Development and Testing of a Mobile App to Collect Social Determinants of Health Data in Cancer Settings: Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDOH) such as lack of basic resources, housing, transportation, and social isolation play an important role for patients on the cancer care continuum. Health systems' current technological solutions for identifying and managing patients' SDOH data largely focus on information recorded in the electronic health record by providers, which is often inaccessible to patients to contribute to or modify. OBJECTIVE: We developed and tested a patient-centric SDOH screening tool designed for use on patients' personal mobile phone that preserves patient privacy and confidentiality, collects information about the unmet social needs of patients with cancer, and communicates them to the provider. METHODS: We interviewed 22 patients with cancer, oncologists, and social workers associated with a US-based comprehensive cancer center to better understand how patients' SDOH information is collected and reported. After triangulating data obtained from thematic analysis of interviews, an environmental scan, and a literature search of validated tools to collect SDOH data, we developed an SDOH screening tool mobile app and conducted a pilot study of 16 dyadic pairs of patients and cancer care team members at the same cancer center. We collected patient SDOH data using 36 survey items covering 7 SDOH domains and used validated scales and follow-up interviews to assess the app's usability and acceptability among patients and cancer care team members. RESULTS: Formative interviews with patients and care team members revealed that transportation, financial challenges, food insecurity, and low health literacy were common SDOH challenges and that a mobile app that collected those data, shared those data with care team members, and offered supportive resources could be useful and valuable. In the pilot study, 25% (4/16) of app-using patients reported having at least one of the abovementioned social needs; the most common social need was social isolation (7/16, 44%). Patients rated the mobile app as easy to use, accurately capturing their SDOH, and preserving their privacy but suggested that the app could be more helpful by connecting patients to actual resources. Providers reported high acceptability and usability of the app. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a brief, patient-centric, mobile app-based SDOH screening tool can effectively capture SDOH of patients with cancer for care team members in a way that preserves patient privacy and that is acceptable and usable for patients and care team members. However, only collecting SDOH information is not sufficient; usefulness can be increased by connecting patients directly to resources to address their unmet social needs.

Impact of unsolicited reporting notifications on providers' prescribing behavior: An experimental study on Maryland PDMP data.

BACKGROUND: Unsolicited Reporting Notifications(URNs) have been a component of Maryland's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) since 2016. We evaluated the effect of URNs on providers' prescription behaviors. METHODS: This is a quasi-experimental study of providers who were issued at least one URN from January 2018 to April 2021. Providers for whom URNs were not successfully delivered were designated as a comparison group. The outcome variables were average daily opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions, average morphine milligram equivalents per patient, and proportion of overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine, either with or without muscle relaxant prescriptions. Changes were compared before versus after the issuance of a URN among the intervention and comparison groups using "Generalized Estimation Equation" and "Generalized Linear" Models. We also conducted stratified analyses by types of URN, including notifications for multiple provider episodes (MPE), overdose fatality (ODF), and dangerous drug combinations (DDC). RESULTS: The average daily number of opioids prescriptions (3.3% decrease in the intervention group vs 22.7% increase in the comparison group, P<0.001), co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines either with muscle relaxants (68.0% decrease vs. 36.1% decrease, P<0.001), or without muscle relaxants (6.0% decrease vs. 16.3% increase, P<0.001), significantly reduced after the first URN regardless of the type of URN. Stratified analysis by types of URNs showed that ODF and DDC URNs had a significant effect on most of the outcomes of interest. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that unsolicited reporting, especially particular types of URNs including ODF and DDC, is associated with subsequent changes in unsafe prescribing behaviors.

NIH Primary and Secondary Prevention Research in Humans: a Portfolio Analysis of Study Designs Used in 2012-2019.

We can learn a great deal about the research questions being addressed in a field by examining the study designs used in that field. This manuscript examines the research questions being addressed in prevention research by characterizing the distribution and trends of study designs included in primary and secondary prevention research supported by the National Institutes of Health through grants and cooperative agreements, together with the types of prevention research, populations, rationales, exposures, and outcomes associated with each type of design. The Office of Disease Prevention developed a taxonomy to classify new extramural NIH-funded research projects and created a database with a representative sample of 14,523 research projects for fiscal years 2012-2019. The data were weighted to represent the entirety of the extramural research portfolio. Leveraging this dataset, the Office of Disease Prevention characterized the study designs proposed in NIH-funded primary and secondary prevention research applications. The most common study designs proposed in new NIH-supported prevention research applications during FY12-19 were observational designs (63.3%, 95% CI 61.5%-65.0%), analysis of existing data (44.5%, 95% CI: 42.7-46.3), methods research (23.9%, 95% CI: 22.3-25.6), and randomized interventions (17.2%, 95% CI: 16.1%-18.4%). Observational study designs dominated primary prevention research, while intervention designs were more common in secondary prevention research. Observational designs were more common for exposures that would be difficult to manipulate (e.g., genetics, chemical toxin, and infectious disease (not pneumonia/influenza or HIV/AIDS)), while intervention designs were more common for exposures that would be easier to manipulate (e.g., education/counseling, medication/device, diet/nutrition, and healthcare delivery). Intervention designs were not common for outcomes that are rare or have a long latency (e.g., cancer, neurological disease, Alzheimer's disease) and more common for outcomes that are more common or where effects would be expected earlier (e.g., healthcare delivery, health related quality of life, substance use, and medication/device). Observational designs and analyses of existing data dominated, suggesting that much of the prevention research funded by NIH continues to focus on questions of association and on questions of identification of risk and protective factors. Randomized and non-randomized intervention designs were included far less often, suggesting that a much smaller fraction of the NIH prevention research portfolio is focused on questions of whether interventions can be used to modify risk or protective factors or to change some other health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome. The much heavier focus on observational studies is surprising given how much we know already about the leading risk factors for death and disability in the USA, because those risk factors account for 74% of the county-level mortality in the USA, and because they play such a vital role in the development of clinical and public health guidelines, whose developers often weigh results from randomized trials much more heavily than results from observational studies. Improvements in death and disability nationwide are more likely to derive from guidelines based on intervention research to address the leading risk factors than from additional observational studies.

Unsolicited reporting notifications (URNs) through Maryland's prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP): Characteristics of providers.

Objectives: Unsolicited reporting is the activity of analyzing Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data and then sending unsolicited reporting notifications (URNs) to prescribers to notify them of their outlier prescribing behavior. We aimed to describe information about prescribers who were issued URNs. Methods: A retrospective study of Maryland's PDMP data from Jan.2018-Apr.2021. All providers who were issued ≥ one URN were included in analyses. We summarized data on types of URNs issued by provider type and years in practice using basic descriptive measures. We also performed logistic regression analysis to provide odds ratio and estimated marginal probability of issuing ≥ one URN to providers in the Maryland health care workforce in comparison with physicians as reference group. Results: A total of 4,446 URNs were issued to 2,750 unique providers. Odds ratio (OR) and the population estimated probability of issuing URNs were higher among nurse practitioners [OR: 1.42, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.26-1.59] followed by physician assistants [OR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.69-2.08], compared to physicians. Physicians and dentists with >10 years in practice comprised the majority of providers who were issued URNs (65.1% and 62.6%, respectively), while majority of nurse practitioners had been in practice for <10 years (75.8%). Conclusion: Findings indicate a higher probability of issuing URN for Maryland's physician assistants and nurse practitioners, compared to physicians, and an overrepresentation of physicians and dentists with longer and nurse practitioners with shorter practice experience. The study suggests education programs on safer prescribing practices and management of opioids should target certain types of providers.

New NIH Primary and Secondary Prevention Research During 2012-2019.

INTRODUCTION: This manuscript characterizes primary and secondary prevention research in humans and related methods research funded by NIH in 2012‒2019. METHODS: The NIH Office of Disease Prevention updated its prevention research taxonomy in 2019‒2020 and applied it to a sample of 14,523 new extramural projects awarded in 2012-2019. All projects were coded manually for rationale, exposures, outcomes, population focus, study design, and type of prevention research. All results are based on that manual coding. RESULTS: Taxonomy updates resulted in a slight increase, from an average of 16.7% to 17.6%, in the proportion of prevention research awards for 2012‒2017; there was a further increase to 20.7% in 2019. Most of the leading risk factors for death and disability in the U.S. were observed as an exposure or outcome in <5% of prevention research projects in 2019 (e.g., diet, 3.7%; tobacco, 3.9%; blood pressure, 2.8%; obesity, 4.4%). Analysis of existing data became more common (from 36% to 46.5%), whereas randomized interventions became less common (from 20.5% to 12.3%). Randomized interventions addressing a leading risk factor in a minority health or health disparities population were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: The number of new NIH awards classified as prevention research increased to 20.7% in 2019. New projects continued to focus on observational studies and secondary data analysis in 2018 and 2019. Additional research is needed to develop and test new interventions or develop methods for the dissemination of existing interventions, which address the leading risk factors, particularly in minority health and health disparities populations.

How Motivations for Using Buprenorphine Products Differ From Using Opioid Analgesics: Evidence from an Observational Study of Internet Discussions Among Recreational Users.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) poses medical and societal concerns. Although most individuals with OUD in the United States are not in drug abuse treatment, buprenorphine is considered a safe and effective OUD treatment, which reduces illicit opioid use, mortality, and other drug-related harms. However, as buprenorphine prescriptions increase, so does evidence of misused, abused, or diverted buprenorphine. Users' motivations for extratreatment use of buprenorphine (ie, misuse or abuse of one's own prescription or use of diverted medication) may be different from the motivations involved in analgesic opioid products. Previous research is based on small sample sizes and use surveys, and none directly compare the motivations for using buprenorphine products (ie, tablet or film) with other opioid products having known abuse potential. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe and compare the motivation-to-use buprenorphine products, including buprenorphine/naloxone (BNX) sublingual film and oxycodone extended-release (ER), as discussed in online forums. METHODS: Web-based posts from 2012 to 2016 were collected from online forums using the Web Informed Services internet monitoring archive. A random sample of posts was coded for motivation to use. These posts were coded into the following motivation categories: (1) use to avoid withdrawal, (2) pain relief, (3) tapering from other drugs, (4) opioid addiction treatment, (5) recreational use (ie, to get high), and (6) other use. Oxycodone ER, an opioid analgesic with known abuse potential, was selected as a comparator. RESULTS: Among all posts, 0.81% (30,576/3,788,922) discussed motivation to use one of the target products. The examination of query-selected posts revealed significantly greater discussion of buprenorphine products than oxycodone ER (P<.001). The posts mentioning buprenorphine products were more likely than oxycodone ER to discuss treatment for OUD, tapering down use, and/or withdrawal management (P<.001). Buprenorphine-related posts discussed recreational use (375/1020, 36.76%), although much less often than in oxycodone ER posts (425/508, 83.7%). Despite some differences, the overall pattern of motivation to use was similar for BNX sublingual film and other buprenorphine products. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of spontaneous, Web-based discussion among recreational substance users who post on online drug forums supports the contention that motivation-to-use patterns associated with buprenorphine products are different from those reported for oxycodone ER. Although the findings presented here are not expected to reflect the actual use of the target products, they may represent the interests and motivations of those posting on the online forums. Buprenorphine-related posts were more likely to discuss treatment for OUD, tapering, and withdrawal management than oxycodone ER. Although the findings are consistent with a purported link between the limited availability of medication-assisted therapies for substance use disorders and use of diverted buprenorphine products for self-treatment, recreational use was a motivation expressed in more than one-third of buprenorphine posts.

Patterns of abuse and routes of administration for immediate-release hydrocodone combination products.

PURPOSE: Prescriptions for hydrocodone immediate-release (IR) combination products have recently decreased, yet they represent the majority of opioid prescriptions dispensed and are commonly abused analgesics among both adults and adolescents. Little data exist to understand the contribution of IR products to the problem of prescription opioid abuse. This study aimed to better understand abuse patterns for hydrocodone IR combination products among adult and adolescent substance abusers. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examines abuse prevalence (including abuse adjusted for prescription volume and morphine milligram equivalents) and abuse characteristics for hydrocodone IR combination products and other prescription opioids among separate samples of adults and adolescents assessed for substance abuse problems or entering treatment from January 2012 through June 2015. RESULTS: Results indicate higher abuse for hydrocodone IR combination products than other opioid categories per 100 assessments but lower per prescriptions dispensed. Hydrocodone IR combination products had similar abuse prevalence to all extended-release and long-acting opioids when considering abuse measured per morphine milligram equivalents dispensed. An upward trend in hydrocodone IR combination product abuse was observed among adult substance abusers comparing the period prior to and after Drug Enforcement Administration rescheduling of these products in October 2014. Most individuals reported oral abuse of hydrocodone IR combination products, but snorting, reported by 23% of hydrocodone IR combination product abusers, also appears to be a route of abuse that may have public health relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Given their high prescription volume, hydrocodone IR combination products, even at a relatively low prevalence of abuse, may contribute substantially to the overall problem of prescription opioid abuse. Additional public health interventions, including development of abuse-deterrent formulations for these types of opioid products may aid in reducing their abuse.