Caregiver and Clinician Perspectives on Missed Well-Child Visits.

PURPOSE: Despite the benefits of well-child care visits, up to one-half of these visits are missed. Little is known about why children miss them, so we undertook a qualitative study to elucidate these factors. METHODS: We interviewed 17 caregivers whose children had missed well-child visits and 6 clinicians, focusing on 3 areas: the value of well-child visits, barriers to attendance, and facilitators of attendance. Transcripts were analyzed with a grounded theory approach and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Caregivers and clinicians identified similar important aspects of well-child visits: immunizations, detection of disease, and monitoring of growth and development. Both groups identified similar barriers to attendance: transportation, difficulty taking time off from work, child care, and other social stressors. CONCLUSIONS: Further work to explore how addressing social determinants of health might improve attendance of well-child visits is needed.

A state-level study of opioid use disorder treatment access and neonatal abstinence syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Adult opioid use and neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) are growing public health problems in the United States (U.S.). Our objective was to determine how opioid use disorder treatment access impacts the relationship between adult opioid use and NAS. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional state-level ecologic study using 36 states with available Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases in 2014. Opioid use disorder treatment access was determined by the: 1) proportion of people needing but not receiving substance use treatment, 2) density of buprenorphine-waivered physicians, and 3) proportion of individuals in outpatient treatment programs (OTPs). The incidence of NAS was defined as ICD-9 code 779.5 (drug withdrawal syndrome in newborn) from any discharge diagnosis field per 1000 live births in that state. RESULTS: Unmet need for substance use disorder treatment correlated with NAS (r = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.26-0.73). The correlation between adult illicit drug use/dependence and NAS was higher in states with a lower density of buprenorphine-waivered physicians and individuals in OTPs. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of opioid use disorder treatment access dampened the correlation between illicit drug use/dependence and NAS. Future studies using community- or individual-level data may be better poised to answer the question of whether or not opioid use disorder treatment access improves NAS relative to adult opioid use.

The Scholarly Output of Faculty in Family Medicine Departments.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While prior efforts have assessed the scope of family medicine research, the methods have differed, and the efforts have not been routinely repeated. The purpose of this analysis was to quantify publications, journals, citations, and funding of US family medicine faculty and identify factors associated with these outcomes. METHODS: We identified faculty in US departments of family medicine through website searches and performed a cross-sectional study. We included 2015 publications in peer-reviewed journals indexed in Web of Science (a database that aggregates a wide range of catalogs). We calculated descriptive statistics assessing the publications, journals, and citations for family medicine faculty. We conducted bivariate analyses by department region, department size, public/private status, faculty title, and faculty degree. RESULTS: We identified 6,738 faculty at 134 departments, with 15% of faculty having any publications. Family medicine faculty published 3,002 times (mean of 2.9 among those with any publications). The mean number of publications was highest for faculty in departments in the West (3.7), in the third quartile for size (3.6), with a professor title (4.0), and with combined MD or DO/PhD degrees (4.3). Faculty published 84% of the time in non-family medicine journals and were cited 13,548 times. Faculty listed federal funding for over half (52%) of the times they published. CONCLUSIONS: Publications from family medicine faculty are not concentrated in family medicine journals and are being referenced by others. These figures are larger than prior estimates and should be tracked over time.

Clinician Experiences with Screening for Social Needs in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Despite clear evidence demonstrating the influence of social determinants on health, whether and how clinicians should address these determinants remain unclear. We aimed to understand primary care clinicians' experiences of administering a social needs screening instrument. METHODS: Using a prospective, observational design, we identified patients living in communities with lower education and income seen by 17 clinicians from 12 practices in northern Virginia. Before office visits, patients completed social needs surveys, which probed about their quality of life, education, housing, finances, substance use, transportation, social connections, physical activity, and food access. Clinicians then reviewed the completed surveys with patients. Concurrently, clinicians participated in a series of learning collaboratives to consider how to address social needs as part of care and completed diary entries about how knowing the patient's social needs influenced care after seeing each patient. RESULTS: Out of a total of 123 patients, 106 (86%) reported a social need. Excluding physical activity, 71% reported a social need, although only 3% wanted help. Clinicians reported that knowing the patient had a social need changed care delivery in 23% of patients and helped improve interactions with and knowledge of the patient in 53%. Clinicians reported that assessing social needs is difficult and resource intensive and that there were insufficient resources to help patients with identified needs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians reported that knowing patients' social needs changed what they did and improved communication for many patients. However, more evidence is needed regarding the benefit of social needs screening in primary care before widespread implementation.

Gaps in Well-Child Care Attendance Among Primary Care Clinics Serving Low-Income Families.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is unclear which specific well-child visits (WCVs) are most frequently missed and whether age-specific patterns of attendance differ by race or insurance type. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children 0 to 6 years old between 2011 and 2016 within 2 health networks spanning 20 states. WCVs were identified by using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and 10th Revisions and Current Procedural Terminology codes. We calculated adherence to the 13 American Academy of Pediatrics-recommended WCVs from birth to age 6 years. To address data completeness, we made 2 adherence calculations after a child's last recorded WCV: 1 in which we assumed all subsequent WCVs were attended outside the network and 1 in which we assumed none were. RESULTS: We included 152 418 children in our analysis. Most children were either publicly insured (77%) or uninsured (14%). The 2-, 4-, and 6-month visits were the most frequently attended (63% [assuming no outside care after the last recorded WCV] to 90% [assuming outside care]), whereas the 15- and 18-months visits (41%-75%) and 4-year visit (19%-49%) were the least frequently attended. Patients who were publicly insured and uninsured (versus privately insured) had higher odds of missing WCVs. Hispanic and Asian American (versus non-Hispanic white) patients had higher odds of attending WCVs. DISCUSSION: The 15- and 18-month WCVs as well as the 4-year WCV are the least frequently attended WCVs. The former represent opportunities to identify developmental delays, and the latter represents an opportunity to assess school readiness.