Bridging Research, Accurate Information and Dialogue (BRAID): A Novel Strategy to Build Community Trust.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to promote COVID-19 vaccination uncovered the effects of longstanding structural racism and perpetuated the erosion of community trust in science and public health institutions. Rebuilding trust is a priority to overcome barriers to vaccine uptake. Bridging Research, Accurate Information and Dialogue (BRAID) is a model that combines several evidence-based approaches to nurture trusting relationships with community experts, leading to the dissemination of accurate, timely, and acceptable COVID-19 vaccine messages. OBJECTIVE: To describe an innovative community-engaged participatory research model with the potential to build trust and spread accurate health information through social networks. METHODS: BRAID provided safe spaces for a series of facilitated conversation circles involving trusted community experts and invited clinicians and scientists. Community experts were encouraged to share their experiences, raise concerns, and ask pandemic-related questions in an informal setting. Community experts were empowered to codesign and coproduce accurate health messages acceptable to their communities. To gain insight into the process of building trust, dialogues involving 22 community experts were transcribed and coded, and post survey data from 21 participants were analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: BRAID is a manualized community engagement model that aims to build the trust needed to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake in historically marginalized communities. Through BRAID, participants developed increased trust in health systems and research. By empowering community experts to share information through their established social networks, BRAID has the potential to amplify the reach and impact of communications regarding health topics that are controversial and divisive, such as COVID-19 vaccination.

The Power of Partnership: NYCEAL Collaborations With Health Agencies and Mobile Vaccination Vans.

New York City experienced a high COVID-19 burden and striking disparities among racial and ethnic minoritized groups. The New York Community Engagement Alliance Against COVID-19 Disparities (NYCEAL) collaborated with health agencies and clinical providers to increase and facilitate COVID-19 vaccinations across New York City. NYCEAL partners and their network of hundreds of community health workers delivered vaccine education, fostered community trust, and supported vaccine uptake among low-income, limited‒English-proficient, and racial and ethnic minoritized communities. With funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the objective of NYCEAL was to reduce COVID-19 disparities by increasing vaccine uptake and promoting trust in science. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S1):S92-S95. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307455).

Missed opportunities in aspirin prescribing for preeclampsia prevention.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia, are a leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality in the United States, particularly among low-income and historically marginalized populations. Evidence suggests low-dose aspirin prophylaxis may help prevent preeclampsia in individuals at increased risk of developing the disease. This study examines associations between preeclampsia risk factors and aspirin prescribing practices among patients receiving prenatal care at a network of federally qualified health centers (FQHC). METHODS: Researchers conducted retrospective chart reviews (n = 523) of pregnant individuals ages 18-50 who completed two or more prenatal visits at the FQHC between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020. Prescription patterns for patients at moderate and high risk for preeclampsia were analyzed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models to identify the patients with the greatest risk of not receiving the recommended prophylactic treatment. RESULTS: Of 249 total patients considered at risk for preeclampsia, only 39% received an aspirin prescription. 57.89% of patients with any high-risk factor were appropriately prescribed aspirin, but only 27.27% of patients with two or more moderate-risk factors without high-risk factors received a prescription. Clinicians most frequently prescribed aspirin for patients with a history of preeclampsia and history of hypertension. However, aspirin was prescribed a maximum of 78.79% of the time for patients with a prior history of hypertension. Among moderate-risk factors, patients with advanced maternal age, Black race, or nulliparity were significantly more likely in adjusted models to be prescribed aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the documented benefits of aspirin prescribing and support from professional societies, there are still many missed opportunities for aspirin prophylaxis to prevent preeclampsia. Future interventions should focus on identifying patients who qualify for aspirin prophylaxis on the basis of having multiple moderate-risk factors without comorbid high-risk factors.

Assessing comprehension of the Parenting/Pregnancy Attitudes, Timing, and How Important (PATH) questions through cognitive interviewing.

OBJECTIVES: PATH, "Parenting/Pregnancy Attitudes, Timing, and How Important," is a method for providers to engage in a person-centered discussion about reproductive desires. This study sought to assess patient understanding of and receptivity to PATH questions. STUDY DESIGN: Cognitive interviews were conducted with young adult (aged 18-29 years) patients at a federally qualified health center in New York (n = 10). RESULTS: Participants demonstrated clear comprehension and comfort with the PATH questions. IMPLICATIONS: These data provide needed person-driven support for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Society of Family Planning's recommendation to implement PATH questions as a patient-centered method for discussing an individual's reproductive desires.

Pain Management in Primary Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computerized Decision Support Tool.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers manage most patients with chronic pain. Pain is a complex problem, particularly in underserved populations. A technology-enabled, point-of-care decision support tool may improve pain management outcomes. METHODS: We created an electronic health record (EHR)-based decision support tool, the Pain Management Support System-Primary Care (PMSS-PC), and studied the tool-plus-education in 6 Federally Qualified Health Center practices using a randomized, wait-list controlled design. The PMSS-PC generated "best practice alerts," gave clinicians access to a pain assessment template, psychological distress and substance use measures, guidelines for drug and non-drug therapies, and facilitated referrals. Practices were randomly assigned to early vs delayed (after 6 months) implementation of the intervention, including technical support and 6 webinars. The primary outcome was change in worst pain intensity scores after 6 months, assessed on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. Changes in outcomes were compared between the practices using linear multilevel modeling. The EHR provided clinician data on PMSS-PC utilization. RESULTS: The 256 patients in the early implementation practices had significantly improved worst pain (standardized effect size [ES] = -.32) compared with the 272 patients in the delayed implementation practices (ES = -.11). There was very low clinician uptake of the intervention in both conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Early implementation of the PMSS-PC improved worst pain, but this effect cannot be attributed to clinician use of the tool. Further PMSS-PC development is not indicated, but practice-level interventions can improve pain, and studies are needed to identify the determinants of change.

Race and Ethnicity Do Not Clinically Associate with Quality of Life Among Patients with Chronic Severe Pain in a Federally Qualified Health Center.

Objective: Previous research suggests that race/ethnicity predicts health-related quality of life (HRQL) in chronic pain populations but has not examined this in community settings. This study evaluated this association in 522 community-dwelling patients with chronic pain treated at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). Design: Cross-sectional secondary analysis. Setting: Six practice sites of an FQHC in New York. Subjects: One hundred forty-two non-Hispanic blacks, 121 non-Hispanic whites, 219 Hispanics, and 40 classified as "other" with severe chronic pain. Methods: Patients with chronic severe pain (three or more months with worst pain ≥ 4/10 or T-score > 60.5 on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference tool) were interviewed as part of a clinical trial. Race/ethnicity and other potential predictors of HRQL were assessed. Results: Mean age was 53.0 years, and 70.1% were women; 62.8% earned less than $10,000 per year, and 22.8% were Spanish-speaking with low acculturation. Mean worst pain during the past week was 8.6/10, and 39.6% used opioids. In multivariate analyses, race/ethnicity was not significantly associated with mental HRQL. Hispanics had significantly lower physical HRQL than non-Hispanic whites or blacks, but this difference was not clinically meaningful (mean T-scores = 33.9 [Hispanics], 35.8 [non-Hispanic whites], and 35.6 [non-Hispanic blacks]). Mental HRQL was predicted by depression, anxiety, pain disability, income, and physical HRQL; physical HRQL was predicted by race/ethnicity, anxiety, pain disability, age, care satisfaction, and mental HRQL. Conclusions: Race/ethnicity does not explain important variation in HRQL reported by diverse patients with chronic pain. Psychological distress, pain disability, age, and socioeconomic status predicted this health outcome. Future studies may clarify modifiers of these associations to guide treatment in FQHC populations.

Primary care and health reform.

Skyrocketing health care costs are burdening our people and our economy, yet health care indicators show how little we are achieving with the money we spend. Federal and state governments, along with public-health experts and policymakers, are proposing a host of new initiatives to find solutions. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is designed to address both the quality and accessibility of health care, while reducing its cost. This article provides an overview of models supported by the Affordable Care Act that address one or more goals of the "Triple Aim": better health care for individuals, better health outcomes in the community, and lower health care costs. The models described below rely on the core principles of primary care: comprehensive, coordinated and continuous primary care; preventive care; and the sophisticated implementation of health information technology designed to promote communication between health care providers, enhance coordination of care, minimize duplication of services, and permit reporting on quality. These models will support better health care and reduced costs for people who access health care services but will not address health outcomes in the community at large. Health care professionals, working in concert with community-based organizations and advocates, must also address conditions that influence health in the broadest sense to truly improve the health of our communities and reduce health care costs.