Asthma morbidity measures across Black ethnic subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Black adults are disproportionately affected by asthma and are often considered a homogeneous group in research studies despite cultural and ancestral differences. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if asthma morbidity differs across adults in Black ethnic subgroups. METHODS: Adults with moderate-severe asthma were recruited across the continental United States and Puerto Rico for the PREPARE (PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief) trial. Using self-identifications, we categorized multiethnic Black (ME/B) participants (n = 226) as Black Latinx participants (n = 146) or Caribbean, continental African, or other Black participants (n = 80). African American (AA/B) participants (n = 518) were categorized as Black participants who identified their ethnicity as being American. Baseline characteristics and retrospective asthma morbidity measures (self-reported exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids [SCs], emergency department/urgent care [ED/UC] visits, hospitalizations) were compared across subgroups using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Compared with AA/B participants, ME/B participants were more likely to be younger, residing in the US Northeast, and Spanish speaking and to have lower body mass index, health literacy, and <1 comorbidity, but higher blood eosinophil counts. In a multivariable analysis, ME/B participants were significantly more likely to have ED/UC visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.04-1.72) and SC use (IRR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.00-1.62) for asthma than AA/B participants. Of the ME/B subgroups, Puerto Rican Black Latinx participants (n = 120) were significantly more likely to have ED/UC visits (IRR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.22-2.21) and SC use for asthma (IRR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.06-1.92) than AA/B participants. There were no significant differences in hospitalizations for asthma among subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: ME/B adults, specifically Puerto Rican Black Latinx adults, have higher risk of ED/UC visits and SC use for asthma than other Black subgroups.

Integrating a focus on health equity in implementation science: Case examples from the national cancer institute's implementation science in cancer control centers (ISC3) network.

Background: A Health Equity Task Force (HETF) of members from seven Centers funded by the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Implementation Science in Cancer Control Centers (ISC3) network sought to identify case examples of how Centers were applying a focus on health equity in implementation science to inform future research and capacity-building efforts. Methods: HETF members at each ISC3 collected information on how health equity was conceptualized, operationalized, and addressed in initial research and capacity-building efforts across the seven ISC3 Centers funded in 2019-2020. Each Center completed a questionnaire assessing five health equity domains central to implementation science (e.g., community engagement; implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs); and engaging underrepresented scholars). Data generated illustrative examples from these five domains. Results: Centers reported a range of approaches focusing on health equity in implementation research and capacity-building efforts, including (1) engaging diverse community partners/settings in making decisions about research priorities and projects; (2) applying health equity within a single TMF applied across projects or various TMFs used in specific projects; (3) evaluating health equity in operationalizing and measuring health and implementation outcomes; (4) building capacity for health equity-focused implementation science among trainees, early career scholars, and partnering organizations; and (5) leveraging varying levels of institutional resources and efforts to engage, include, and support underrepresented scholars. Conclusions: Examples of approaches to integrating health equity across the ISC3 network can inform other investigators and centers' efforts to build capacity and infrastructure to support growth and expansion of health equity-focused implementation science.

A randomized, parallel group, pragmatic comparative-effectiveness trial comparing medication-assisted treatment induction methods in primary care practices: The HOMER study protocol.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) represents a public health crisis in the United States. Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) with buprenorphine in primary care is a proven OUD treatment strategy. MOUD induction is when patients begin withdrawal and receive the first doses of buprenorphine. Differences between induction methods might influence short-term stabilization, long-term maintenance, and quality of life. This paper describes the protocol for a study designed to: (1) compare short-term stabilization and long-term maintenance treatment engagement in MOUD in patients receiving office, home, or telehealth induction and (2) identify clinically-relevant practice and patient characteristics associated with successful long-term treatment. The study design is a randomized, parallel group, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial of three care models of MOUD induction in 100 primary care practices in the United States. Eligible patients are at least 16 years old, have been identified by their clinician as having opioid dependence and would benefit from MOUD. Patients will be randomized to one of three induction comparators: office, home, or telehealth induction. Primary outcomes are buprenorphine medication-taking and illicit opioid use at 30, 90, and 270 days post-induction. Secondary outcomes include quality of life and potential mediators of treatment maintenance (intentions, planning, automaticity). Potential moderators include social determinants of health, substance use history and appeal, and executive function. An intent to treat analysis will assess effects of the interventions on long-term treatment, using general/generalized linear mixed models, adjusted for covariates, for the outcomes analysis. Analysis includes practice- and patient-level random effects for hierarchical/longitudinal data. No large-scale, randomized comparative effectiveness research has compared home induction to office or telehealth MOUD induction on long-term outcomes for patients with OUD seen in primary care settings. The results of this study will offer primary care providers evidence and guidance in selecting the most beneficial induction method(s) for specific patients.

Research interests of family physicians applying for research training.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing need for research to support the practice of high quality family medicine. The Family Medicine Discovers Rapid Cycle Scientific Discovery and Innovation (FMD RapSDI) program is designed to build capacity for family medicine scientific discovery and innovation in the United States. Our objective was to describe the applicants and research questions submitted to the RapSDI program in 2019 and 2020. METHODS: Descriptive analysis for applicant characteristics and rapid qualitative analysis using principles of grounded theory and content analysis to examine the research questions and associated themes. We examined differences by year of application submission and the applicant's career stage. RESULTS: Sixty-five family physicians submitted 70 applications to the RapSDI program; 45 in 2019 and 25 in 2020. 41% of applicants were in practice for five years or less (n = 27), 18% (n = 12) were in in practice 6-10 years, and 40% (n = 26) were ≥ 11 years in practice. With significant diversity in questions, the most common themes were studies of new innovations (n = 20, 28%), interventions to reduce cost (n = 20, 28%), improving screening or diagnosis (n = 19, 27%), ways to address mental or behavioral health (n = 18, 26%), and improving care for vulnerable populations (n = 18, 26%). CONCLUSION: Applicants proposed a range of research questions and described why family medicine is optimally suited to address the questions. Applicants had a desire to develop knowledge to help other family physicians, their patients, and their communities. Findings from this study can help inform other family medicine research capacity building initiatives.

Preference for and impact of telehealth vs in-person asthma visits among Black and Latinx adults.

BACKGROUND: Black and Latinx adults experience disproportionate asthma-related morbidity and limited specialty care access. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic expanded telehealth use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate visit type (telehealth [TH] vs in-person [IP]) preferences and the impact of visit type on asthma outcomes among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: For this PREPARE trial ancillary study, visit type preference was surveyed by e-mail or telephone post-trial. Emergency medical record data on visit types and asthma outcomes were available for a subset (March 2020 to April 2021). Characteristics associated with visit type preferences, and relationships between visit type and asthma outcomes (control [Asthma Control Test] and asthma-related quality of life [Asthma Symptom Utility Index]), were tested using multivariable regression. RESULTS: A total of 866 participants consented to be surveyed, with 847 respondents. Among the participants with asthma care experience with both visit types, 42.0% preferred TH for regular checkups, which associated with employment (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.39; P = .02), lower asthma medication adherence (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11; P = .03), and having more historical emergency department and urgent care asthma visits (OR = 1.10 for each additional visit; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18; P = .02), after adjustment. Emergency medical record data were available for 98 participants (62 TH, 36 IP). Those with TH visits were more likely Latinx, from the Southwest, employed, using inhaled corticosteroid-only controller therapy, with lower body mass index, and lower self-reported asthma medication adherence vs those with IP visits only. Both groups had comparable Asthma Control Test (18.4 vs 18.9, P = .52) and Asthma Symptom Utility Index (0.79 vs 0.84, P = .16) scores after adjustment. CONCLUSION: TH may be similarly efficacious as and often preferred over IP among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, especially for regular checkups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02995733.

A Unique Model and Workforce to Address Health-Related Social Needs and Health Equity: Regional Health Connectors in Colorado.

Unmet health-related social needs contribute to high morbidity and poor population health. Improving social conditions are likely to reduce health disparities and improve the health of the overall U.S. population. The primary objective of this article is to describe an innovative workforce model, called Regional Health Connectors (RHCs), and how they address health-related social needs in Colorado. This is a program evaluation that analyzed field notes and interview data from 2021-2022. We applied our findings to the framework developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's (NASEM's) report on strengthening social care integration into health care (2019). We found that RHCs address the following health-related social needs most commonly: food insecurity (n = 18 of 21 regions or 85% of all regions), housing (n = 17 or 81% of all regions), transportation (n = 11 or 52% of all regions), employment opportunities (n = 10 or 48% of all regions), and income/financial assistance (n = 11 or 52% of all regions). RHCs interacted across many sectors to address health-related social needs and provided multiple types of support to primary care practices at the organizational level. Examples of emerging impact of RHCs are described and mapped onto the NASEM framework. Findings from this program evaluation add to the growing landscape of knowledge and importance of detecting and addressing health-related social needs. We conclude that RHCs are a unique and emerging workforce that addresses multiple domains needed to integrate social care into health care.

Implementation strategies preferred by primary care clinicians to facilitate cancer prevention and control activities.

Key clinical and community members need to be involved in the identification of feasible and impactful implementation strategies for translation of evidence-based interventions into practice. While a wide range of implementation strategies has been developed, there is little research on their applicability for cancer prevention and control (CPC) efforts in primary care. We conducted a survey of primary care physicians to identify implementation strategies they perceive as most feasible and impactful. The survey included both primary prevention behavior change counseling and cancer screening issues. Analyses contrasted ratings of feasibility and impact of nine implementation strategies, and among clinicians in different settings with a focus on comparisons between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural settings. We recruited a convenience sample of 326 respondents from a wide range of practice types from four practice-based research networks in 49 states and including 177 clinicians in rural settings. Ratings of impact were somewhat higher than those for feasibility. Few of the nine implementation strategies were high on both impact and feasibility. Only 'adapting to my practice' was rated higher than a 4 ("moderate") on both impact and feasibility. There were relatively few differences between rural and non-rural clinicians or associated with other clinician or setting characteristics. There is considerable variability in perceived impact and feasibility of implementation strategies for CPC activities among family medicine clinicians. It is important to assess both feasibility and impact of implementation strategies as well as their generalizability across settings. Our results suggest that optimal strategies to implement evidence-based CPC activities will likely need to be adapted for primary care settings. Future research is needed to replicate these findings and identify practical, implementation partner informed implementation strategies.

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.

Health Care Professionals' Herpes Zoster Awareness and Vaccine Recommendations for Patients with COPD.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess health care professionals' (HCPs) knowledge of an increased herpes zoster (HZ) risk and burden for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), HCPs' familiarity with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' (ACIP) HZ vaccine recommendations, and the HCPs' current adult vaccine practices. Another objective was to evaluate the impact of a short educational video on knowledge and future vaccine intent. Participants and Methods: An online survey of family physicians (FPs), pulmonologists, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) querying demographics, awareness of ACIP HZ vaccine recommendations, and HZ burdens and risks in patients with COPD and their current recommendations for HZ, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines was conducted. For those not strongly recommending HZ vaccines concordant with ACIP recommendations, a 5-minute educational video was presented, and post video questions assessed future intended HZ vaccine recommendations. Results: Among 1020 HCP responders, awareness and ACIP concordant HZ vaccine recommendations ranged from 59.0% to 95.2% across HCPs. Lowest recommendation rates were consistently reported by pulmonologists for the 2-dose HZ vaccine beginning at age 50; for the 2-dose vaccine use in those with prior 1-dose HZ vaccinations, and for those with prior HZ. Among all HCPs, HZ vaccine recommendations were lower than for pneumococcal and influenza vaccines. After viewing the educational video, reported vaccine recommendation intent increased significantly in all groups of HCPs, as did awareness of increased HZ risk among patients with COPD. Conclusions: Significant educational opportunities exist for HCPs related to HZ and its vaccine prevention among patients with COPD which may be responsive to brief, targeted interventions.

Priorities for improvement across cancer and non-cancer related preventive services among rural and non-rural clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: It is not realistic for most clinicians to perform the multitude of recommended preventive primary care services. This is especially true in low resource and rural settings, creating challenges to delivering high-quality care. This study collected stakeholder input from clinicians on which services they most need to improve. METHODS: The authors conducted a survey of primary care physicians 9-12/2021, with an emphasis on rural practices, to assess areas in which clinicians felt the greatest needs for improvement. The survey focused on primary prevention (behavior change counseling) and cancer screening, and contrasted needs for improvement for these services vs. other types of screening, and between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural practices. RESULTS: There were 326 respondents from 4 different practice-based research networks, a wide range of practice types, 49 states and included 177 clinicians in rural settings. Respondents rated the need to improve delivery of primary prevention counseling services highest, with needs for nutrition and dietary assessment and counseling rated highest followed by physical activity and with almost no differences between rural and nonrural. Needs for improvement in cancer screenings were rated higher than non-cancer screenings, except for blood pressure screening. CONCLUSIONS: Both rural and nonrural primary care clinicians feel a need for improvement, especially with primary prevention activities. Although future research is needed to replicate these findings with different populations and other types of preventive service activities, greater priority should be given to development of practical, stakeholder informed assistance and resources for primary care to conduct primary prevention.

Caribbean Latinx with moderate-severe asthma bear greater asthma morbidity than other Latinx.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic/Latinx (HL) ethnicity encompasses racially and culturally diverse subgroups. Studies suggest that Puerto Ricans (PR) may bear greater asthma-related morbidity than Mexicans, but these were conducted in children or had limited clinical characterization. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether disparities in asthma morbidity exist among HL adult subgroups. METHODS: Adults with moderate-severe asthma were recruited from US clinics, including from Puerto Rico, for the Person Empowered Asthma Relief (PREPARE) trial. Considering the shared heritage between PR and other Caribbean HL (Cubans and Dominicans [C&D]), the investigators compared baseline self-reported clinical characteristics between Caribbean HL (CHL) (PR and C&D: n = 457) and other HLs (OHL) (Mexicans, Spaniards, Central/South Americans; n = 141), and between CHL subgroups (C&D [n = 56] and PR [n = 401]). This study compared asthma morbidity measures (self-reported exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits, hospitalizations, health care utilization) through negative binomial regression. RESULTS: CHL compared to OHL were similar in age, body mass index, poverty status, blood eosinophils, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide but were prescribed more asthma controller therapies. Relative to OHL, CHL had significantly increased odds of asthma exacerbations (odds ratio [OR]: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.4-2.4), ED/UC visits (OR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.4-2.5), hospitalization (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.06-3.7), and health care utilization (OR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.44-2.53). Of the CHL subgroups, PR had significantly increased odds of asthma exacerbations, ED/UC visits, hospitalizations, and health care utilization compared to OHL, whereas C&D only had increased odds of exacerbations compared to OHL. PR compared to C&D had greater odds of ED/UC and health care utilization. CONCLUSIONS: CHL adults, compared with OHL, adults reported nearly twice the asthma morbidity; these differences are primarily driven by PR. Novel interventions are needed to reduce morbidity in this highly impacted population.

Socioeconomic status associates with worse asthma morbidity among Black and Latinx adults.

BACKGROUND: Asthma disproportionately affects African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) patients and individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES), but the relationship between SES and asthma morbidity within these racial/ethnic groups is inadequately understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between SES and asthma morbidity among AA/B and H/L adults with moderate to severe asthma using multidomain SES frameworks and mediation analyses. METHODS: We analyzed enrollment data from the PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief randomized trial, evaluating inhaled corticosteroid supplementation to rescue therapy. We tested for direct and indirect relationships between SES and asthma morbidity using structural equation models. For SES, we used a latent variable defined by poverty, education, and unemployment. For asthma morbidity, we used self-reported asthma exacerbations in the year before enrollment (corticosteroid bursts, emergency room/urgent care visits, or hospitalizations), and Asthma Control Test scores. We tested for mediation via health literacy, perceived stress, and self-reported discrimination. All models adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 990 AA/B and H/L adults, low SES (latent variable) was directly associated with hospitalizations (ß = 0.24) and worse Asthma Control Test scores (ß = 0.20). Stress partially mediated the relationship between SES and increased emergency room/urgent care visits and worse asthma control (ß = 0.03 and = 0.05, respectively). Individual SES domains were directly associated with asthma morbidity. Stress mediated indirect associations between low educational attainment and unemployment with worse asthma control (ß = 0.05 and = 0.06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Lower SES is directly, and indirectly through stress, associated with asthma morbidity among AA/B and H/L adults. Identification of stressors and relevant management strategies may lessen asthma-related morbidity among these populations.

Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Glucocorticoid in Black and Latinx Adults with Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Black and Latinx patients bear a disproportionate burden of asthma. Efforts to reduce the disproportionate morbidity have been mostly unsuccessful, and guideline recommendations have not been based on studies in these populations. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label trial, we randomly assigned Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma to use a patient-activated, reliever-triggered inhaled glucocorticoid strategy (beclomethasone dipropionate, 80 µg) plus usual care (intervention) or to continue usual care. Participants had one instructional visit followed by 15 monthly questionnaires. The primary end point was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations. Secondary end points included monthly asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Test (ACT; range, 5 [poor] to 25 [complete control]), quality of life as measured with the Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ASUI; range, 0 to 1, with lower scores indicating greater impairment), and participant-reported missed days of work, school, or usual activities. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 1201 adults (603 Black and 598 Latinx), 600 were assigned to the intervention group and 601 to the usual-care group. The annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.78) in the intervention group and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.92) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.999; P = 0.048). ACT scores increased by 3.4 points (95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) in the intervention group and by 2.5 points (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.8) in the usual-care group (difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.2); ASUI scores increased by 0.12 points (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.13) and 0.08 points (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.09), respectively (difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.05). The annualized rate of missed days was 13.4 in the intervention group and 16.8 in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95). Serious adverse events occurred in 12.2% of the participants, with an even distribution between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, provision of an inhaled glucocorticoid and one-time instruction on its use, added to usual care, led to a lower rate of severe asthma exacerbations. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02995733.).

Socioeconomic impact of COVID-19 and willingness to be vaccinated in African American/Black and Hispanic/Latinx adults.

PURPOSE: To describe the socioeconomic and healthcare-related effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and willingness to receive a free COVID-19 vaccine, among African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) adults with asthma currently enrolled in a large trial. METHODS: The present analysis is a sub-study of the PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE) study, a pragmatic study of 1201 AA/B and H/L adults with asthma. A monthly questionnaire was completed by a subset of PREPARE participants (n = 325) during May-August, 2020. The 5-item questionnaire assessed self-reported impact of COVID-19 on respondents' ability to obtain asthma medications, medical care quality, employment, income and ability to pay bills; and willingness to get a free COVID-19 vaccine. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed to investigate factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: Of 325 survey respondents (25% AA/B, 75% H/L), the majority reported no impact of COVID-19 on medical care or ability to get asthma medications. Approximately half of employed respondents experienced a lower level of employment or job loss, and approximately half reported having difficulty paying bills during the pandemic. Thirty-five percent of respondents reported unwillingness and 31% reported being somewhat likely to receive a free COVID-19 vaccine. AA/B race/ethnicity and poorer reported physical health were associated with a higher likelihood of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. CONCLUSION: AA/B and H/L adults with asthma may experience changes in the quality of their asthma care and increased socioeconomic stressors as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and may be hesitant or unwilling to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

Nebulizer Use by Black and Latinx Adults with Moderate to Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Generally, a short-acting beta-2 agonist (SABA) delivered via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) is recommended for quick relief of asthma symptoms. However, in the PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE) pragmatic trial, 67% of patients reported having used a nebulizer for SABA administration. OBJECTIVE: To understand preferences, experiences, and decision making regarding the use of nebulizers in Black and Latinx adults with uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: We interviewed 40 of the 1,201 PREPARE patients employing a matrix analysis. Those interviewed were Black (n = 20) and Latinx (n = 20) adults with uncontrolled asthma seeking primary or specialty care in clinics throughout the United States. Data were analyzed used a Rapid Assessment Procedures qualitative methodology, informed by grounded theory. RESULTS: Substudy participants, on average, reported using a nebulizer 3.5 times/wk. Daily use was common, and frequency ranged from less than daily to up to 6 times daily. Nearly all participants reported a longstanding history of nebulizer use. Participants tended to use their nebulizer at home, and some shared it with others in the home. Many reported preferring a nebulizer over an MDI for relief of severe symptoms and to avoid emergency room visits or hospitalizations. The extent to which cost affected nebulizer use varied among participants. CONCLUSIONS: Despite asthma guideline recommendations that MDIs be used rather than nebulizers for SABA administration, nebulizer use was common among PREPARE study participants. Clinicians should explore patients' history and experiences with nebulizer use as part of evaluation of asthma control.

Blood Pressure Visit Intensification in Treatment (BP-Visit) Findings: a Pragmatic Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Shortening time between office visits for patients with uncontrolled hypertension represents a potential strategy for improving blood pressure (BP). OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the impact of multimodal strategies on time between visits and on improvement in systolic BP (SBP) among patients with uncontrolled hypertension. DESIGN: We used a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial with three wedges involving 12 federally qualified health centers with three study periods: pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with diagnosed hypertension and two BPs ≥ 140/90 pre-randomization and at least one visit during post-randomization control period (N = 4277). INTERVENTION: The core intervention included three, clinician hypertension group-based trainings, monthly clinician feedback reports, and monthly meetings with practice champions to facilitate implementation. MAIN MEASURES: The main measures were change in time between visits when BP was not controlled and change in SBP. A secondary planned outcome was changed in BP control among all hypertension patients in the practices. KEY RESULTS: Median follow-up times were 34, 32, and 32 days and the mean SBPs were 142.0, 139.5, and 139.8 mmHg, respectively. In adjusted analyses, the intervention did not improve time to the next visit compared with control periods, HR = 1.01 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.04). SBP was reduced by 1.13 mmHg (95% CI: -2.10, -0.16), but was not maintained during follow-up. Hypertension control (< 140/90) in the practices improved by 5% during intervention (95% CI: 2.6%, 7.3%) and was sustained post-intervention 5.4% (95% CI: 2.6%, 8.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention failed to shorten follow-up time for patients with uncontrolled BP and showed very small, statistically significant improvements in SBP that were not sustained. However, the intervention showed statistically and clinically relevant improvement in hypertension control suggesting that the intervention affected clinician decision-making regarding BP control apart from visit frequency. Future practice initiatives should consider hypertension control as a primary outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL: www.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02164331.

Loneliness, Burnout, and Other Types of Emotional Distress Among Family Medicine Physicians: Results From a National Survey.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the prevalence of loneliness, burnout, and depressive symptoms from a national sample of family medicine physicians. DISCUSSION: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 401 physicians who were members of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and AAFP National Research Network between December 7, 2019, and January 20, 2020. The study participants completed an anonymous, 30-item survey measuring loneliness, burnout, symptoms of depression, fatigue, in addition to providing demographic information. RESULTS: The response rates were 16.3% (401 of 2456) for all the physicians, 7.0% (113 of 1606) for the AAFP NRN member physicians, and 33.9% (288 of 850) for the AAFP member insight physicians. The prevalence of loneliness, burnout, and depressive symptoms was 44.9% (165 of 367), 45.1% (181 of 401), and 44.3% (163 of 368) respectively. The physicians who experienced a greater feeling of loneliness compared with those who experienced a lesser feeling of loneliness were more likely to report at least 1 manifestation of burnout (69.1% vs 27.4%, P < .01), screen positive for depression (66.0% vs 27.6%, P < .01), and experience a higher degree of fatigue (59.5% vs 32.4%, P < .01). Depressive symptoms (odds ratio [OR] = 5.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.64-7.94; P < .001), overwhelming exhaustion (OR = 7.19; 95% CI, 4.03 to 12.02; P < .001), and burnout (OR = 4.61; 95% CI, 2.96-7.19; P < .001) were associated with loneliness status. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that loneliness is common in practicing family medicine physicians and is significantly associated with burnout and depression. Future work is needed to understand the various interactions and relationships among loneliness, burnout, and depression to help inform effective interventions.

How Comprehensive Medication Management Contributes to Foundational Elements of Primary Care.

Pharmacists are more often being recognized as a critical component of the primary care team. Previous literature has not clearly made the connection to how pharmacists and comprehensive medication management (CMM) contribute to recognized foundational elements of primary care. In this reflection, we examine how the delivery of CMM both supports and aligns with Starfield's 4 Cs of Primary Care. We illustrate how the delivery of CMM supports first contact through increased provider access, continuity through empanelment, comprehensiveness by addressing unmet medication needs, and coordination through collaborating with the primary care team and broader team. The provision of CMM addresses critical unmet medication-related needs in primary care and is aligned with the foundational elements of primary care.