Comparative Effectiveness of Patient-Driven versus Standardized Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management education and support can be effectively and efficiently delivered in primary care in the form of shared medical appointments (SMAs). Comparative effectiveness of SMA delivery features such as topic choice, multi-disciplinary care teams, and peer mentor involvement is not known. OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of standardized and patient-driven models of diabetes SMAs on patient-level diabetes outcomes. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1060 adults with type 2 diabetes in 22 primary care practices. INTERVENTIONS: Practice personnel delivered the 6-session Targeted Training in Illness Management (TTIM) curriculum using either standardized (set content delivered by a health educator) or patient-driven SMAs (patient-selected topic order delivered by health educators, behavioral health providers [BHPs], and peer mentors). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included self-reported diabetes distress and diabetes self-care behaviors from baseline and follow-up surveys (assessed at 1st and final SMA session), and HbA1c, BMI, and blood pressure from electronic health records. Analyses used descriptive statistics, linear regression, and linear mixed models. KEY RESULTS: Both standardized and patient-driven SMAs effectively improved diabetes distress, self-care behaviors, BMI (- 0.29 on average), and HbA1c (- 0.45% (mmol/mol) on average, 8.3 to 7.8%). Controlling for covariates, there was a small, significant effect of condition on overall diabetes distress in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,841) = 4.3, p = .04), attributable to significant effects of condition on emotion and regimen distress subscales. There was a small, significant effect of condition on diastolic blood pressure in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,5199) = 4.50, p = .03). There were no other differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Both SMA models using the TTIM curriculum yielded significant improvement in diabetes distress, self-care, and HbA1c. Patient-driven diabetes SMAs involving BHPs and peer mentors and topic selection did not lead to better clinical or patient-reported outcomes than standardized diabetes SMAs facilitated by a health educator following a set topic order. NIH TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT03590041.

Rapid Community Translation in the Colorado CEAL (CO-CEAL) Program: Transcreating Messaging to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination.

Providing communities with COVID-19 vaccination information is essential for optimizing equitable vaccine uptake. Using rapid community translation, adapted from Boot Camp Translation, five community teams transcreated COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. Transcreated messaging incorporated community attitudes, culture, and experiences. Using rapid community translation for the promotion of COVID-19 vaccination demonstrates a successful approach to engaging communities most affected by the pandemic to develop messages that reflect community values, assets, and needs, especially when time is of the essence. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S1):S50-S54. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307456).

Continuous glucose monitoring for primary care patients with diabetes: Barriers, facilitators, & resources to support access.

Context: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes is associated with improved patient health outcomes including reduced glycated hemoglobin (A1c) and hypoglycemia and is part of ADA Standards of Medical Care. CGM prescription often takes place in endocrinology practices. With limited access to endocrinologists, many patients could benefit from receiving CGM through primary care. Objective: The overall study aims to understand primary care clinicians' CGM prescribing experience and likelihood to prescribe, and identify resources needed to support prescribing CGM. This qualitative phase examines barriers and facilitators to prescribing, and resources to support prescribing. Study Design: Qualitative phase of an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study following a cross-sectional online survey. Respondents were invited to participate in phone/virtual interviews to understand CGM prescribing attitudes and behaviors. Participants were stratified based on factors related to distance to an endocrinologist and prescribing behavior. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to understand relationships and trends, and identify resources to support CGM prescription in primary care. Setting: Two primary care research networks. Population studied: Primary care physicians and advanced practice providers in the U.S. Outcome Measures: Resources needed, barriers, and facilitators to prescribing CGM. Results: 55 interviews were conducted. The following themes emerged in the analysis: Insurance and cost-related barriers were most commonly cited, as well as distance to endocrinology when > 40 miles away. Facilitators included training and experience with CGM and staff to support patient education and insurance navigation. Resources (e.g., webinars, online guides, conferences) to increase knowledge about CGM use and clinical outcomes and guidance with insurance processes/coverage could support CGM prescription in primary care. Conclusions: Increased understanding among primary care clinicians of the use and benefits of CGM can help with confidence in prescribing. CGM management in primary care could benefit patients with diabetes, especially those with access barriers to endocrinologists. Addressing cost and insurance barriers at a policy level can make CGM more attainable to underserved populations and reduce disparities in diabetes control.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Care: Understanding and Supporting Clinicians' Use to Enhance Diabetes Care.

PURPOSE: Diabetes affects approximately 34 million Americans and many do not achieve glycemic targets. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is associated with improved health outcomes for patients with diabetes. Most adults with diabetes receive care for their diabetes in primary care practices, where uptake of CGM is unclear. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional web-based survey to assess CGM prescribing behaviors and resource needs among primary care clinicians across the United States. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable regression to identify characteristics associated with prescribing behaviors, openness to prescribing CGM, and to understand resources needed to support use of CGM in primary care. RESULTS: Clinicians located more than 40 miles from the nearest endocrinologist's office were more likely to have prescribed CGM and reported greater likelihood to prescribe CGM in the future than those located within 10 miles of an endocrinologist. Clinicians who served more Medicare patients reported favorable attitudes toward future prescribing and higher confidence using CGM to manage diabetes than clinicians with lower Medicare patient volume. The most-needed resources to support CGM use in primary care were consultation on insurance issues and CGM training. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians are interested in using CGM for patients with diabetes, but many lack the resources to implement use of this diabetes technology. Use of CGM can be supported with education in the form of workshops and consultation on insurance issues targeted toward residents, recent graduates, and practices without a nearby endocrinologist. Continued expansion of Medicare and Medicaid coverage for CGM can also support CGM use in primary care.

Relationship of primary care clinician characteristics with continuous glucose monitoring use and confidence.

Context: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides clearer readings of blood glucose levels than traditional finger-stick glucose tests and is associated with improved diabetes outcomes such as reduced HbA1c. CGM can inform insulin dosing and diet decisions, and alert patients to hypoglycemia. A lack of endocrinologists in the majority of U.S. counties, particularly rural areas, and long wait times in many endocrinologists' offices create disparities in CGM access for patients with diabetes. Expanding use of CGM in primary care can improve care and patient diabetes outcomes. Objective: Understand primary care clinicians' experience with CGM to determine feasibility and resources needed to prescribe CGM. Study Design: Quantitative phase of explanatory sequential mixed methods study using cross-sectional online survey. Setting: Primary care. Population studied: Primary care physicians and advanced practice providers across the U.S. Outcome Measures: Past CGM prescribing behaviors, future likelihood to prescribe, resources needed to prescribe. Results: 632 respondents. Role: 72% attending physicians. Organization: Federally Qualified Health-Center (or similar) (27%), hospital-owned (27%), private practice (22%). Half (47%) had seen patients with CGM but never prescribed; two-fifths (39%) had prescribed CGM. Three-fifths (62%) moderately or very likely to prescribe CGM in the future. Likelihood to have prescribed CGM: Post-training physicians more likely than residents (OR=0.303, CI=.160-.575) or PA/NPs (OR=0.356, CI=.165-.766), part-time practice less likely than full-time (OR=0.546, CI=.305-.978), <75% time delivering primary care less likely than 75%+ (OR=0.595, CI=.371-.955), and location greater than 40 miles from an endocrinologist more likely than endocrinologist within 10 miles (OR=1.941, CI=1.17-3.21). Likelihood to prescribe with access to various resources greatest for consultation on insurance issues (72% moderately/very likely) and CGM education/training (72% moderately/very likely). Conclusions: Primary care clinicians have interest in prescribing CGM for patients with diabetes. Clinician type, percentage of time spent practicing, portion of time delivering primary care, and distance from endocrinologist are related to likelihood to prescribe CGM. Previous experience prescribing CGM may improve confidence and likelihood of future prescribing. Consultation, education and training on CGM for primary care clinicians may increase access to CGM.

Increasing Capacity for Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in Rural Primary Care Practices.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine in primary care practices (PCPs). Barriers that slow implementation of this treatment include inadequately trained staff. This study aimed to increase the number of rural PCPs providing OUD treatment with buprenorphine. This evaluation describes the impact of a practice team training on the implementation and delivery of OUD treatment with buprenorphine in PCPs of rural Colorado. METHODS: Implementing Technology and Medication Assisted Treatment Team Training in Rural Colorado (IT MATTTRs) was a multilevel implementation study that included a practice-focused intervention to improve awareness, adoption, and use of buprenorphine treatment for OUD. Participating PCP teams received the IT MATTTRs Practice Team Training and support. Practices' implementation of treatment components was assessed before and after training. Practice-reported and population-level data from the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program were obtained to describe changes in delivery of treatment after training. RESULTS: Forty-two practices received team training. Practices reported an average of 4.7 treatment-related components in place at baseline compared with 13.0 at 12-month follow-up (F[2,56] = 31.17, P <.001). The proportion of participating practices providing or referring patients for treatment increased from 18.8% to 74.4%. The increase in number of people with a prescription for buprenorphine was significantly greater in the study region over a 4-year period compared with the rest of the state (Wald χ2 = 15.73, P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: The IT MATTTRs training for PCP teams in OUD treatment with buprenorphine addressed elements beyond clinician waiver training to make implementation feasible and effectively increased implementation and delivery of this treatment in rural Colorado.

The balint method online: Past, pandemic and future.

The Balint Method has been used worldwide since Michael and Enid Balint developed it in the 1950s. Even with the proliferation of Balint groups there were still doctors and other clinicians who did not have local access. The online format was developed to provide Balint groups to those individuals. With the pandemic the majority of clinicians were unable to get together in person. The online format provided a lifeline for Balint work. This article provides a short history of the development of Balint online, how the pandemic affected further development, and a summary of what was learned from that experience.

Social Media in the Diabetes Community: a Novel Way to Assess Psychosocial Needs in People with Diabetes and Their Caregivers.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes is a chronic disease that, regardless of type, requires intensive, ongoing self-management. As a result, people with diabetes (PWD) often have complex environmental, social, behavioral, and informational needs, many of which are unmet in healthcare settings and systems. To help meet these needs, many PWD interact with diabetes online communities (DOCs), including platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, to share real-life support, problems, and concerns with other PWD, offering a rich source of data on patient-reported outcomes. This article reviews recent psychosocial needs and outcomes identified by studies of DOCs and/or their users. RECENT FINDINGS: Participation in DOCs appears driven by a need for psychosocial support, unmet by providers and the healthcare system, as well as a sense of duty to provide it to others. The most common activities observed in DOCs are giving and receiving various types of support: psychosocial, technical, informational, and self-management. General and specific challenges (e.g., continuous glucose monitoring) as well as frustrations and worries associated with those challenges are commonly expressed, leading to reciprocal sharing, support, and encouragement, in a judgment-free manner, from other PWD. This leads users to feel more understood, empowered, validated, less alone, and more supported. Negative findings were reported very rarely and focused more on how other participants used social media rather than on the exchange of misplaced or dangerous information or advice. Diabetes online communities have grown from unmet needs for problem-solving and psychosocial support for living with a complex condition and from the availability of a new communications medium (i.e., social media). This has enabled communities of peers to both seek and receive support for living with diabetes, providing an important supplement to what is provided in healthcare settings and offering valuable information about what is most important to PWD and their families, with the potential to improve psychosocial care.

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Recent guidelines on cancer screening have provided not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians' support, must decide whether to get screened, which modality to use, and how often to undergo screening. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision-making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. A total of 73 decision aids concerning screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers were reviewed. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need of more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real-world setting. Most studies used sound study designs. Significant variation existed in the setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over one-third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted with regard to which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision-making. Little information was available regarding the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. In this review, the implications for future research, as well as what clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice, are discussed.

Loneliness in Primary Care Patients: A Prevalence Study.

PURPOSE: Loneliness has important health consequences. Little is known, however, about loneliness in primary care patient populations. This study describes the prevalence of loneliness in patients presenting for primary care and associations with self-reported demographic factors, health care utilization, and health-related quality of life. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional surveys of adults presenting for routine care to outpatient primary care practices in 2 diverse practice-based research networks. The 3-item University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale was utilized to determine loneliness. RESULTS: The prevalence of loneliness was 20% (246/1,235). Loneliness prevalence was inversely associated with age (P <.01) and less likely in those who were married (P <.01) or employed (P <.01). Loneliness was more common in those with lower health status (P <.01), including when adjusting for employment and relationship status (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07). Primary care visits (OR = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10), urgent care/emergency department visits (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38), and hospitalizations (OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.31) were associated with loneliness status. There was no significant difference in rates of loneliness between sexes (P = .08), racial categories (P = .57), or rural and urban respondents (P = .42). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that loneliness is common in primary care patients and is associated with adverse health consequences including poorer health status and greater health care utilization. Further work is needed to understand the value of screening for and using interventions to treat loneliness in primary care.

Geographic Characteristics of Loneliness in Primary Care.

Loneliness is associated with poor health outcomes, and there is growing attention on loneliness as a social determinant of health. Our study sought to determine the associations between community factors and loneliness. The Three-Item Loneliness Scale and zip codes of residence were collected in primary care practices in Colorado and Virginia. Living in zip codes with higher unemployment, poor access to health care, lower income, higher proportions of blacks, and poor transportation was associated with higher mean loneliness scores. Future studies that examine interventions addressing loneliness may be more effective if they consider social context and community characteristics.

Mixed method evaluation of Relational Team Development (RELATED) to improve team-based care for complex patients with mental illness in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mental illness are frequently treated in primary care, where Primary Care Providers (PCPs) report feeling ill-equipped to manage their care. Team-based models of care improve outcomes for patients with mental illness, but multiple barriers limit adoption. Barriers include practical issues and psychosocial factors associated with the reorganization of care. Practice facilitation can improve implementation, but does not directly address the psychosocial factors or gaps in PCP skills in managing mental illness. To address these gaps, we developed Relational Team Development (RELATED). METHODS: RELATED is an implementation strategy combining practice facilitation and psychology clinical supervision methodologies to improve implementation of team-based care. It includes PCP-level clinical coaching and a team-level practice change activity. We performed a preliminary assessment of RELATED with a convergent parallel mixed method study in 2 primary care clinics in an urban Federally Qualified Health Center in Southwest, USA, 2017-2018. Study participants included PCPs, clinic staff, and patient representatives. Clinic staff and patients were recruited for the practice change activity only. Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability. Feasibility was assessed as ease of recruitment and implementation. Acceptability was measured in surveys of PCPs and staff and focus groups. We conducted semi-structured focus groups with 3 participant groups in each clinic: PCPs; staff and patients; and leadership. Secondary outcomes were change in pre- post- intervention PCP self-efficacy in mental illness management and team-based care. We conducted qualitative observations to better understand clinic climate. RESULTS: We recruited 18 PCPs, 17 staff members, and 3 patient representatives. We ended recruitment early due to over recruitment. Both clinics developed and implemented practice change activities. The mean acceptability score was 3.7 (SD=0.3) on a 4-point Likert scale. PCPs had a statistically significant increase in their mental illness management self-efficacy [change = 0.9, p-value= <.01]. Focus group comments were largely positive, with PCPs requesting additional coaching. CONCLUSIONS: RELATED was feasible and highly acceptable. It led to positive changes in PCP self-efficacy in Mental Illness Management. If confirmed as an effective implementation strategy, RELATED has the potential to significantly impact implementation of evidence-based interventions for patients with mental illness in primary care.

It's time for a change!: The appreciative inquiry/bootcamp translation to address disparities in the Latino community with autism spectrum disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is underidentified and misidentified in the Latino community, and numerous barriers limit this community's ability to access quality health care for ASD. Appreciative inquiry/boot camp translation (AI/BCT) is a novel method of community engagement that can be used within community-based participatory research partnerships. AI/BCT uses qualitative methods to uncover strategies that the community is already successfully using and develops actionable messages to increase the use of those strategies throughout the community. We describe this method and outline how it is likely to be more effective at reducing disparities related to ASDs in the Latino community than traditional methods. CONCLUSION: AI/BCT is a promising method of community engagement that is responsive to cultural differences. It is a strength-based approach focused on increasing the use of strategies that already work within the community. Therefore, it has the potential to reduce health disparities in the Latino community who have loved ones with autism ASD much more rapidly than traditional methods of inquiry. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Measuring Local Public Health and Primary Care Collaboration: A Practice-Based Research Approach.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the degree of public health and primary care collaboration at the local level and develop a model framework of collaboration, the Community Collaboration Health Model (CCHM). DESIGN: Mixed-methods, cross-sectional surveys, and semistructured, key informant interviews. SETTING: All local health jurisdictions in Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin. PARTICIPANTS: Leaders from each jurisdiction were identified to describe local collaboration. Eighty percent of local health directors completed our survey (n = 193), representing 80% of jurisdictions. The parallel primary care survey had a 31% response rate (n = 128), representing 50% of jurisdictions. Twenty pairs of local health directors and primary care leaders participated in key informant interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Thirty-seven percent of jurisdictions were classified as having strong foundational and energizing characteristics in the model. Ten percent displayed high energizing/low foundational characteristics, 11% had high foundational/low energizing characteristics, and 42% of jurisdictions were low on both. RESULTS: Respondents reported wide variation in relationship factors. They generally agreed that foundational characteristics were present in current working relationships but were less likely to agree that relationships had factors promoting sustainability or innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Both sectors valued working together in principle, yet few did. Identifying shared priorities and achieving tangible benefits may be critical to realizing sustained relationships resulting in population health improvement. Our study reveals broad variation in experiences among local jurisdictions in our sample. Tools, such as the CCHM, and technical assistance may be helpful to support advancing collaboration. Dedicated funding, reimbursement redesign, improved data systems, and data sharing capability are key components of promoting collaboration. Yet, even in the absence of new reimbursement models or funding mechanisms, there are steps leaders can take to build and sustain their relationships. The self-assessment tool and the CCHM can identify opportunities for improving collaboration and link practitioners to strategies.

A Community Engagement Method to Design Patient Engagement Materials for Cardiovascular Health.

PURPOSE: EvidenceNOW Southwest is a cluster-randomized trial evaluating the differential impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) care of engaging patients and communities in practice transformation in addition to standard practice facilitation support. The trial included development of locally tailored CVD patient engagement materials through Boot Camp Translation (BCT), a community engagement process that occurred before practice recruitment but after cluster randomization. METHODS: We introduce a cluster randomization method performed before recruitment of small to medium-size primary care practices in Colorado and New Mexico, which allowed for balanced study arms while minimizing contamination. Engagement materials for the enhanced study arm were developed by means of BCT, which included community members, practice members, and public health professionals from (1) metropolitan Denver, (2) rural northeast Colorado, (3) Albuquerque, and (4) rural southeast New Mexico. Outcome measures were messages and materials from BCTs and population characteristics of study arms after using geographic-based covariate constrained randomization. RESULTS: The 4 BCTs' messages and materials developed by the BCT groups uniquely reflected each community and ranged from family or spiritual values to early prevention or adding relevance to CVD risk. The geographic-based covariate of a cluster randomization method constrained randomization-assigned regions to study arms, allowing BCTs to precede practice recruitment, reduce contamination, and balance populations. CONCLUSIONS: Cluster-randomized trials with community-based interventions present study design and implementation challenges. The BCTs elicited unique contextual messages and materials, suggesting that interventions designed to help primary care practices decrease CVD risk may not be one size fits all.

Balint 2.0: A virtual Balint group for doctors around the world.

Objective Balint groups have shown promise in addressing clinician-patient relationships, clinician burnout, referral practices, and psychological mindedness. However, their traditional format of in-person sessions limits their ability to meet the needs of clinicians practicing in locations without trained Balint leaders. We report on a pilot of an international, internet-based Balint group in collaboration between the World Organization of Family Doctors regional Young Doctors Movements and the International Balint Federation. Method Balint 2.0 arose through interest of the Young Doctors Movements leadership, who approached the International Balint Federation for assistance. Initial discussions and some trialing of videoconference platforms led to monthly group meetings over the internet. Surveys evaluated each individual session as well as quarterly progress of the group. Survey items were borrowed from existing surveys in use by the American and German Balint Societies. Results Session surveys demonstrated the effectiveness of the videoconferencing platform for convening a Balint group, with a majority of participants expressing agreement with survey items evaluating each session. Quarterly survey responses were more positive reflecting agreement with outcomes seen from in-person Balint groups. Conclusions The Balint 2.0 pilot has demonstrated the ability of a Balint group to successfully convene over the internet and reach the common outcomes of a Balint group meeting in-person. The Young Doctors Movements and International Balint Federation plan to expand this work based on this successful pilot. We hope that others may also be able to build on this success with the result that Balint groups are available to clinicians in areas where they might not otherwise be accessible.

Developing a patient and family research advisory panel to include people with significant disease, multimorbidity and advanced age.

Background: People who have experienced illness due to significant disease, multimorbidity and/or advanced age are high utilizers of the health care system. Yet this population has had little formal opportunity to participate in guiding the health care research agenda, and few mechanisms exist for researchers to engage this population in an efficient way. Objective: We describe the process of developing a standing patient and family advisory panel to incorporate this population's voice into research in the USA. Methods: The panel was created at the University of Colorado. Preliminary panel development consisted of a needs assessment, information gathering and participant recruitment. We collected feedback from researchers who consulted with the panel and from panel members in order to better understand the experience from the patient and family member perspective. Results: The patient and family research advisory panel consists of eight advisors who have experience with significant disease, multimorbidity and/or advanced age, two physicians and a program manager. The panel meets every other month for 2 hours with the main purpose of advising diverse researchers on health care studies. Conclusion: People with significant disease, multimorbidity and/or advanced age represent a growing demographic in the USA, and their engagement in research is essential as the model of health care delivery moves from volume to value.

Stakeholder engagement in diabetes self-management: patient preference for peer support and other insights.

Background: Self-management support (SMS) for patients with diabetes can improve adherence to treatment, mitigate disease-related distress, and improve health outcomes. Translating this evidence into real-world practice is needed, as it is not clear which SMS models are acceptable to patients, and feasible and sustainable for primary care practices. Objective: To use the Boot Camp Translation (BCT) method to engage patient, practice, community resource and research stakeholders in translation of evidence about SMS and diabetes distress into mutually acceptable care models and to inform patient-centred outcomes research (PCOR). Participants: Twenty-seven diabetes care stakeholders, including patients and providers from a local network of federally qualified health centres participated. Methods: Stakeholders met in-person and by conference call over the course of 8 months. Subject matter experts provided education on the diabetes SMS evidence. Facilitators engaged the group in discussions about barriers to self-management and opportunities for improving delivery of SMS. Key Results: BCT participants identified lack of social support, personal resources, trust, knowledge and confidence as barriers to diabetes self-management. Intervention opportunities emphasized peer support, use of multidisciplinary care teams and centralized systems for sharing information about community and practice resources. BCT informed new services and a PCOR study proposal. Conclusions: Patients and family engaged in diabetes care research value peer support, group visits, and multidisciplinary care teams as key features of SMS models. SMS should be tailored to an individual patient's health literacy. BCT can be used to engage multiple stakeholders in translation of evidence into practice and to inform PCOR.

Split-Session Focus Group Interviews in the Naturalistic Setting of Family Medicine Offices.

PURPOSE: When recruiting health care professionals to focus group interviews, investigators encounter challenges such as busy clinic schedules, recruitment, and a desire to get candid responses from diverse participants. We sought to overcome these challenges using an innovative, office-based, split-session focus group procedure in a project that elicited feedback from family medicine practices regarding a new preventive services model. This procedure entails allocating a portion of time to the entire group and the remaining time to individual subgroups. We discuss the methodologic procedure and the implications of using this approach for data collection. METHODS: We conducted split-session focus groups with physicians and staff in 4 primary care practices. The procedure entailed 3 sessions, each lasting 30 minutes: the moderator interviewed physicians and staff together, physicians alone, and staff alone. As part of the focus group interview, we elicited and analyzed participant comments about the split-session format and collected observational field notes. RESULTS: The split-session focus group interviews leveraged the naturalistic setting of the office for context-relevant discussion. We tested alternate formats that began in the morning and at lunchtime, to parallel each practice's workflow. The split-session approach facilitated discussion of topics primarily relevant to staff among staff, topics primarily relevant to physicians among physicians, and topics common to all among all. Qualitative feedback on this approach was uniformly positive. CONCLUSION: A split-session focus group interview provides an efficient, effective way to elicit candid qualitative information from all members of a primary care practice in the naturalistic setting where they work.