Comparing emergency department versus high school-based recruitment for a hypertension research study with adult-youth dyads.

Dyads can be challenging to recruit for research studies, but detailed reporting on strategies employed to recruit adult-adolescent dyads is rare. We describe experiences recruiting adult-youth dyads for a hypertension education intervention comparing recruitment in an emergency department (ED) setting with a school-based community setting. We found more success in recruiting dyads through a school-based model that started with adolescent youth (19 dyads in 7 weeks with < 1 hour recruitment) compared to an ED-based model that started with adults (2 dyads in 17 weeks with 350 hours of recruitment). These findings can benefit future adult-youth dyad recruitment for research studies.

Developing a Youth-Led Digital Hypertension Education Intervention for Adults With Hypertension: Qualitative Study on Refinement and Acceptability.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension affects one-third of adults in the United States and is the leading risk factor for death. Underserved populations are seen disproportionately in the emergency department (ED) and tend to have worse blood pressure (BP) control. For adults, a lack of hypertension knowledge is a common barrier to hypertension control, while social support is a strong facilitator, and providing information that is culturally sensitive and relevant is especially important in this context. The youth experience increased confidence when given the responsibility to provide health education and care navigation to others. As such, we planned a randomized controlled trial (RCT) for the effectiveness of a digital youth-led hypertension education intervention for adult patients in the ED with hypertension, focusing on change in BP and hypertension knowledge. OBJECTIVE: In preparation for an RCT, we conducted a formative study to determine acceptable and easily comprehensible ways to present hypertension information to adults with hypertension and optimal ways to engage youth to support adults on how to achieve better hypertension control. METHODS: After creating an intervention prototype with 6 weekly self-guided hypertension online modules, we recruited 12 youth (adolescents, aged 15-18 years) for 3 focus groups and 10 adult ED patients with hypertension for individual online interviews to garner feedback on the prototype. After completing a brief questionnaire, participants were asked about experiences with hypertension, preferences for a hypertension education intervention, and acceptability, feasibility, obstacles, and solutions for intervention implementation with youth and adults. The moderator described and showed participants the prototyped intervention process and materials and asked for feedback. Questionnaire data were descriptively summarized, and qualitative data were analyzed using the template organizing style of analysis by 3 study team members. RESULTS: Participants showed great interest in the intervention prototype, thought their peers would find it acceptable, and appreciated its involvement of youth. Youth with family members with hypertension reported that their family members need more support for their hypertension. Youth suggested adding more nutrition education activities to the intervention, such as a sodium tracker and examples of high-sodium foods. Adults discussed the need for a hypertension support intervention for themselves and the expected benefits to youth. They mentioned the overwhelming amount of hypertension information available and appreciated the intervention's concise content presentation. They suggested adding more mental health and smoking cessation resources, information about specific hypertension medications, and adding active links for health care information. CONCLUSIONS: Based on focus groups and interviews with participants, a youth-led digital hypertension intervention is an acceptable strategy to engage both adults with hypertension and youth. Incorporating participant suggestions into the intervention may improve its clarity, engagement, and impact when used in a subsequent RCT.

Evaluation of NCI-Designated Cancer Center and Comprehensive Cancer Center Survivorship-Focused Websites: Information Provided and Accessibility.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a history of cancer increasingly seek health information from online resources, including NCI-designated Cancer Center websites. Centers receive NCI designation because they provide excellent care and engage in cutting-edge research. However, the information presented on these webpages and their accessibility is unknown. An evaluation of the survivorship-focused webpages from NCI-designated Cancer Centers is needed to assess survivorship information and accessibility of these webpages. METHODS: We conducted an evaluation of the survivorship-focused webpages from 64 NCI-designated Cancer Centers. We evaluated where survivorship-focused webpages were housed, if there was a survivorship clinic or program, target audience of the webpage, how cancer survivor was defined, contact methods, and available resources. Accessibility outcomes included readability, font type, font size, color scheme, and alternative text (alt text) descriptors. An artificial intelligence (AI) audit was conducted to assess if the webpage was compliant with national accessibility guidelines. RESULTS: Most cancer centers had a survivorship-focused webpage, with 72% located on the cancer center's website and 28% on a health system website. Survivorship information available varied considerably and was often lacking in detail. Although three-quarters of webpages targeted patients only, variable definitions of cancer survivor were observed. Accessibility issues identified included inconsistent use of alt text descriptors, font size smaller than 15 points, and color schemes without adequate contrast. The average reading-level of information presented was above 12th grade. Only 9% of webpages were compliant with online accessibility guidelines; 72% semicompliant and 21% were noncompliant. CONCLUSIONS: Information presented on NCI-designated Cancer Center survivorship-focused webpages was inconsistent, often lacking, and inaccessible. NCI-designated Cancer Centers are role models for cancer research in the United States and have an obligation to provide survivorship information. Changes to content and website design are needed to provide better information for individuals seeking resources and health information relative to their cancer and care.

Recent Innovations in Primary Care Cancer Survivorship Roles.

BACKGROUND: Despite 2 decades of cancer survivorship research, policy, and advocacy, primary care in the United States has not fully integrated survivorship care into its generalist role. This manuscript describes innovative roles primary care physicians have adopted in survivorship care and how these roles emerged. METHODS: We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with a snowball sample of 10 US primary care physician innovators in survivorship care. Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Our team met weekly as interviews were completed to review transcripts and write summaries. We analyzed data using an immersion-crystallization process. RESULTS: Innovators did not receive formal survivorship training but gained knowledge experientially and through self-guided education. All worked in academic primary care and/or cancer centers; context strongly influenced role operationalization. We delineated 4 major role-types along a spectrum, with primary care generalist orientations at one end and cancer generalist orientations at the other. Primary care generalists applied survivorship guidelines during regular visits ("GENERALISTS+") or focused on cancer treatment effects amid other comorbidities during blocked clinic time ("oncoGENERALISTS"). Cancer generalists focused on cancer-related sequalae during and after treatment; some provided continuity care to survivors ("ONCOGENERALISTS"), while others incorporated unmet primary care needs into survivorship consults ("ONCOgeneralists"). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care survivorship innovations are occurring in academic primary care and cancer centers settings in the US. To move beyond the work of individual innovators, systematic investments are needed to support adoption of such innovations. For wider diffusion of survivorship care into community primary care, additional strategies that include primary care survivorship education and workforce development are needed to facilitate risk-stratified and shared-care models.

fRAP 2.0: a community engagement method applied to cervical cancer disparities among Hispanic women.

focused Rapid Assessment Process (fRAP) 2.0 is a community engagement approach combining geospatial mapping with rapid qualitative assessment in cyclical fashion within communities to capture multifactorial and multilevel features impacting primary care problems. fRAP 2.0 offers primary care researchers a methodology framework for exploring complex community features that impact primary healthcare delivery and outcomes. The fRAP 2.0 study design expands the fRAP from a sequential design to a cyclical process of geospatial mapping and rapid qualitative assessment in search of modifiable contextual factors. Research participants are stakeholders from various socioecological levels whose perspectives inform study outcomes that they may use to then become the agents of change for the very problems they helped explore. Here, we present a proof-of-concept study for fRAP 2.0 examining disparities in cervical cancer mortality rates among Hispanic women in Texas. The primary outcomes of interest are features at the community level, medical health system level and regional government policy levels that offer opportunities for collaborative interventions to improve cervical cancer outcomes. In this study, geospatial mapping of county and ZIP code-level variables impacting postdiagnosis cervical cancer care at community, medical and policy levels were created using publicly available data and then overlaid with maps created with Texas Cancer Registry data for cervical cancer cases in three of the largest population counties. Geographically disparate areas were then qualitatively explored using participant observation and ethnographic field work, alongside 39 key informant interviews. Roundtable discussion groups and stakeholder engagement existed at every phase of the study. Applying the fRAP 2.0 method, we created an action-oriented roadmap of next steps to improve cervical cancer care disparities in the three Texas counties with emphasis on the high disparity county. We identified local change targets for advocacy and the results helped convene a stakeholder group that continues to actively create on-the-ground change in the high-disparity county to improve cervical cancer outcomes for Hispanic women.

Strategic use of resources to enhance colorectal cancer screening for patients with diabetes (SURE: CRC4D) in federally qualified health centers: a protocol for hybrid type ii effectiveness-implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Persons with diabetes have 27% elevated risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) and are disproportionately from priority health disparities populations. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) struggle to implement CRC screening programs for average risk patients. Strategies to effectively prioritize and optimize CRC screening for patients with diabetes in the primary care safety-net are needed. METHODS: Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment Framework, we conducted a stakeholder-engaged process to identify multi-level change objectives for implementing optimized CRC screening for patients with diabetes in FQHCs. To identify change objectives, an implementation planning group of stakeholders from FQHCs, safety-net screening programs, and policy implementers were assembled and met over a 7-month period. Depth interviews (n = 18-20) with key implementation actors were conducted to identify and refine the materials, methods and strategies needed to support an implementation plan across different FQHC contexts. The planning group endorsed the following multi-component implementation strategies: identifying clinic champions, development/distribution of patient educational materials, developing and implementing quality monitoring systems, and convening clinical meetings. To support clinic champions during the initial implementation phase, two learning collaboratives and bi-weekly virtual facilitation will be provided. In single group, hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial, we will implement and evaluate these strategies in a in six safety net clinics (n = 30 patients with diabetes per site). The primary clinical outcomes are: (1) clinic-level colonoscopy uptake and (2) overall CRC screening rates for patients with diabetes assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation. Implementation outcomes include provider and staff fidelity to the implementation plan, patient acceptability, and feasibility will be assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation. DISCUSSION: Study findings are poised to inform development of evidence-based implementation strategies to be tested for scalability and sustainability in a future hybrid 2 effectiveness-implementation clinical trial. The research protocol can be adapted as a model to investigate the development of targeted cancer prevention strategies in additional chronically ill priority populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05785780) on March 27, 2023 (last updated October 21, 2023).

Use of concept mapping to inform a participatory engagement approach for implementation of evidence-based HPV vaccination strategies in safety-net clinics.

BACKGROUND: Multiple evidence-based strategies (EBS) for promoting HPV vaccination exist. However, adolescent HPV vaccination rates remain below target levels in communities at high risk for HPV-associated cancers and served by safety-net clinics. Participatory engaged approaches are needed to leverage the expertise of community and clinical partners in selecting EBS relevant to their local context. We engaged concept mapping as a method to inform the adoption and adaptation of EBS that seeks to empower implementation partners to prioritize, select, and ultimately implement context-relevant EBS for HPV vaccination. METHODS: Using 38 EBS statements generated from qualitative interviews and national HPV vaccine advocacy sources, we conducted a modified concept mapping activity with partners internal to safety-net clinics and external community members in two study sites of a larger implementation study (Greater Los Angeles and New Jersey), to sort EBS into clusters and rate each EBS by importance and feasibility for increasing HPV vaccination within safety-net clinics. Concept mapping findings (EBS statement ratings, ladder graphs and go-zones) were shared with leaders from a large federally qualified health center (FQHC) system (focusing on three clinic sites), to select and implement EBS over 12 months. RESULTS: Concept mapping participants (n=23) sorted and rated statements, resulting in an eight-cluster solution: 1) Community education and outreach; 2) Advocacy and policy; 3) Data access/quality improvement monitoring; 4) Provider tracking/audit and feedback; 5) Provider recommendation/communication; 6) Expanding vaccine access; 7) Reducing missed opportunities; and 8) Nurse/staff workflow and training. The FQHC partner then selected to intervene on eight of 17 EBS statements in the "go-zone" for action, with three from "reducing missed opportunities," two from "nurse/staff workflow and training," and one each from "provider tracking/audit and feedback," "provider recommendation/communication," and "expanding vaccine access," which the research team addressed through the implementation of three multi-level intervention strategies (e.g., physician communication training, staff training and workflow assessment, audit and feedback of clinic processes). CONCLUSIONS: Concept mapping provided a powerful participatory approach to identify multilevel EBS for HPV vaccination relevant to the local safety-net clinic context, particularly when several strategies exist, and prioritization is necessary. This study demonstrates how a clinic system benefited directly from the ratings and prioritization of EBS by multilevel clinic and community partners within the broader safety-net clinic context to identify and adapt prioritized solutions needed to advance HPV vaccine equity.

Identifying priority areas to support primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care: A Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Existing approaches in cancer survivorship care delivery have proven to be insufficient to engage primary care. This study aimed to identify stakeholder-informed priorities to improve primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care. METHODS: Experts in U.S. cancer survivorship care delivery were invited to participate in a 4-round online Delphi panel to identify and evaluate priorities for defining and fostering primary care's engagement in breast cancer survivorship. Panelists were asked to identify and then assess (ratings of 1-9) the importance and feasibility of priority items to support primary care engagement in survivorship. Panelists were asked to review the group results and reevaluate the importance and feasibility of each item, aiming to reach consensus. RESULTS: Respondent panelists (n = 23, response rate 57.5%) identified 31 priority items to support survivorship care. Panelists consistently rated three items most important (scored 9) but with uncertain feasibility (scored 5-6). These items emphasized the need to foster connections and improve communication between primary care and oncology. Panelists reached consensus on four items evaluated as important and feasible: (1) educating patients on survivorship, (2) enabling screening reminders and monitoring alerts in the electronic medical record, (3) identifying patient resources for clinicians to recommend, and (4) distributing accessible reference guides of common breast cancer drugs. CONCLUSION: Role clarity and communication between oncology and primary care were rated as most important; however, uncertainty about feasibility remains. These findings indicate that cross-disciplinary capacity building to address feasibility issues may be needed to make the most important priority items actionable in primary care.

Storylines of family medicine VI: ways of being-in the office with patients.

Storylines of Family Medicine is a 12-part series of thematically linked mini-essays with accompanying illustrations that explore the many dimensions of family medicine, as interpreted by individual family physicians and medical educators in the USA and elsewhere around the world. In 'VI: ways of being-in the office with patients', authors address the following themes: 'Patient-centred care-cultivating deep listening skills', 'Doctor as witness', 'Words matter', 'Understanding others-metaphor and its use in medicine', 'Communicating with patients-making good use of time', 'The patient-centred medical home-aspirations for the future', 'Routine, ceremony or drama?' and 'The life course'. May readers better appreciate the nuances of patient care through these essays.

Population health in primary care.

Population health in the United States continues to lag behind other wealthy nations. Primary care has the promise of enhancing population health; however, the implementation of a population health approach within primary care deserves further consideration. Clinicians and staff from a national sample of 10 innovative primary care practices participated in a working conference to reflect upon population health approaches in primary care. A series of small- and large-group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded through an immersion/crystallization approach. Two prominent themes emerged: (1) Transitioning to a population health focus generally develops through stages, with early implementation focusing on risk stratification and later, more advanced stages focusing on community health; and (2) Several inherent barriers confront implementation of a population health approach, including tensions with patient-centered care, and limitations of health information technology. A broader conceptualization of population health in terms of community health could more effectively allow partnerships among primary care, large health care systems, public health organizations, patients, and other partners in the community.

Leading primary care under the weight of COVID-19: how leadership was enacted in six australian general practices during 2020.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic challenged health care delivery globally, providing unique challenges to primary care. Australia's primary healthcare system (primarily general practices) was integral to the response. COVID-19 tested the ability of primary health care to respond to the greater urgency and magnitude than previous pandemics. Early reflections highlighted the critical role of leaders in helping organisations negotiate the pandemic's consequences. This study explores how general practice leadership was enacted during 2020, highlighting how leadership attributes were implemented to support practice teams. METHODOLOGY: We performed secondary analysis on data from a participatory prospective qualitative case study involving six general practices in Melbourne, Victoria, between April 2020 and February 2021. The initial coding template based on Miller et al.'s relationship-centred model informed a reflexive thematic approach to data re-analysis, focused on leadership. Our interpretation was informed by Crabtree et al.'s leadership model. RESULTS: All practices realigned clinical and organisational routines in the early months of the pandemic - hierarchical leadership styles often allowing rapid early responses. Yet power imbalances and exclusive communication channels at times left practice members feeling isolated. Positive team morale and interdisciplinary teamwork influenced practices' ability to foster emergent leaders. However, emergence of leaders generally represented an inherent 'need' for authoritative figures in the crisis, rather than deliberate fostering of leadership. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the importance of collaborative leadership during crises while highlighting areas for better preparedness. Promoting interdisciplinary communication and implementing formal leadership training in crisis management in the general practice setting is crucial for future pandemics.

Maximizing the impact of reach out and read literacy promotion:anticipatory guidance and modeling.

BACKGROUND: Reach Out and Read (ROR) is a multi-component pediatric literacy promotion intervention. However, few studies link ROR components to outcomes. We examine associations between receipt of (1) multiple ROR components and (2) clinician modeling, a potential best practice, with enhanced home literacy environments (EHLEs) among Latino families. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of cross-sectional enrollment data from a randomized clinical trial at three urban community health centers between November 2020 and June 2023. Latino parents with infants 6-<9 months old were surveyed about ROR component receipt (children's book, anticipatory guidance, modeling) and EHLE (StimQ2- Infant Read Scale). We used mixed models with clinician as a random effect, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: 440 Latino parent-infant dyads were included. With no components as the reference category, receipt of 1 component was not associated with EHLE. Receipt of 2 components (standardized beta = 0.27; 95%CI: 0.12-0.42) and 3 components (standardized beta = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.19-0.47) were associated with EHLE. In separate analyses, modeling was associated with EHLE (standardized beta = 0.16; 95%CI: 0.06-0.26). CONCLUSION: Findings support modeling as a core ROR component. Programs seeking to enhance equity by promoting EHLE should utilize such strategies as anticipatory guidance and clinician modeling in addition to book distribution. IMPACT: Reach Out and Read, a multi-component literacy promotion intervention, leverages primary care to promote equity in children's early language experiences. However, few studies link Reach Out and Read components to outcomes. Among Latino parent-infant dyads, we found that implementation of two and three components, compared to none, was associated with enhanced home literacy environments, following a dose response pattern. Parent report of clinician modeling was associated with enhanced home literacy environments. Literacy promotion programs seeking to enhance equity by promoting enhanced home literacy environments should utilize strategies in addition to book distribution, including anticipatory guidance and modeling, to maximize impact.

Connect: Cultivating Academic-Community Partnerships to Address Our Communities' Complex Needs During Public Health Crises.

BACKGROUND: Black and Latino communities have been disproportionately impacted by coronavirus disease 2019 and we sought to understand perceptions and attitudes in four heavily impacted New Jersey counties to develop and evaluate engagement strategies to enhance access to testing. OBJECTIVE: To establish a successful academic/community partnership team during a public health emergency by building upon longstanding relationships and using principles from community engaged research. METHODS: We present a case study illustrating multiple levels of engagement, showing how we successfully aligned expectations, developed a commitment of cooperation, and implemented a research study, with community-based and health care organizations at the center of community engagement and recruitment. LESSONS LEARNED: This paper describes successful approaches to relationship building including information sharing and feedback to foster reciprocity, diverse dissemination strategies to enhance engagement, and intergenerational interaction to ensure sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrates how academic/community partnerships can work together during public health emergencies to develop sustainable relationships.

Adapting and implementing breast cancer follow-up in primary care: protocol for a mixed methods hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Advances in detection and treatment for breast cancer have led to an increase in the number of individuals managing significant late and long-term treatment effects. Primary care has a role in caring for patients with a history of cancer, yet there is little guidance on how to effectively implement survivorship care evidence into primary care delivery. METHODS: This protocol describes a multi-phase, mixed methods, stakeholder-driven research process that prioritizes actionable, evidence-based primary care improvements to enhance breast cancer survivorship care by integrating implementation and primary care transformation frameworks: the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework and the Practice Change Model (PCM). Informed by depth interviews and a four round Delphi panel with diverse stakeholders from primary care and oncology, we will implement and evaluate an iterative clinical intervention in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized design in twenty-six primary care practices. Multi-component implementation strategies will include facilitation, audit and feedback, and learning collaboratives. Ongoing data collection and analysis will be performed to optimize adoption of the intervention. The primary clinical outcome to test effectiveness is comprehensive breast cancer follow-up care. Implementation will be assessed using mixed methods to explore how organizational and contextual variables affect adoption, implementation, and early sustainability for provision of follow-up care, symptom, and risk management activities at six- and 12-months post implementation. DISCUSSION: Study findings are poised to inform development of scalable, high impact intervention processes to enhance long-term follow-up care for patients with a history of breast cancer in primary care. If successful, next steps would include working with a national primary care practice-based research network to implement a national dissemination study. Actionable activities and processes identified could also be applied to development of organizational and care delivery interventions for follow-up care for other cancer sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2, 2022: NCT05400941.

Disruptions to and Innovations in HPV Vaccination Strategies within Safety-Net Healthcare Settings Resulting from the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare delivery within safety-net settings. Barriers to and facilitators of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination during the pandemic can inform future HPV vaccine strategies for underserved communities. Qualitative interviews (n = 52) between December 2020 and January 2022 in Los Angeles and New Jersey were conducted with providers, clinic leaders, clinic staff, advocates, payers, and policy-level representatives involved in the HPV vaccine process. Using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research we identified (1) outer setting barriers (i.e., vaccine hesitancy driven by social media, political views during the pandemic) and facilitators (e.g., partnerships); (2) inner setting clinic facilitators (i.e., motivation-driven clinic metrics, patient outreach, vaccine outreach events); (3) individual characteristics such as patient barriers (i.e., less likely to utilize clinic services during the pandemic and therefore, additional outreach to address missed vaccine doses are needed); (4) innovations in HPV vaccination strategies (i.e., clinic workflow changes to minimize exposure to COVID-19, leveraging new community partnerships (e.g., with local schools)); and (5) implementation strategies (i.e., multisectoral commitment to HPV goals). Pandemic setbacks forced safety-net settings to develop new vaccine approaches and partnerships that may translate to new implementation strategies for HPV vaccination within local contexts and communities.

Multilevel perspectives on school-based opportunities to improve HPV vaccination among medically underserved adolescents: Beyond school entry mandates.

School-based HPV vaccination programs have improved vaccine uptake among adolescents globally. However, school-based HPV vaccination strategies in the United States (US) have mainly focused on school-entry mandates for vaccination, which have passed in only five states/jurisdictions. Many schools and school-based health centers (SBHCs) already provide health services to medically underserved adolescents and opportunities to improve disparities in HPV vaccine education and uptake are underexplored. This qualitative study of clinic and community members assessed potential opportunities within and outside schools to increase HPV vaccination. Data were generated from a larger mixed-methods study designed to understand experiences with HPV vaccination evidence-based strategies in medically underserved communities. The parent study included interviews and focus groups conducted with clinic (providers, clinic leaders, staff) and community (racial/ethnic minority parents, advocates, payers, policy representatives) members in Los Angeles and New Jersey between December 2020-January 2022. We created a reduced dataset of text related to schools/SBHCs (30 in-depth interviews, 7 focus groups) and conducted a directed content analysis. Participants indicated that schools and SBHCs are ideal venues for reaching medically underserved adolescents experiencing barriers to primary care access. Parents/providers expressed mutual interest in HPV vaccine administration/education in schools, but some advocates/policy participants experienced challenges due to increasing politicization of vaccines. Participants highlighted policies for expanding HPV vaccine education and administration in schools, including minor consent and increasing SBHC funding for HPV vaccines. More research is needed to explore existing infrastructure, partner motivation, and opportunities to improve HPV vaccination among medically underserved adolescents within schools beyond vaccine mandates.

Oncologists' Perspectives on Cancer Survivorship: What Role Should Primary Care Play?

Background: Despite calls for an enhanced role for primary care for individuals with a history of cancer, primary medical care's role in adult survivorship care continues to be marginal.Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 8 medical oncologists with interest in cancer survivorship from 7 National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer centers to understand perspectives on the role of primary care in cancer survivorship.Results: Two salient overarching thematic patterns emerged. (1) Oncologist's perspectives diverge on if, how, and when primary care clinicians should be involved in survivorship, ranging from involvement of primary care throughout treatment to a standardized hand-off years post-therapy. (2) Oncologist's lack understanding about primary care's expertise and subsequent value in survivorship care.Conclusion: As oncology continues to be overwhelmed by rising numbers of aging cancer survivors with multi-morbidities, NCI-designated cancer centers should take a leadership role in integrating primary care engaged cancer survivorship.

Understanding Clinic and Community Member Experiences with Implementation of Evidence-Based Strategies for HPV Vaccination in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings.

HPV vaccination rates remain below target levels among adolescents in the United States, which is particularly concerning in safety-net populations with persistent disparities in HPV-associated cancer burden. Perspectives on evidence-based strategies (EBS) for HPV vaccination among key implementation participants, internal and external to clinics, can provide a better understanding of why these disparities persist. We conducted virtual interviews and focus groups, guided by the Practice Change Model, with clinic members (providers, clinic leaders, and clinic staff) and community members (advocates, parents, policy-level, and payers) in Los Angeles and New Jersey to understand common and divergent perspectives on and experiences with HPV vaccination in safety-net primary care settings. Fifty-eight interviews and seven focus groups were conducted (n = 65 total). Clinic members (clinic leaders n = 7, providers n = 12, and clinic staff n = 6) revealed conflicting HPV vaccine messaging, lack of shared motivation to reduce missed opportunities and improve workflows, and non-operability between clinic electronic health records and state immunization registries created barriers for implementing effective strategies. Community members (advocates n = 8, policy n = 11, payers n = 8, and parents n = 13) described lack of HPV vaccine prioritization among payers, a reliance on advocates to lead national agenda setting and facilitate local implementation, and opportunities to support and engage schools in HPV vaccine messaging and adolescents in HPV vaccine decision-making. Participants indicated the COVID-19 pandemic complicated prioritization of HPV vaccination but also created opportunities for change. These findings highlight design and selection criteria for identifying and implementing EBS (changing the intervention itself, or practice-level resources versus external motivators) that bring internal and external clinic partners together for targeted approaches that account for local needs in improving HPV vaccine uptake within safety-net settings.

Exploring HPV vaccination policy and payer strategies for opportunities to improve uptake in safety-net settings.

Introduction: We explored priorities and perspectives on health policy and payer strategies for improving HPV vaccination rates in safety-net settings in the United States. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with policy and payer representatives in the greater Los Angeles region and state of New Jersey between December 2020 and January 2022. Practice Change Model domains guided data collection, thematic analysis, and interpretation. Results: Five themes emerged from interviews with 11 policy and 8 payer participants, including: (1) payer representatives not prioritizing HPV vaccination specifically in incentive-driven clinic metrics; (2) policy representatives noting region-specific HPV vaccine policy options; (3) inconsistent motivation across policy/payer groups to improve HPV vaccination; (4) targeting of HPV vaccination in quality improvement initiatives suggested across policy/payer groups; and (5) COVID-19 pandemic viewed as both barrier and opportunity for HPV vaccination improvement across policy/payer groups. Discussion: Our findings indicate opportunities for incorporating policy and payer perspectives into HPV vaccine improvement processes. We identified a need to translate effective policy and payer strategies, such as pay-for-performance programs, to improve HPV vaccination within safety-net settings. COVID-19 vaccination strategies and community efforts create potential policy windows for expanding HPV vaccine awareness and access.

At the edge of chaos: a prospective multiple case study in Australian general practices adapting to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The rapid onset and progressive course of the COVID-19 pandemic challenged primary care practices to generate rapid solutions to unique circumstances, creating a natural experiment of effectiveness, resilience, financial stability and governance across primary care models. We aimed to characterise how practices in Melbourne, Australia modified clinical and organisational routines in response to the pandemic in 2020-2021 and identify factors that influenced these changes. DESIGN: Prospective, qualitative, participatory case study design using constant comparative data analysis, conducted between April 2020 and February 2021. Participant general practitioner (GP) investigators were involved in study design, recruitment of other participants, data collection and analysis. Data analysis included investigator diaries, structured practice observation, documents and interviews. SETTING: The cases were six Melbourne practices of varying size and organisational model. PARTICIPANTS: GP investigators approached potential participants. Practice healthcare workers were interviewed by social scientists on three occasions, and provided feedback on presentations of preliminary findings. RESULTS: We conducted 58 interviews with 26 practice healthcare workers including practice owners, practice managers, GPs, receptionists and nurses; and six interviews with GP investigators. Data saturation was achieved within each practice and across the sample. The pandemic generated changes to triage, clinical care, infection control and organisational routines, particularly around telehealth. While collaboration and trust increased within several practices, others fragmented, leaving staff isolated and demoralised. Financial and organisational stability, collaborative problem solving, creative leadership and communication (internally and within the broader healthcare sector) were major influences on practice ability to negotiate the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the complex influences on primary care practices, and reinforces the strengths of clinician participation in research design, conduct and analysis. Two implications are: telehealth, triage and infection management innovations are likely to continue; the existing payment system provides inadequate support to primary care in a global pandemic.