primary county based on the patient's residence zip code. RESULTS: A total of 81,822 encounters in the pre-COVID-19 time frame and 47,994 encounters in the intra-COVID-19 time frame were analyzed; in the intra-COVID-19 time frame, a total of 5322 (11.1%) of encounters were telehealth encounters. Patients living in zip code areas with high utilization rate of supplemental nutrition assistance were less likely to use primary care in the intra-COVID-19 time frame (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.98; P=.006). Encounters with the following patients were less likely to be via telehealth compared to in-person office visits: patients who self-identified as Asian (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.86) and Nepali (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.19-0.72), patients insured by Medicare (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.88), and patients living in zip code areas with high utilization rate of supplemental nutrition assistance (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99). Many of these disparities persisted throughout the year. Although there was no statistically significant difference in telehealth use for patients insured by Medicaid throughout the whole year, subanalysis of quarter 4 found encounters with patients insured by Medicaid were less likely to be via telehealth (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.97; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth was not used equally by all patients within primary care throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically by patients who self-identified as Asian and Nepali, insured by Medicare, and living in zip code areas with low socioeconomic status. As the COVID-19 pandemic and telehealth infrastructure change, it is critical we continue to reassess the use of telehealth. Institutions should continue to monitor disparities in telehealth access and advocate for policy changes that may improve equity.

Adapting an Electronic STI Risk Assessment Program for Use in Pediatric Primary Care.

OBJECTIVES: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are an ongoing public health issue in adolescents. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Academy of Pediatrics have and continue to recommend STI screening in at-risk adolescents, however screening and testing continues to lag behind the need. We previously designed and implemented an electronic risk assessment tool to support STI testing in our pediatric emergency department. Pediatric primary care clinics may be better positioned for STI risk assessments, as they can offer greater privacy and confidentiality, a lower stress environment, and greater opportunity for longitudinal care. STI risk assessment and testing continues to be a challenge in this setting. The goal of this work was to evaluate the usability of our electronic tool to support adaptation and implementation in pediatric primary care practices. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews of pediatricians, clinic staff, and adolescents from 4 pediatric practices as part of a study whose goal is to ultimately implement STI screening in pediatric primary care. The goal of the interviews were (1) to understand contextual factors related to STI screening in primary care, which we have reported previously, and (2) to obtain feedback on our electronic platform, the questionnaire content, and their perspective on implementing it in primary care settings, which we report here. We received quantitative feedback using the System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS is a validated, reliable tool to measure the usability of hardware, software, websites, and applications. SUS scores range from a score of 0 to 100, with a score of 68 or higher indicating above average usability. We additionally obtained qualitative feedback via interviews and used inductive analysis to identify common themes. RESULTS: We recruited 14 physicians, 9 clinic staff, and 12 adolescents. Participants rated the tool highly using the SUS, with a median score of 92.5 (threshold for average usability is 68) and an interquartile range of 82.5 to 100. Thematically, all participants perceived a need for such a screening program and indicated the format would encourage more honest responses on the topic adolescents. We used these results to modify the questionnaire prior to implementing it into participating practices. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that our electronic STI risk assessment tool had a high level of usability and could be adapted for use in pediatric primary care.

A systematic review of recurrent firearm injury rates in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of methodologies, data sources, and best practices for identifying, calculating, and reporting recurrent firearm injury rates in the United States. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we searched seven electronic databases on December 16, 2021, for peer-reviewed articles that calculated recurrent firearm injury in generalizable populations. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias, screened the studies, extracted data, and a third resolved conflicts. FINDINGS: Of the 918 unique articles identified, 14 met our inclusion criteria and reported recurrent firearm injury rates from 1% to 9.5%. We observed heterogeneity in study methodologies, including data sources utilized, identification of subsequent injury, follow-up times, and the types of firearm injuries studied. Data sources ranged from single-site hospital medical records to comprehensive statewide records comprising medical, law enforcement, and social security death index data. Some studies applied machine learning to electronic health records to differentiate subsequent new firearm injuries from the index injury, while others classified all repeat firearm-related hospital admissions after variably defined cut-off times as a new injury. Some studies required a minimum follow-up observation period after the index injury while others did not. Four studies conducted survival analyses, albeit using different methodologies. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in both the data sources and methods used to evaluate and report recurrent firearm injury limits individual study generalizability of individual and societal factors that influence recurrent firearm injury. Our systematic review highlights the need for development, dissemination, and implementation of standard practices for calculating and reporting recurrent firearm injury.

An exploration of factors impacting implementation of a multisystem hospital-based violence intervention program.

Community violence, particularly gun violence, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in young people in the United States. Because persons experiencing violence-related injuries are likely to receive medical care through emergency departments, hospitals are increasingly seen as primary locations for violence intervention services. Currently, there is little research on how best to implement hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIPs) across large hospital systems. This study explored the factors influencing the implementation of a multi-site HVIP using qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of 20 multidisciplinary stakeholders. Thematic analysis was used to generate several themes that included: (1) reframing gun violence as a public health issue; (2) developing networks of community-hospital-university partners; (3) demonstrating effectiveness and community benefit; and (4) establishing patient engagement pathways. Effective implementation and sustainment of HVIPs requires robust and sustained multidisciplinary partnerships within and across hospital systems and the establishment of HVIPs as a standard of care.

Addressing cancer survivors' cardiovascular health using the automated heart health assessment (AH-HA) EHR tool: Initial protocol and modifications to address COVID-19 challenges.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper is to describe the Automated Heart-Health Assessment (AH-HA) study protocol, which demonstrates an agile approach to cancer care delivery research. This study aims to assess the effect of a clinical decision support tool for cancer survivors on cardiovascular health (CVH) discussions, referrals, completed visits with primary care providers and cardiologists, and control of modifiable CVH factors and behaviors. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread disruption to clinical trial accrual and operations. Studies conducted with potentially vulnerable populations, including cancer survivors, must shift towards virtual consent, data collection, and study visits to reduce risk for participants and study staff. Studies examining cancer care delivery innovations may also need to accommodate the increased use of virtual visits. METHODS/DESIGN: This group-randomized, mixed methods study will recruit 600 cancer survivors from 12 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices. Survivors at intervention sites will use the AH-HA tool with their oncology provider; survivors at usual care sites will complete routine survivorship visits. Outcomes will be measured immediately after the study visit, with follow-up at 6 and 12 months. The study was amended during the COVID-19 pandemic to allow for virtual consent, data collection, and intervention options, with the goal of minimizing participant-staff in-person contact and accommodating virtual survivorship visits. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to the study protocol and procedures allow important cancer care delivery research to continue safely during the COVID-19 pandemic and give sites and survivors flexibility to conduct study activities in-person or remotely.

Cardiovascular Assessment Tool for Breast Cancer Survivors and Oncology Providers: Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular health is of increasing concern to breast cancer survivors and their health care providers, as many survivors are more likely to die from cardiovascular disease than cancer. Implementing clinical decision support tools to address cardiovascular risk factor awareness in the oncology setting may enhance survivors' attainment or maintenance of cardiovascular health. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate survivors' awareness of cardiovascular risk factors and examine the usability of a novel electronic health record enabled cardiovascular health tool from the perspective of both breast cancer survivors and oncology providers. METHODS: Breast cancer survivors (n=49) recruited from a survivorship clinic interacted with the cardiovascular health tool and completed pre and posttool assessments about cardiovascular health knowledge and perceptions of the tool. Oncologists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners (n=20) who provide care to survivors also viewed the cardiovascular health tool and completed assessments of perceived usability and acceptability. RESULTS: Enrolled breast cancer survivors (84% White race, 4% Hispanic ethnicity) had been diagnosed 10.8 years ago (SD 6.0) with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0, I, or II (45/49, 92%). Prior to viewing the tool, 65% of survivors (32/49) reported not knowing their level for one or more cardiovascular health factors (range 0-4). On average, only 45% (range 0%-86%) of survivors' known cardiovascular health factors were at an ideal level. More than 50% of survivors had ideal smoking status (45/48, 94%) or blood glucose level (29/45, 64%); meanwhile, less than 50% had ideal blood pressure (12/49, 24%), body mass index (12/49, 24%), cholesterol level (17/35, 49%), diet (7/49, 14%), and physical activity (10/49. 20%). More than 90% of survivors thought the tool was easy to understand (46/47, 98%), improved their understanding (43/47, 91%), and was helpful (45/47, 96%); overall, 94% (44/47 survivors) liked the tool. A majority of survivors (44/47, 94%) thought oncologists should discuss cardiovascular health during survivorship care. Most (12/20, 60%) oncology providers (female: 12/20, 60%; physicians: 14/20, 70%) had been practicing for more than 5 years. Most providers agreed the tool provided useful information (18/20, 90%), would help their effectiveness (18/20, 90%), was easy to use (20/20, 100%), and presented information in a useful format (19/20, 95%); and 85% of providers (17/20) reported they would use the tool most or all of the time when providing survivorship care. CONCLUSIONS: These usability data demonstrate acceptability of a cardiovascular health clinical decision support tool in oncology practices. Oncology providers and breast cancer survivors would likely value the integration of such apps in survivorship care. By increasing awareness and communication regarding cardiovascular health, electronic health record-enabled tools may improve survivorship care delivery for breast cancer and ultimately patient outcomes.

Estimating the effects of race and social vulnerability on hospital admission and mortality from COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of hospital admission and mortality from COVID-19 to patients and measure the association of race and area-level social vulnerability with those outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using patient records collected at a multisite hospital system from April 2020 to October 2020, the risk of hospital admission and the risk of mortality were estimated for patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to the hospital for COVID-19, respectively, using generalized estimating equations while controlling for patient race, patient area-level social vulnerability, and time course of the pandemic. RESULTS: Black individuals were 3.57 as likely (95% CI, 3.18-4.00) to be hospitalized than White people, and patients living in the most disadvantaged areas were 2.61 times as likely (95% CI, 2.26-3.02) to be hospitalized than those living in the least disadvantaged areas. While Black patients had lower raw mortality than White patients, mortality was similar after controlling for comorbidities and social vulnerability. DISCUSSION: Our findings point to potent correlates of race and socioeconomic status, including resource distribution, employment, and shared living spaces, that may be associated with inequitable burden of disease across patients of different races. CONCLUSIONS: Public health and policy interventions should address these social factors when responding to the next pandemic.

Rapid Diet Assessment Screening Tools for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Across Healthcare Settings: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

It is critical that diet quality be assessed and discussed at the point of care with clinicians and other members of the healthcare team to reduce the incidence and improve the management of diet-related chronic disease, especially cardiovascular disease. Dietary screening or counseling is not usually a component of routine medical visits. Moreover, numerous barriers exist to the implementation of screening and counseling, including lack of training and knowledge, lack of time, sense of futility, lack of reimbursement, competing demands during the visit, and absence of validated rapid diet screener tools with coupled clinical decision support to identify actionable modifications for improvement. With more widespread use of electronic health records, there is an enormous unmet opportunity to provide evidence-based clinician-delivered dietary guidance using rapid diet screener tools that must be addressed. In this scientific statement from the American Heart Association, we provide rationale for the widespread adoption of rapid diet screener tools in primary care and relevant specialty care prevention settings, discuss the theory- and practice-based criteria of a rapid diet screener tool that supports valid and feasible diet assessment and counseling in clinical settings, review existing tools, and discuss opportunities and challenges for integrating a rapid diet screener tool into clinician workflows through the electronic health record.

Distribution of Cardiovascular Health by Individual- and Neighborhood-Level Socioeconomic Status: Findings From the Jackson Heart Study.

BACKGROUND: Data demonstrate a positive relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and cardiovascular health (CVH). OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between individual- and neighborhood-level SES and CVH among participants of the JHS (Jackson Heart Study), a community-based cohort of African Americans in Jackson, Mississippi. METHODS: We included all JHS participants with complete SES and CVH information at the baseline study visit (n = 3,667). We characterized individual- and neighborhood-level SES according to income (primary analysis) and education (secondary analysis), respectively. The outcome of interest for these analyses was a CVH score, based on 7 modifiable behaviors and factors, summed to a total of 0 (worst) to 14 (best) points. We utilized generalized estimating equations to account for the clustering of participants within the same residential areas to estimate the linear association between SES and CVH. RESULTS: The median age of the participants was 55 years, and 64% were women. Nearly one-third of eligible participants had individual incomes <$20,000 and close to 40% lived in the lowest neighborhood income category (<$25,480). Adjusted for age, sex, and neighborhood SES, there was an average increase in CVH score of 0.31 points associated with each 1-category increase in individual income. Similarly, each 1-category increase in neighborhood SES was associated with a 0.19-point increase in CVH score. These patterns held for our secondary analyses, which used educational attainment in place of income. These data did not suggest a synergistic effect of individual- and neighborhood-level SES on CVH. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a potential causal pathway for disparities in CVH among vulnerable populations. These data can be useful to the JHS community to empower public health and clinical interventions and policies for the improvement of CVH.

Innovation to Create a Healthy and Sustainable Food System: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Current dietary intakes of North Americans are inconsistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This occurs in the context of a food system that precludes healthy foods as the default choices. To develop a food system that is both healthy and sustainable requires innovation. This science advisory from the American Heart Association describes both innovative approaches to developing a healthy and sustainable food system and the current evidence base for the associations between these approaches and positive changes in dietary behaviors, dietary intakes, and when available, health outcomes. Innovation can occur through policy, private sector, public health, medical, community, or individual-level approaches and could ignite and further public-private partnerships. New product innovations, reformulations, taxes, incentives, product placement/choice architecture, innovative marketing practices, menu and product labeling, worksite wellness initiatives, community campaigns, nutrition prescriptions, mobile health technologies, and gaming offer potential benefits. Some innovations have been observed to increase the purchasing of healthy foods or have increased diversity in food choices, but there remains limited evidence linking these innovations with health outcomes. The demonstration of evidence-based improvements in health outcomes is challenging for any preventive interventions, especially those related to diet, because of competing lifestyle and environmental risk factors that are difficult to quantify. A key next step in creating a healthier and more sustainable food system is to build innovative system-level approaches that improve individual behaviors, strengthen industry and community efforts, and align policies with evidence-based recommendations. To enable healthier food choices and favorably impact cardiovascular health, immediate action is needed to promote favorable innovation at all levels of the food system.

Socioeconomic status and access to care and the incidence of a heart failure diagnosis in the inpatient and outpatient settings.

PURPOSE: Despite well-documented associations of socioeconomic status with incident heart failure (HF) hospitalization, little information exists on the relationship of socioeconomic status with HF diagnosed in the outpatient (OP) setting. METHODS: We used Poisson models to examine the association of area-level indicators of educational attainment, poverty, living situation, and density of primary care physicians with incident HF diagnosed in the inpatient (IP) and OP settings among a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries (n = 109,756; 2001-2013). RESULTS: The age-standardized rate of HF incidence was 35.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.1-36.5) and 13.9 (95% CI, 13.5-14.4) cases per 1000 person-years in IP and OP settings, respectively. The incidence rate differences (IRDs) per 1000 person-years in both settings suggested greater incidence of HF in high- compared to low-poverty areas (IP IRD = 4.47 [95% CI, 3.29-5.65], OP IRD = 1.41 [95% CI, 0.61-2.22]) and in low- compared to high-education areas (IP IRD = 3.73 [95% CI, 2.63-4.82], OP IRD = 1.72 [95% CI, 0.97-2.47]). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the role of area-level social determinants of health in the incidence of HF in both the IP and OP settings. These findings may have implications for HF prevention policies.

Is higher patient satisfaction associated with better stroke outcomes?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between patient satisfaction and cost, outcomes, and clinical performance of stroke care. STUDY DESIGN: An ecological study was conducted on all participating hospitals of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems patient survey that reported stroke outcomes. METHODS: Patient satisfaction measures were grouped into global, environmental, communication, pain control, staff responsiveness, care transition, and discharge information categories. Linear regression models compared risk-adjusted 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, inpatient costs, and clinical performances by patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Global patient satisfaction was negatively associated with risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (beta coefficient [ß] = -0.39; standard error [SE], 0.16; P = .02) and readmission rates (ß = -0.30; SE, 0.11; P = .006). Satisfaction with discharge information was positively associated with risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rate (ß = 0.70; SE, 0.14; P <.001) and negatively associated with readmission rate (ß = -0.37; SE, 0.09; P <.001). Satisfaction with discharge information were positively associated with inpatient management (ß = 1.67; SE, 0.43; P <.001) and secondary care performance (ß = 1.82; SE, 0.47; P <.001). The average cost among most satisfied hospitals was $6785, 7.3% higher than that among least satisfied hospitals ($6324). Hospitals with the highest environment satisfaction rating had 7% higher costs compared with the least satisfied hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Global patient satisfaction was positively associated with the quality of stroke care; however, improvements in patient satisfaction were linked to higher stroke care costs. In addition, patient satisfaction with discharge information was linked to worse outcomes. As a result, patient satisfaction should be used with caution as a quality indicator for stroke care.

County socioeconomic characteristics and heart transplant outcomes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Geographic disparities in survival after heart transplantation have received mixed support in prior studies, and specific geographic characteristics that might be responsible for these differences are unclear. We tested for differences in heart transplant outcomes across United States (US) counties after adjustment for individual-level covariates. Our secondary aim was to evaluate whether specific county-level socioeconomic characteristics explained geographic disparities in survival. METHODS: Data on patients aged ≥18 years undergoing a first-time heart transplant between July 2006 and December 2014 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing. Residents of counties represented by <5 patients were excluded. Patient survival (censored in March 2016) was analyzed using multivariable Cox regression. Shared frailty models were used to test for residual differences in overall all-cause mortality across counties after adjusting for recipient and donor characteristics. Measures of county economic disadvantage, inequality, and racial segregation were obtained from US Census data and coded into quintiles. A likelihood ratio test determined whether adjusting for each county measure improved the fit of the Cox model. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis of 10,879 heart transplant recipients found that, adjusting for individual-level characteristics, there remained statistically significant variation in mortality hazard across US counties (P=.004). Adjusting for quintiles of community disadvantage, economic inequality, or racial segregation did not significantly improve model fit (likelihood ratio test P=.092, P=.273, and P=.107, respectively) and did not explain residual differences in patient survival across counties. CONCLUSIONS: Heart transplantation outcomes vary by county, but this difference is not attributable to county-level socioeconomic disadvantage.