Improving Adolescent Health Risk Assessment: A Multi-method Pilot Study.

Objectives Given poor compliance by providers with adolescent health risk assessment (HRA) in primary care, we describe the development and feasibility of using a health information technology (HIT)-enhanced HRA to improve the frequency of HRAs in diverse clinical settings, asking adolescents' recall of quality of care as a primary outcome. Methods We conducted focus groups and surveys with key stakeholders (Phase I) , including adolescents, clinic staff and providers to design and implement an intervention in a practice-based research network delivering private, comprehensive HRAs via tablet (Phase II). Providers and adolescents received geo-coded community resources according to individualized risks. Following the point-of-care implementation , we collected patient-reported outcomes using post-visit quality surveys (Phase III). Patient-reported outcomes from intervention and comparison clinics were analyzed using a mixed-model, fitted separately for each survey domain. Results Stakeholders agreed upon an HIT-enhanced HRA (Phase I). Twenty-two academic and community practices in north-central Florida then recruited 609 diverse adolescents (14-18 years) during primary care visits over 6 months; (mean patients enrolled = 28; median = 20; range 1-116; Phase II). Adolescents receiving the intervention later reported higher receipt of confidential/private care and counseling related to emotions and relationships (adjusted scores 0.42 vs 0.08 out of 1.0, p < .01; 0.85 vs 0.57, p < .001, respectively, Phase III) than those receiving usual care. Both are important quality indicators for adolescent well-child visits. Conclusions Stakeholder input was critical to the acceptability of the HIT-enhanced HRA. Patient recruitment data indicate that the intervention was feasible in a variety of clinical settings and the pilot evaluation data indicate that the intervention may improve adolescents' perceptions of high quality care.

Provider factors associated with disparities in human papillomavirus vaccination among low-income 9- to 17-year-old girls.

BACKGROUND: Many women who develop cervical cancer are eligible for or are participants of Medicaid. Providing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to girls enrolled in Medicaid may reduce cervical cancer disparities in low-income and minority women. This study evaluated provider characteristics associated with HPV vaccination among 9- to 17-year-old female Medicaid enrollees. METHODS: A random sample of 800 providers from the Florida Medicaid Master Provider File was mailed a survey in October 2009 that evaluated demographic and practice characteristics, HPV information and knowledge, barriers to HPV vaccination, vaccine practices, and vaccine recommendation practices. To measure HPV vaccination, Medicaid claims data were used to calculate the proportion of eligible patients who received at least 1 dose of the vaccine from participating providers within the study period. Provider factors associated with vaccination at the bivariate level were evaluated in a multiple linear regression model. RESULTS: The response rate was 68.3% (N = 485). After excluding ineligible respondents, the current analysis included 433 providers. HPV vaccination prevalence ranged from 0% to 61.9% (M = 20.4, standard deviation = 14.5). HPV vaccination rates were higher among providers who were pediatricians, had a private practice, practiced in a single specialty setting, were providers under the Vaccines for Children program, saw primarily non-Hispanic white patients, used 2 or more strategies for vaccine series completion, and did not refer out for HPV vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Despite financial coverage for Medicaid-eligible girls, HPV vaccination rates are low. Study findings can be used to target health services interventions to providers least likely to administer HPV vaccine to female Medicaid enrollees.

Head-to-head comparisons of quality of life instruments for young adult survivors of childhood cancer.

PURPOSE: Few studies examine the relevance of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments for young adult survivors of childhood cancer (YASCC). This study compared the psychometric properties of two survivor-specific instruments, the Quality of Life-Cancer Survivor (QOL-CS) and Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivor (QLACS). METHODS: Data from 151 YASCC who enrolled in cancer/tumor registries of two medical centers were used. We examined construct validity by conducting confirmatory factor analysis using indices of chi-square statistic, comparative fit index, and root mean square error of approximation. We examined convergent/discriminant validity by comparing Pearson's correlation coefficients of homogeneous (e.g., physical functioning and pain) of both instruments versus heterogeneous domains (e.g., physical and psychological functioning). We assessed known-groups validity by examining the extent to which HRQOL differed by late effects and comorbid conditions and calculated relative validity (RV) defined as contrasting F-statistics of individual domains to the domain with the lowest F-statistic. Superior known-groups validity is observed if a domain of one instrument demonstrates a higher RV than other domains of the instruments. RESULTS: YASCC data cannot replicate the constructs both instruments intend to measure, suggesting poor construct validity. Correlations of between-homogeneous and between-heterogeneous domains of both instruments were not discernible, suggesting poor convergent/discriminant validity. Both instruments were equally able to differentiate HRQOL between YASCC with and without late effects and comorbid conditions, suggesting similar known-groups validity. CONCLUSIONS: Neither instrument is superior. Item response theory is suggested to select high-quality items from different instruments to improve HRQOL measure for YASCC.