Self-identified rurality in a nationally representative population in the US.

INTRODUCTION: In the US, health services research most often relies on Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) classification codes to measure rurality. This measure is known to misrepresent rurality and does not rely on individual experiences of rurality associated with healthcare inequities. We aimed to determine a patient-centered RUCA-based definition of rurality. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we conducted an online survey asking US residents, 'Do you live in a rural area?' and the rationale for their answer. We evaluated the concordance between their self-identified rurality and their ZIP code-derived RUCA designation of rurality by calculating Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic and percent agreement. RESULTS: Of the 774 participants, 456 (58.9%) and 318 (41.1%) individuals had conventional urban and rural RUCA classifications, respectively. There was only moderate agreement between perceived rurality and rural RUCA classification (κ=0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.42-0.54). Among people living within RUCA 2-3 defined urban areas (n=51), percent agreement was only 19.6%. Discordance was driven by their perception of the population density, proximity to the nearest neighbor, proximity to a metropolitan area, and the number of homes in their area. Based on our results, we reclassified RUCA 2-3 designations as rural, resulting in an increase in overall concordance (κ=0.56; 95%CI=0.50-0.62). DISCUSSION: Patient-centered rural-urban classification is required to effectively evaluate the impact of rurality on health disparities. This study presents a more patient-centric RUCA-based classification of rurality that can be easily operationalized in future research in situations in which self-reported rural status is missing or challenging to obtain. CONCLUSION: Reclassification of RUCA 2-3 as rural represents a more patient-centric definition of rurality.

Personal Financial Wellness Curricula for Medical Trainees: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Education debt, poor financial literacy, and a late start to retirement savings can cause financial stress among physicians. This systematic review identifies methods for curriculum development, methods for curriculum delivery, and outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of personal financial wellness curricula for medical students, residents, and fellows. METHOD: The authors searched the Embase, MEDLINE (via EBSCO), Scopus, Education Resources Information Center (via EBSCO), and Cochrane Library databases and MedEdPORTAL (via PubMed) on July 28, 2022. Studies must have reported the outcome of at least 1 postcourse assessment to be included. RESULTS: Of the 1,996 unique citations identified, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three curricula (23.1%) were designed for medical students, 8 (61.5%) for residents, 1 (7.7%) for internal medicine fellows, and 1 (7.7%) for obstetrics-gynecology residents and fellows. The most frequently discussed personal finance topics included student loans, investment options, disability insurance, life insurance, retirement savings, budgeting, debt management, and general personal finance. A median (interquartile range) of 3.5 (1.4-7.0) hours was spent on personal finance topics. Eleven curricula (85.6%) relied on physicians to deliver the content. Four studies (30.8%) reported precourse and postcourse financial literacy evaluations, each showing improved financial literacy after the course. Four studies (30.8%) assessed actual or planned financial behavior changes, each credited with encouraging or assisting with financial behavioral changes. One study (7.7%) assessed participants' well-being using the Expanded Well-Being Index, which showed an improvement after the course. CONCLUSIONS: Given the impact educational debt and other financial stressors can have on the wellness of medical trainees, institutions should consider investments in teaching financial literacy. Future studies should report more concrete outcome measures, including financial behavior change and validated measures of wellness.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Behavioral Nudges to Improve Enrollment in Critical Care Trials.

Rationale: Low and slow patient enrollment remains a barrier to critical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Behavioral economic insights suggest that nudges may address some enrollment challenges.Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of a novel preconsent survey consisting of nudges on critical care RCT enrollment.Methods: We conducted an RCT in 10 intensive care units (ICUs) among surrogate decision-makers (SDMs). The novel multicomponent behavioral nudge survey was administered immediately before soliciting SDMs' informed consent for their patients' participation in a sham trial of two mechanical ventilation weaning approaches in acute respiratory failure. The primary outcome was the enrollment rate for the sham trial. Secondary outcomes included undue and unjust inducements. We also explored SDM and patient predictors of enrollment using multivariate regression.Results: Among 182 SDMs, 93 were randomized to receive the intervention survey and 89 to receive standard informed consent. There was no statistically significant difference in enrollment rates between the intervention (29%) and standard consent (34%) groups (percentage difference, 5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9% to 18%; P = 0.50). There was no evidence of undue or unjust inducement. White SDMs were more likely to enroll the patient compared with non-white SDMs (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 12.2; P = 0.03). SDMs who perceived a higher risk of participation were less likely to enroll the patient (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.71; P < 0.001).Conclusions: A preconsent behavioral nudge survey among SDMs of patients with acute respiratory failure in the ICU did not increase enrollment rates for a sham RCT compared with standard informed consent procedures.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03284359).

A pilot randomized trial of five financial incentive strategies to increase study enrollment and retention rates.

BACKGROUND: Enrollment and retention difficulties remain major barriers to conducting clinical trials. Financial incentives may promote clinical trial enrollment, however delivery methods to maximize enrollment, maximize retention, and minimize cost remains uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a single-blind, web-based randomized controlled trial of five financial incentive strategies on enrollment and retention rates in a longitudinal study of advance directives among community-dwelling older adults. Participants were eligible to receive a fixed total financial incentive, but the disbursement amounts at each study timepoint (baseline, 2-weeks, 4-weeks, and 6-weeks) differed between study arms. At each timepoint, participants completed a different advance directive. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes of enrollment and retention. RESULTS: 1803 adults were randomized to one of five incentive strategies: constant n = 361; increasing n = 357; U-shaped n = 361; surprise n = 360; self-select n = 364. Overall, 989 (54.9%) participants elected to enroll in the advance directive study. There were no differences in enrollment rates between the control (constant 53.5%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 54.3%, p = 0.81; U-shaped 57.3%, p = 0.30; surprise 56.9%, p = 0.35; and self-select 52.2%, p = 0.73). There were no differences in retention rates between the control (constant 2.1%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 5.2%, p = 0.09; U-shaped 3.9%, p = 0.23; surprise 2.4%, p = 0.54; self-select 2.1%, p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentive programs for trial enrollment informed by behavioral economic insights were no more effective than a constant-payment approach in this web-based pilot study.