Did the 2015 USPSTF Abnormal Blood Glucose Recommendations Change Clinician Attitudes or Behaviors? A Mixed-Method Assessment.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised clinical recommendations to more broadly recommend abnormal blood glucose screening and more clearly recommend referral to behavioral interventions for adults with prediabetes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of the 2015 USPSTF recommendation changes on abnormal blood glucose screening and referral to behavioral interventions, and to examine physicians' perceptions of the revised recommendation. DESIGN: We utilized a sequential, dependent mixed-methods triangulation design. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 33,444 patients meeting USPSTF abnormal blood glucose screening criteria within 15 health system-affiliated primary care practices and 20 primary care physicians in North Carolina. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed monthly abnormal blood glucose screening rate and monthly referral rate to behavioral interventions. To estimate trend changes in outcomes, we used segmented linear regression analysis of interrupted time-series data. We gathered physicians' perspectives on the 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose recommendation including awareness of, agreement with, adoption of, and adherence to the recommendation. To analyze qualitative data, we used directed content analysis. KEY RESULTS: There was a slight significant change in trend in abnormal blood glucose screening rates post-recommendation. There was a slight, statistically significant decrease in referral rates to behavioral interventions post-recommendation. Physicians were generally unaware of the revisions to the 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose recommendation; however, once the recommendations were described, physicians agreed with the screening recommendation but felt that the behavioral intervention referral recommendation was hard to implement. CONCLUSION: The 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose guideline had little to no effect on abnormal blood glucose screening or referral to behavioral interventions in North Carolina practices. Potential interventions to improve these rates could include clinical decision tools embedded in the electronic health record and better referral systems for community-based diabetes prevention programs.

Race and gender differences in abnormal blood glucose screening and clinician response to prediabetes: A mixed-methods assessment.

The projected three-fold increase in diabetes burden by 2060 in the United States will affect certain race and gender groups disproportionately. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess differences in prediabetes screening and clinician response to prediabetes by patient race and gender. We utilized data from 18,742 patients seen between 11/1/15 and 4/30/17 who met criteria for blood glucose screening by the 2015 US Preventive Service Task Force recommendation and had at least one visit to a primary care practice within a large, academic health system located in North Carolina. We utilized generalized estimating equations with logistic regression to assess race and gender differences in two outcomes: prediabetes screening and clinician response to prediabetes. We conducted twenty in-depth interviews (October 2018-May 2019) with physicians to assess their approach to screening for and treating prediabetes. Black patients had 11% higher odds (95% CI:1.02-1.20) of being screened for prediabetes than White patients. Men had 19% higher odds (95% CI:1.09-1.30) of being screened for prediabetes than women. There were no significant differences in clinician response to prediabetes by patient race or gender. Qualitatively, physicians reported a non-systematic approach to prediabetes screening and follow-up care related to: 1) System-level barriers to screening and treatment; 2) Implicit bias; 3) Patient factors; and 4) Physician preferences for prediabetes treatment. Targeted risk-based screening for prediabetes along with increased treatment for prediabetes are critical for preventing diabetes and reducing diabetes-related disparities.

Implicit Racial/Ethnic Bias Among Health Care Professionals and Its Influence on Health Care Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, people of color face disparities in access to health care, the quality of care received, and health outcomes. The attitudes and behaviors of health care providers have been identified as one of many factors that contribute to health disparities. Implicit attitudes are thoughts and feelings that often exist outside of conscious awareness, and thus are difficult to consciously acknowledge and control. These attitudes are often automatically activated and can influence human behavior without conscious volition. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the extent to which implicit racial/ethnic bias exists among health care professionals and examined the relationships between health care professionals' implicit attitudes about racial/ethnic groups and health care outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: To identify relevant studies, we searched 10 computerized bibliographic databases and used a reference harvesting technique. SELECTION CRITERIA: We assessed eligibility using double independent screening based on a priori inclusion criteria. We included studies if they sampled existing health care providers or those in training to become health care providers, measured and reported results on implicit racial/ethnic bias, and were written in English. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We included a total of 15 studies for review and then subjected them to double independent data extraction. Information extracted included the citation, purpose of the study, use of theory, study design, study site and location, sampling strategy, response rate, sample size and characteristics, measurement of relevant variables, analyses performed, and results and findings. We summarized study design characteristics, and categorized and then synthesized substantive findings. MAIN RESULTS: Almost all studies used cross-sectional designs, convenience sampling, US participants, and the Implicit Association Test to assess implicit bias. Low to moderate levels of implicit racial/ethnic bias were found among health care professionals in all but 1 study. These implicit bias scores are similar to those in the general population. Levels of implicit bias against Black, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, and dark-skinned people were relatively similar across these groups. Although some associations between implicit bias and health care outcomes were nonsignificant, results also showed that implicit bias was significantly related to patient-provider interactions, treatment decisions, treatment adherence, and patient health outcomes. Implicit attitudes were more often significantly related to patient-provider interactions and health outcomes than treatment processes. CONCLUSIONS: Most health care providers appear to have implicit bias in terms of positive attitudes toward Whites and negative attitudes toward people of color. Future studies need to employ more rigorous methods to examine the relationships between implicit bias and health care outcomes. Interventions targeting implicit attitudes among health care professionals are needed because implicit bias may contribute to health disparities for people of color.