Enhancing availability of services to control hypertension through a team-based care approach that includes pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physician (PCP) shortages are expected to increase. The Michigan Medicine Hypertension Pharmacists' Program uses a team-based care (TBC) approach to redistribute some patient care responsibilities from PCPs to pharmacists for patients with diagnosed hypertension. OBJECTIVE: This evaluation analyzed whether the Michigan Medicine Hypertension Pharmacists' Program increased the availability of hypertension management services and described facilitators that addressed barriers to program sustainability and replicability. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study that used a mixed methods approach. We examined the availability of hypertension management services using the number of pharmacists' referrals of patients to other services and the number of PCP appointments. We analyzed qualitative interviews with program staff and site-level quantitative data to examine the program's impact on the availability of services, the impact of TBC that engaged pharmacists, and program barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Patients who visited a pharmacist had fewer PCP visits over 3- and 6-month periods compared to a matched comparison group that did not see a pharmacist and were 1.35 times more likely to receive a referral to a specialist within a 3-month period. Support from leaders and physicians, shared electronic health record access, and financial backing emerged as leading factors for program sustainability and replicability. CONCLUSION: Adding pharmacists to the care team reduced the number of PCP appointments per patient while increasing the availability of hypertension management services; this may in turn improve PCPs' availability. Similar models may be sustainable and replicable by relying on organizational buy-in, accessible infrastructure, and financing.

Assessing the newborn screening education needs of families living in medically underserved areas.

Newborn screening (NBS) is a public health service available to all babies born in the United States (US). NBS is one of the first experiences families have in the US healthcare system with a new baby. A positive experience with NBS can give families a strong start to their child's health care and build trusting relationships with providers. A lack of easily accessible NBS education for families can exacerbate health inequalities through negative interactions with the healthcare system. Expecting Health, a maternal and child health education and advocacy initiative of Genetic Alliance, partnered with RTI International to implement an online survey assessing needs and preferences around NBS-related health education, with a particular interest in those of families living within medically underserved areas (MUAs). A total of 500 participants completed the survey, including 200 participants living in MUAs. The results of the survey showed that, compared with US families living outside of MUAs, families living in MUAs are generally less aware of NBS and do not receive NBS education at the optimal time (i.e., before birth), which could indicate they experience inequities in NBS education. While families across different geographic areas seem to have similar preferences in terms of content for NBS education, the results show that some distinct communication methods are needed to reach families living in MUAs. To bridge the gap in NBS education to families living in MUAs, the Expecting Health team built an online NBS educational module, using preferred communication methods-specified through the survey-for families living in MUAs.

Consumer responses to framing statements preceding the major risk statement in prescription drug DTC TV ads.

BACKGROUND: Research on the major risk statement in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug television ads has shown that risk severity and actionability can affect consumers' risk comprehension and perceptions. A framing statement presented just before the major risk statement may serve as a cue that directs attention to the risk statement that follows, or it may guide consumers' interpretation of the severity of the risks that follow. OBJECTIVE: Examine how the use of different framing statements (severe, life-threatening; serious; or basic) that precede the major risk statement in DTC television ads affect consumers' risk perceptions, risk recognition, benefit perceptions, interest in the drug, and other relevant outcomes. METHODS: An online experiment was conducted using a 1 × 3 between-subjects design to compare three different framing statements, which was replicated across three different DTC television ads that focused on different medical conditions (arthritis, lung cancer, and type 2 diabetes). A sample of US adults (N = 1961) was randomly assigned to view one of nine television ads and asked to respond to a questionnaire. RESULTS: The type of framing statement had significant effects on perceived risk severity, perceived utility of risk and benefit information, fear of risks, and perceived likelihood of explicit and implicit benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers pay attention to and use cues to process and interpret the risk information presented to them in DTC television ads. Using lead-in language that describes risk severity, particularly for products with severe, life-threatening risks, may better allow consumers to make evaluative judgments on risk severity in DTC ads than stating the drug can cause serious reactions or simply that reactions are possible. More work is needed to examine the factors that affect people's understanding of the nature of risk severity, particularly with regard to risk recognition.

The Effect of Including Quantitative Information on Multiple Endpoints in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Television Advertisements.

Background. Previous research found that adding a single piece of quantitative information about prescription drug benefits to direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads helps consumers understand how well the drug works. However, drug information often includes quantitative information on multiple benefit outcomes and risks. Thus, we examined whether consumer understanding was similarly improved when DTC television ads include varying amounts of quantitative information. Methods. We randomly assigned participants (945 Internet panelists ≥ 60 years old) to view 1 of 9 fictitious prescription drug television ads that varied the presentation of quantitative information for benefits (none, single outcome, 2 outcomes) and risks (none, 1 risk category, 3 risk categories) and then measured gist and verbatim recall/estimation and drug perceptions. Results. Adding a single benefit outcome and a single risk category replicated past results. Compared with an ad containing no quantitative information, presenting 2 benefit outcomes and multiple risk categories increased gist and verbatim recall and affected drug perceptions. Compared with presenting a single benefit outcome, presenting 2 benefit outcomes increased verbatim recall for the second outcome but decreased verbatim recall for the first outcome. Likewise, compared with presenting a single risk category, presenting multiple risk categories increased gist and verbatim recall for the multiple risk categories but decreased gist recall for a concept more closely associated with the single risk category. Adding multiple risk categories decreased risk perceptions even more than did the single risk category. Limitations. This study may have limited generalizability because it examined an ad for only 1 medical condition. Conclusions. There are tradeoffs to adding multiple quantitative benefit outcomes in DTC ads. However, presenting multiple quantitative risk categories helps consumers better understand a drug's risks.

Physician Response to Contextualized Price-Comparison Claims in Prescription Drug Advertising.

Background: Physician-targeted prescription drug advertisements sometimes include price comparisons between products that may misleadingly imply equivalence of efficacy and safety or misrepresent true savings, suggesting the potential utility of a context statement to explain what the claims do and do not mean. Methods: We manipulated the presence of a price claim and a context statement in a 1 × 3 (control condition, price-comparison-only, price-comparison-plus-context) between-subjects design. Physicians (N = 1,438), randomly assigned to condition, viewed the prescription drug ad and answered a brief survey. Primary outcome measures included recognition, perceived importance, and impact of the price-comparison claim, and recognition, understanding, and effectiveness of the context statement. Results: The majority of physicians accurately recognized the price claim (76.0%) but far fewer accurately recognized the associated context statement (44.9%). The context statement did not affect evaluations of the price-comparison claim importance or accuracy and did not have the intended effects on perceptions of uncertainty about drug interchangeability. Physicians may be affected by price-comparison claims in thinking that the drug has risks that are relatively less severe. Price-comparison claims also affected intentions to look for information about the drug. Conclusions: Adding a realistic context statement to a physician-targeted prescription drug ad did not generate sufficient awareness of claim caveats to differentiate price-comparison response of those exposed to the context statement from those who were not.