Research Inclusion Across the Lifespan: A Good Start, but There Is More Work to Be Done.

While older adults account for a disproportionate amount of healthcare spending, they are often underrepresented in clinical research needed to guide clinical care. The purpose of this perspective is to make readers aware of new data on age at enrollment for participants included in National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical research. We highlight key findings of relevance to general internal medicine and suggest ways readers could support the inclusion of older adults in clinical research. Data from the NIH Research Inclusion Statistics Report show that there were 881,385 participants enrolled in all NIH-funded clinical research in 2021, of whom 170,110 (19%) were 65 years and older. However, on average, studies included a far lower percentage of older adults. Additionally, there were many conditions for which overall enrollment rates for older adults were lower than would be expected. For example, while 10% of participants in studies related to diabetes were ≥ 65 years old, older individuals represent 43% of all prevalent diabetes in the USA. Researchers should work with clinicians to advocate for older adults and ensure their participation in clinical research. Best practices and resources for overcoming common barriers to the inclusion of older adults in research could also be disseminated.

Frontline Clinician Appraisement of Research Engagement: "I feel out of touch with research".

BACKGROUND: Health services research can benefit from frontline clinician input across all stages of research, yet their key perspectives are often not meaningfully engaged. OBJECTIVE: How can we improve clinician engagement in research? DESIGN: Convenience sampling and semi-structured interviews followed by descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach, followed by group participatory listening sessions with interviewees to further contextualize findings. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one multidisciplinary clinicians from one healthcare system. KEY RESULTS: We identified two major themes: perceptions of research (how research fits within job role) and characterizing effective engagement (what works and what does not work in frontline clinician engagement). "Perceptions of Research" encompassed three subthemes: prior research experience; desired degree of engagement; and benefits to clinicians engaging in research. "Characterizing Effective Engagement" had these subthemes: engagement barriers; engagement facilitators; and impact of clinician's racial identity. CONCLUSIONS: Investing in frontline clinicians as research collaborators is beneficial to clinicians themselves, the health systems that employ them, and those for which they care. Yet, there are multiple barriers to meaningful engagement.

Rolling out PRIDE in All Who Served: Barriers and Facilitators for Sites Implementing an LGBTQ+ Health Education Group for Military Veterans.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) PRIDE in All Who Served health education group (PRIDE) was developed to improve health equity and access to care for military veterans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and/or other sexual/gender-diverse identities (LGBTQ+). This 10-week program rapidly spread to over 30 VHA facilities in 4 years. Veterans receiving PRIDE experience improved LGBTQ+ identity-related resilience and reductions in suicide attempt likelihood. Despite PRIDE's rapid spread across facilities, information is lacking on implementation determinants. The current study's goal was to clarify determinants of PRIDE group implementation and sustainment. METHODS: A purposive sample of VHA staff (N = 19) with experience delivering or implementing PRIDE completed teleconference interviews January-April 2021. The interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Rapid qualitative matrix analysis was completed with methods to ensure rigor (e.g., triangulation and investigator reflexivity). RESULTS: Key barriers and facilitators of PRIDE implementation were heavily related to facility inner setting (what is happening inside the facility), including implementation readiness (e.g., leadership support for LGBTQ+-affirming programming, access to LGBTQ+-affirming care training) and facility culture (e.g., systemic anti-LGBTQ+ stigma). Several implementation process facilitators enhanced engagement at sites, such as a centrally facilitated PRIDE learning collaborative and a formal process of contracting/training for new PRIDE sites. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Although aspects of the outer setting and larger societal influences were mentioned, the majority of factors impacting implementation success were at the VHA facility level and therefore may be more readily addressable through tailored implementation support. The importance of LGBTQ+ equity at the facility level indicates that implementation facilitation should ideally address institutional equity in addition to implementation logistics. Combining effective interventions with attention to local implementation needs will be required before LGBTQ+ veterans in all areas will benefit from PRIDE and other health equity-focused interventions.

Incorporating TechQuity in Virtual Care Within the Veterans Health Administration: Identifying Future Research and Operations Priorities.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic dramatically changed healthcare delivery, driving rapid expansion of synchronous (i.e., real-time) audio-only and video telehealth, otherwise known as virtual care. Yet evidence describes significant inequities in virtual care utilization, with certain populations more dependent on audio-only virtual care than video-based care. Research is needed to inform virtual care policies and processes to counteract current inequities in access and health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Given the importance of incorporating equity into virtual care within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), we convened a Think Tank to identify priorities for future research and virtual care operations focused on achieving equitable implementation of virtual care within the VHA. METHODS: We used participatory activities to engage clinicians, researchers, and operational partners from across the VHA to develop priorities for equitable implementation of virtual care. We refined priorities through group discussion and force-ranked prioritization and outlined next steps for selected priorities. KEY RESULTS: Think Tank participants included 43 individuals from the VHA who represented diverse geographical regions, offices, and backgrounds. Attendees self-identified their associations primarily as operations (n = 9), research (n = 28), or both (n = 6). We identified an initial list of 63 potential priorities for future research and virtual care operations. Following discussion, we narrowed the list to four priority areas: (1) measure inequities in virtual care, (2) address emerging inequities in virtual care, (3) deploy virtual care equitably to accommodate differently abled veterans, and (4) measure and address potential adverse consequences of expanded virtual care. We discuss related information, data, key partners, and outline potential next steps. CONCLUSIONS: This Think Tank of research and operational partners from across the VHA identified promising opportunities to incorporate equity into the design and implementation of virtual care. Although much work remains, the priorities identified represent important steps toward achieving this vital goal.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of improvement coaching: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organisations and teams perform improvement activities to facilitate high-quality healthcare. The use of an improvement coach who provides support and guidance to the healthcare team may facilitate improvement activities; however, no systematic review exists on the facilitators and barriers to implementing an improvement coach. AIMS: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to examine the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improvement coaching. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE® , Embase and CINAHL. The final search was in March 2021. The screening eligibility criteria included the following: interdisciplinary team receiving the coaching, improvement coaching, designs with a qualitative component and primary purpose of evaluating practice facilitation in OECD countries. An ecologically-informed consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) served as the framework for coding. Patterns of barriers and facilitators across domains were identified through matrix analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Program. PRISMA reporting guidelines served as a guide for reporting this review. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with a qualitative component met the inclusion criteria. Four themes of barriers and facilitators crossed multiple CFIR domains: adaptability (e.g. making adjustments to the project; process, or approach); knowledge and skills (e.g. understanding of content and process for the project); engagement (e.g. willingness to be involved in the process) and resources (e.g. assets required to complete the improvement process). CONCLUSION: Improvement coaching is a complex intervention that influences the context, healthcare team being coached and improvement activities. Improvement coaches should understand how to minimise barriers and promote facilitators that are unique to each improvement project across the domains. Limitations of the study are related to the nature of the intervention including potential publication bias given quality improvement focus; the variety of terms similar to improvement coaching or selection of framework.

Team-Based Qualitative Rapid Analysis: Approach and Considerations for Conducting Developmental Formative Evaluation for Intervention Design.

Qualitative rapid analysis is one of many rapid research approaches that offer a solution to the problem of time constrained health services evaluations and avoids sacrificing the richness of qualitative data that is needed for intervention design. We describe modifications to an established team-based, rapid analysis approach that we used to rapidly collect and analyze semi-structured interview data for a developmental formative evaluation of a cardiovascular disease prevention intervention. Over 18 weeks, we conducted and analyzed 35 semi-structured interviews that were conducted with patients and health care providers in the Veterans Health Administration to identify targets for adapting the intervention in preparation for a clinical trial. We identified 12 key themes describing actionable targets for intervention modification. We highlight important methodological decisions that allowed us to maintain rigor when using qualitative rapid analysis for intervention adaptation and we provide practical guidance on the resources needed to execute similar qualitative studies. We additionally reflect on the benefits and challenges of the described approach when working within a remote research team environment.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04545489.

Videoconferencing of Movement-Based and Psychologically Informed Interventions for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Horizon Scan.

Introduction: With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, use of telehealth technology increased dramatically. Nonpharmacological approaches to pain management may be well suited for virtual care. Yet, it is not widely understood if this treatment modality is effective when delivered via videoconferencing. This review examines the effectiveness of movement-based and psychologically informed chronic pain management interventions delivered via videoconferencing compared to in-person care. Methods: Searches of MEDLINE® (via Ovid®), Embase (via Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Ovid) were performed from inception to June 10, 2021. All articles meeting eligibility criteria were included for data abstraction. Results: Eight thousand two hundred fifty-two citations were identified, and after removing duplicates, 4,661 citations remained. One study investigating acceptance and commitment therapy met eligibility criteria. The noninferiority randomized trial found no statistically significant difference in outcomes between delivery modalities. A horizon scan was conducted to assess planned or recent studies. Horizon scan results yielded six protocols in trial databases, one pilot study, and three published protocols for ongoing studies. Discussion: Findings from this study indicate that virtually delivered pain management is a possible substitute for in-person care. Given the paucity of evidence on this topic, further comparative and adequately powered studies that assess the impact of movement-based and psychologically informed pain management delivered via videoconferencing are needed. Conclusions: Research is needed to understand patient preferences of such interventions within a variety of settings. Such evaluations will be needed to guide clinical and operations practice to optimize equitable deployment and access to high-quality health care delivered via videoconferencing.

"Is it cancer or not?" A qualitative exploration of survivor concerns surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Of the nearly 50,000 women in the United States who undergo treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) annually, many may not benefit from treatment. To better understand the impact of a DCIS diagnosis, patients self-identified as having had DCIS were engaged regarding their experience. METHODS: In July 2014, a web-based survey was administered through the Susan Love Army of Women breast cancer listserv. The survey included open-ended questions designed to assess patients' perspectives about DCIS diagnosis and treatment. Deductive and inductive codes were applied to the responses; common themes were summarized. RESULTS: Among the 1832 women included in the analytic sample, the median age at diagnosis was 60 years. Four primary themes were identified: 1) uncertainty surrounding a DCIS diagnosis, 2) uncertainty about DCIS treatment, 3) concern about treatment side effects, and 4) concern about recurrence and/or developing invasive breast cancer. When diagnosed, participants were often uncertain about whether they had cancer or not and whether they should be considered a "survivor." Uncertainty about treatment manifested as questioning the appropriateness of the amount of treatment received. Participants expressed concern about the "cancer spreading" or becoming invasive and that they were not necessarily "doing enough" to prevent recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, national sample, participants with a history of DCIS reported confusion and concern about the diagnosis and treatment, which caused worry and significant uncertainty. Developing strategies to improve patient and provider communications regarding the nature of DCIS and acknowledging gaps in the current knowledge of management options should be a priority.

Primary Care Engagement Among Individuals with Experiences of Homelessness and Serious Mental Illness: an Evidence Map.

BACKGROUND: Experiences of homelessness and serious mental illness (SMI) negatively impact health and receipt of healthcare. Interventions that promote the use of primary care services for people with both SMI and homelessness may improve health outcomes, but this literature has not been evaluated systematically. This evidence map examines the breadth of literature to describe what intervention strategies have been studied for this population, elements of primary care integration with other services used, and the level of intervention complexity to highlight gaps for future intervention research and program development. METHODS: We followed an a priori protocol developed in collaboration with clinical stakeholders. We systematically searched the published literature to identify interventions for adults with homelessness who also had SMI. We excluded case reports, editorials, letters, and conference abstracts. Data abstraction methods followed standard practice. Data were categorized into intervention strategies and primary care integration strategies. Then we applied the Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) to characterize intervention complexity. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles met our inclusion criteria evaluating 15 unique interventions to promote engagement in primary care for adults with experiences of homelessness and SMI. Study designs varied widely from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies to single-site program evaluations. Intervention strategies varied across studies but primarily targeted patients directly (e.g., health education, evidence-based interactions such as motivational interviewing) with fewer strategies employed at the clinic (e.g., employee training, multidisciplinary teams) or system levels (e.g., data sharing). We identified elements of primary care integration, including referral strategies, co-location, and interdisciplinary care planning. Interventions displayed notable complexity around the number of intervention components, interaction between intervention components, and extent to which interventions were tailored to specific patient populations. DISCUSSION: We identified and categorized elements used in various combinations to address the primary care needs of individuals with experiences of homeless and SMI.

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Coaching on Process Outcomes in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: A culture of improvement is an important feature of high-quality health care systems. However, health care teams often need support to translate quality improvement (QI) activities into practice. One method of support is consultation from a QI coach. The literature suggests that coaching interventions have a positive impact on clinical outcomes. However, the impact of coaching on specific process outcomes, like adoption of clinical care activities, is unknown. Identifying the process outcomes for which QI coaching is most effective could provide specific guidance on when to employ this strategy. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021. Studies that addressed the effects of QI coaching on process of care outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We identified 1983 articles, of which 23 cluster-randomized trials met eligibility criteria. All but two took place in a primary care setting. Overall, interventions typically targeted multiple simultaneous processes of care activities. We found that coaching probably has a beneficial effect on composite process of care outcomes (n = 9) and ordering of labs and vital signs (n = 6), and possibly has a beneficial effect on changes in organizational process of care (n = 5), appropriate documentation (n = 5), and delivery of appropriate counseling (n = 3). We did not perform meta-analyses because of conceptual heterogeneity around intervention design and outcomes; rather, we synthesized the data narratively. Due to imprecision, inconsistency, and high risk of bias of the included studies, we judged the certainty of these results as low or very low. CONCLUSION: QI coaching interventions may affect certain processes of care activities such as ordering of labs and vital signs. Future research that advances the identification of when QI coaching is most beneficial for health care teams seeking to implement improvement processes in pursuit of high-quality care will support efficient use of QI resources. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020165069).

Telehealth for the Longitudinal Management of Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Extensive literature support telehealth as a supplement or adjunct to in-person care for the management of chronic conditions such as congestive heart failure (CHF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Evidence is needed to support the use of telehealth as an equivalent and equitable replacement for in-person care and to assess potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to address the following question: among adults, what is the effect of synchronous telehealth (real-time response among individuals via phone or phone and video) compared with in-person care (or compared with phone, if synchronous video care) for chronic management of CHF, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and T2DM on key disease-specific clinical outcomes and health care use? METHODS: We followed systematic review methodologies and searched two databases (MEDLINE and Embase). We included randomized or quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the effect of synchronously delivered telehealth for relevant chronic conditions that occurred over ≥2 encounters and in which some or all in-person care was supplanted by care delivered via phone or video. We assessed the bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias (ROB) tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. We described the findings narratively and did not conduct meta-analysis owing to the small number of studies and the conceptual heterogeneity of the identified interventions. RESULTS: We identified 8662 studies, and 129 (1.49%) were reviewed at the full-text stage. In total, 3.9% (5/129) of the articles were retained for data extraction, all of which (5/5, 100%) were randomized controlled trials. The CHF study (1/5, 20%) was found to have high ROB and randomized patients (n=210) to receive quarterly automated asynchronous web-based review and follow-up of telemetry data versus synchronous personal follow-up (in-person vs phone-based) for 1 year. A 3-way comparison across study arms found no significant differences in clinical outcomes. Overall, 80% (4/5) of the studies (n=466) evaluated synchronous care for patients with T2DM (ROB was judged to be low for 2, 50% of studies and high for 2, 50% of studies). In total, 20% (1/5) of the studies were adequately powered to assess the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin level between groups; however, no significant difference was found. Intervention design varied greatly from remote monitoring of blood glucose combined with video versus in-person visits to an endocrinology clinic to a brief, 3-week remote intervention to stabilize uncontrolled diabetes. No articles were identified for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CONCLUSIONS: This review found few studies with a variety of designs and interventions that used telehealth as a replacement for in-person care. Future research should consider including observational studies and studies on additional highly prevalent chronic diseases.

Options for Meaningful Engagement in Clinical Research for Busy Frontline Clinicians.

In order for health care innovations to be effective and actionable, they must align with the needs and practice patterns of those delivering care at the bedside. While research has started to incorporate the patient voice, it has yet to fully invest in the expertise of frontline clinicians. Frontline clinicians carry a wealth of clinical knowledge and the lived experience of providing real-world medical care that the research community seeks to improve. We consider options for clinicians as research stakeholders along a continuum of engagement as outlined by the UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute from minimal to supportive to participatory. In order to make an effective value proposition to support reallocation of clinician time to research engagement, we advocate evaluating the impact of clinicians as stakeholders at both the process level (e.g., clinician satisfaction, study recruitment rates) and endpoint level (e.g., clinical outcomes). Investing in clinicians as research stakeholders can offer benefits for the individual, health system, and population by increasing the generalizability, adoption, and sustainability of effective interventions.

Accelerating Implementation of Virtual Care in an Integrated Health Care System: Future Research and Operations Priorities.

BACKGROUND: Virtual care is critical to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) efforts to expand veterans' access to care. Health care policies such as the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability (CHOICE) Act and the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act impact how the VHA provides care. Research on ways to refine virtual care delivery models to meet the needs of veterans, clinicians, and VHA stakeholders is needed. OBJECTIVE: Given the importance of virtual approaches for increasing access to high-quality VHA care, in December 2019, we convened a Think Tank, Accelerating Implementation of Virtual Care in VHA Practice, to consider challenges to virtual care research and practice across the VHA, discuss novel approaches to using and evaluating virtual care, assess perspectives on virtual care, and develop priorities to enhance virtual care in the VHA. METHODS: We used a participatory approach to develop potential priorities for virtual care research and activities at the VHA. We refined these priorities through force-ranked prioritization and group discussion, and developed solutions for selected priorities. RESULTS: Think Tank attendees (n = 18) consisted of VHA stakeholders, including operations partners (e.g., Office of Rural Health, Office of Nursing Services, Health Services Research and Development), clinicians (e.g., physicians, nurses, psychologists, physician assistants), and health services researchers. We identified an initial list of fifteen potential priorities and narrowed these down to four. The four priorities were (1) scaling evidence-based practices, (2) centralizing virtual care, (3) creating high-value care within the VHA with virtual care, and (4) identifying appropriate patients for virtual care. CONCLUSION: Our Think Tank took an important step in setting a partnered research agenda to optimize the use of virtual care within the VHA. We brought together research and operations stakeholders and identified possibilities, partnerships, and potential solutions for virtual care.

Risk for Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis After Exposure to Newer Gadolinium Agents: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) after exposure to newer versus older gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) remains unclear. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence about NSF risk with newer versus older GBCAs across the spectrum of kidney function. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for English-language references from inception to 5 March 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that assessed NSF occurrence after GBCA exposure. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 investigator and verified by a second. Investigator pairs assessed risk of bias by using validated tools. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 32 included studies, 20 allowed for assessment of NSF risk after exposure to newer GBCAs and 12 (11 cohort studies and 1 case-control study) allowed for comparison of NSF risk between newer and older GBCAs. Among 83 291 patients exposed to newer GBCAs, no NSF cases developed (exact 95% CI, 0.0001 to 0.0258 case). Among the 12 studies (n = 118 844) that allowed risk comparison between newer and older GBCAs, 37 NSF cases developed after exposure to older GBCAs (exact CI, 0.0001 to 0.0523 case) and 4 occurred (3 confounded) after exposure to newer GBCAs (exact CI, 0.0018 to 0.0204 case). Data were scant for patients with acute kidney injury or those at risk for chronic kidney disease. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Risk of bias was high in most studies because of inadequate exposure and outcome ascertainment. CONCLUSION: Although NSF occurrence after exposure to newer GBCAs is very rare, the relatively scarce data among patients with acute kidney injury and those with risk factors for chronic kidney disease limit conclusions about safety in these populations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42019135783).

Implementing remote triage in large health systems: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

Remote triage (RT) allows interprofessional teams (e.g., nurses and physicians) to assess patients and make clinical decisions remotely. RT use has developed widespread interest due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and has future potential to address the needs of a rapidly aging population, improve access to care, facilitate interprofessional team care, and ensure appropriate use of resources. However, despite rapid and increasing interest in implementation of RT, there is little research concerning practices for successful implementation. We conducted a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis of practices that impact the implementation of RT for adults seeking clinical care advice. We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception through July 2018. We included 32 studies in this review. Our review identified four themes impacting the implementation of RT: characteristics of staff who use RT, influence of RT on staff, considerations in selecting RT tools, and environmental and contextual factors impacting RT. The findings of our systemic review underscore the need for a careful consideration of (a) organizational and stakeholder buy-in before launch, (b) physical and psychological workplace environment, (c) staff training and ongoing support, and (d) optimal metrics to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation. Our findings indicate that preimplementation planning, as well as evaluating RT by collecting data during and after implementation, is essential to ensuring successful implementation and continued adoption of RT in a health care system.

Effectiveness of Acute Care Remote Triage Systems: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Technology-based systems can facilitate remote decision-making to triage patients to the appropriate level of care. Despite technologic advances, the effects of implementation of these systems on patient and utilization outcomes are unclear. We evaluated the effects of remote triage systems on healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes. METHODS: English-language searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and CINAHL were performed from inception until July 2018. Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of remote triage services that reported healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes were included. Two reviewers assessed study and intervention characteristics independently for study quality, strength of evidence, and risk of bias. RESULTS: The literature search identified 5026 articles, of which eight met eligibility criteria. Five randomized, two controlled before-and-after, and one interrupted time series study assessed 3 categories of remote triage services: mode of delivery, triage professional type, and system organizational level. No study evaluated any other delivery mode other than telephone and in-person. Meta-analyses were unable to be performed because of study design and outcome heterogeneity; therefore, we narratively synthesized data. Overall, most studies did not demonstrate a decrease in primary care (PC) or emergency department (ED) utilization, with some studies showing a significant increase. Evidence suggested local, practice-based triage systems have greater case resolution and refer fewer patients to PC or ED services than regional/national systems. No study identified statistically significant differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our review found limited evidence that remote triage reduces the burden of PC or ED utilization. However, remote triage by telephone can produce a high rate of call resolution and appears to be safe. Further study of other remote triage modalities is needed to realize the promise of remote triage services in optimizing healthcare outcomes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019112262).

The Durham Initiative for Stomach Health (DISH): a pilot community-based Helicobacter pylori education and screening study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of all cancers are due to infection. The bacteria Helicobacter pylori is the single leading carcinogenic infectious agent and the main cause of stomach cancer. Prevalence of H. pylori, and, correspondingly, stomach cancer incidence and mortality, is significantly greater among African Americans than whites in the United States. In the present study, we conducted a pilot community-engaged H. pylori education and screening study in partnership with a predominantly African American church in Durham, North Carolina. METHODS: Initially, we consulted with community advisory boards and convened stakeholder meetings with local community members and primary care physicians. We then developed this pilot study through an iterative collaboration with church partners. Our main outcomes were feasibility and acceptability as measured by participation in a one-day H. pylori screening initiative, and participation in follow-up for those who tested positive. We also sought to determine prevalence and determinants of active H. pylori infection in this population. RESULTS: Community engagement informed the event logistics, messaging, educational materials provided, and follow-up plans. A total of 92 individuals participated in the primary study event, 25% of whom had a current H. pylori infection. Of those, 87% returned for the follow-up events, among whom 70% had successfully cleared their infection. CONCLUSIONS: Through community engagement, community-based H. pylori screening and stomach cancer prevention is feasible and acceptable. This is a necessary step in order to move stomach cancer prevention forward to population-based precision H. pylori screening and eradication.

Self-management of Epilepsy: A Systematic Review.

Background: Although self-management is recommended for persons with epilepsy, its optimal strategies and effects are uncertain. Purpose: To evaluate the components and efficacy of self-management interventions in the treatment of epilepsy in community-dwelling persons. Data Sources: English-language searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and CINAHL in April 2018; the MEDLINE search was updated in March 2019. Study Selection: Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of self-management interventions for adults with epilepsy. Data Extraction: An investigator assessed study characteristics; intervention details, including 6 components of self-management; and outcomes, which were verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed independently by 2 investigators. Data Synthesis: 13 randomized and 2 nonrandomized studies (2514 patients) evaluated self-management interventions. Interventions were delivered primarily in group settings, used a median of 4 components, and followed 2 general strategies: 1 based on education and the other on psychosocial therapy. Education-based approaches improved self-management behaviors (standardized mean difference, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.04]), and psychosocial therapy-based approaches improved quality of life (mean difference, 6.64 [CI, 2.51 to 10.77]). Overall, self-management interventions did not reduce seizure rates, but 1 educational intervention decreased a composite of seizures, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. Limitation: High ROB in most studies, incomplete intervention descriptions, and studies limited to English-language publications. Conclusion: There is limited evidence that self-management strategies modestly improve some patient outcomes that are important to persons with epilepsy. Overall, self-management research in epilepsy is limited by the range of interventions tested, the small number of studies using self-monitoring technology, and uncertainty about components and strategies associated with benefit. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42018098604).

Effect of Adding Telephone-Based Brief Coaching to an mHealth App (Stay Strong) for Promoting Physical Activity Among Veterans: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Though maintaining physical conditioning and a healthy weight are requirements of active military duty, many US veterans lose conditioning and rapidly gain weight after discharge from active duty service. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions using wearable devices are appealing to users and can be effective especially with personalized coaching support. We developed Stay Strong, a mobile app tailored to US veterans, to promote physical activity using a wrist-worn physical activity tracker, a Bluetooth-enabled scale, and an app-based dashboard. We tested whether adding personalized coaching components (Stay Strong+Coaching) would improve physical activity compared to Stay Strong alone. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to compare 12-month outcomes from Stay Strong alone versus Stay Strong+Coaching. METHODS: Participants (n=357) were recruited from a national random sample of US veterans of recent wars and randomly assigned to the Stay Strong app alone (n=179) or Stay Strong+Coaching (n=178); both programs lasted 12 months. Personalized coaching components for Stay Strong+Coaching comprised of automated in-app motivational messages (3 per week), telephone-based human health coaching (up to 3 calls), and personalized weekly goal setting. All aspects of the enrollment process and program delivery were accomplished virtually for both groups, except for the telephone-based coaching. The primary outcome was change in physical activity at 12 months postbaseline, measured by average weekly Active Minutes, captured by the Fitbit Charge 2 device. Secondary outcomes included changes in step counts, weight, and patient activation. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 39.8 (SD 8.7) years, and 25.2% (90/357) were female. Active Minutes decreased from baseline to 12 months for both groups (P<.001) with no between-group differences at 6 months (P=.82) or 12 months (P=.98). However, at 12 months, many participants in both groups did not record Active Minutes, leading to missing data in 67.0% (120/179) for Stay Strong and 61.8% (110/178) for Stay Strong+Coaching. Average baseline weight for participants in Stay Strong and Stay Strong+Coaching was 214 lbs and 198 lbs, respectively, with no difference at baseline (P=.54) or at 6 months (P=.28) or 12 months (P=.18) postbaseline based on administrative weights, which had lower rates of missing data. Changes in the number of steps recorded and patient activation also did not differ by arm. CONCLUSIONS: Adding personalized health coaching comprised of in-app automated messages, up to 3 coaching calls, plus automated weekly personalized goals, did not improve levels of physical activity compared to using a smartphone app alone. Physical activity in both groups decreased over time. Sustaining long-term adherence and engagement in this mHealth intervention proved difficult; approximately two-thirds of the trial's 357 participants failed to sync their Fitbit device at 12 months and, thus, were lost to follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02360293; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02360293. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/12526.

Qualitative Exploration of Engaging Patients as Advisors in a Program of Evidence Synthesis: Cobuilding the Science to Enhance Impact.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing expectation for research to involve patient stakeholders. Yet little guidance exists regarding patient-engaged research in evidence synthesis. Embedded in a learning health care system, the Veteran Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) provides an ideal environment for exploring patient-engaged research in a program of evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore views, barriers, resources, and perceived values of engaging patient advisors in a national program of evidence synthesis research. METHODS: We conducted 10 qualitative interviews with ESP researchers and 2 focus groups with patient stakeholder informants. We queried for challenges to patient involvement, resources needed to overcome barriers, and perceived values of patient engagement. We analyzed qualitative data using applied thematic and matrix techniques. RESULTS: Patient stakeholders and researchers expressed positive views on the potential role for patient engagement in the Veteran Affairs ESP. Possible contributions included topic prioritization, translating findings for lay audiences, and identifying clinically important outcomes relevant to patients. There were numerous barriers to patient involvement, which were more commonly noted by ESP researchers than by patient stakeholders. Although informants were able to articulate multiple values, we found a lack of clarity around measurable outcomes of patient involvement in systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: The research community increasingly seeks patient input. There are many perceived and actual barriers to seeking robust patient engagement in systematic reviews. This study outlines emerging practices that other evidence synthesis programs should consider, such as the careful selection of stakeholders; codeveloped expectations and goals; and adequate training and appropriate resources to ensure meaningful engagement.