Baseline representativeness of patients in clinics enrolled in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial: comparison of trial and non-trial clinics in the same health systems.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic primary care trials aim to test interventions in "real world" health care settings, but clinics willing and able to participate in trials may not be representative of typical clinics. This analysis compared patients in participating and non-participating clinics from the same health systems at baseline in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial. METHODS: This observational analysis relied on secondary electronic health record and administrative claims data in 5 of 6 health systems in the PROUD trial. The sample included patients 16-90 years at an eligible primary care visit in the 3 years before randomization. Each system contributed 2 randomized PROUD trial clinics and 4 similarly sized non-trial clinics. We summarized patient characteristics in trial and non-trial clinics in the 2 years before randomization ("baseline"). Using mixed-effect regression models, we compared trial and non-trial clinics on a baseline measure of the primary trial outcome (clinic-level patient-years of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, scaled per 10,000 primary care patients seen) and a baseline measure of the secondary trial outcome (patient-level days of acute care utilization among patients with OUD). RESULTS: Patients were generally similar between the 10 trial clinics (n = 248,436) and 20 non-trial clinics (n = 341,130), although trial clinics' patients were slightly younger, more likely to be Hispanic/Latinx, less likely to be white, more likely to have Medicaid/subsidized insurance, and lived in less wealthy neighborhoods. Baseline outcomes did not differ between trial and non-trial clinics: trial clinics had 1.0 more patient-year of OUD treatment per 10,000 patients (95% CI: - 2.9, 5.0) and a 4% higher rate of days of acute care utilization than non-trial clinics (rate ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: trial clinics and non-trial clinics were similar regarding most measured patient characteristics, and no differences were observed in baseline measures of trial primary and secondary outcomes. These findings suggest trial clinics were representative of comparably sized clinics within the same health systems. Although results do not reflect generalizability more broadly, this study illustrates an approach to assess representativeness of clinics in future pragmatic primary care trials.

Substance-use screening and interventions in dental practices: survey of practice-based research network dentists regarding current practices, policies and barriers.

BACKGROUND: Dental visits represent an opportunity to identify and assist patients with unhealthy substance use, but little is known about how dentists are addressing patients' use of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs. The authors surveyed dentists to learn about the role their practices might play in providing substance-use screening and interventions. METHODS: The authors distributed a 41-item Web-based survey to all 210 dentists active in the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning Network, a practice-based research network. The questionnaire assessed dental practices' policies and current practices, attitudes and perceived barriers to providing services for tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use. RESULTS: One hundred forty-three dentists completed the survey (68 percent response rate). Although screening was common, fewer dentists reported that they were providing follow-up counseling or referrals for substance use. Insufficient knowledge or training was the most frequently cited barrier to intervention. Many dentists reported they would offer assistance for use of tobacco (67 percent) or alcohol or illicit drugs (52 percent) if reimbursed; respondents who treated publicly insured patients were more likely to reply that they would offer this assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists recognize the importance of screening for substance use, but they lack the clinical training and practice-based systems focused on substance use that could facilitate intervention. Practical Implications. The results of this study indicate that dentists may be willing to address substance use among patients, including use of alcohol and illicit drugs in addition to tobacco, if barriers are reduced through changes in reimbursement, education and systems-level support.

Level of oral health impacts among patients participating in PEARL: a dental practice-based research network.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether participants of a dental practice-based research network (PBRN) differ in their level of oral health impact as measured by the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) questionnaire. METHODS: A total of 2410 patients contributed 2432 OHIP measurements (median age = 43 years; interquartile range = 28) were enrolled in four dental studies. All participants completed the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) during a baseline visit. The main outcome of this study was the level of oral health impact, defined as follows: no impact ('Never' reported on all items); low ('Occasionally' or 'Hardly ever' as the greatest frequency score reported on any item); and high ('Fairly often' or 'Very often' as the greatest frequency reported on any item). Polychotomous logistic regression was used to develop a predictive model for the level of oral health impact considering the following predictors: patient's age, gender, race, practice location, type of dentist, and number of years the enrolling dentist has been practicing. RESULTS: A high level of oral health impacts was reported in 8% of the sample; almost a third (29%) of the sample reported a low level of impacts, and 63% had no oral health impacts. The prevalence of impacts differed significantly across protocols (P < 0.001). Women were more likely to be in the high oral impact group than in the no impact group compared to men (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.06-1.99). African Americans were more likely to report high oral impacts when compared to other racial/ethnic groups (OR = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.26-3.55). Protective effects for being in the high or in the low-impact groups were observed among patients enrolled by a solo practice (P < 0.001) or by more experienced dentists (P = 0.01). A small but highly significant statistical association was obtained for patient age (P < 0.001). In the multivariate model, patient's age, practice size, and gender were found to jointly be significant predictors of oral health impact level. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' subjective report of oral health impact in the clinical setting is of importance for their health. In the context of a dental PBRN, the report of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was different across four dental studies. The observed findings validate the differential impact that oral health has on the patients' perception of OHRQoL particularly among specific groups. Similar investigations to elucidate the factors associated with patient's report of quality of life are warranted.