Barriers and Facilitators of Dental Care in African-American Seniors: A Qualitative Study of Consumers' Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To identify African-American seniors' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to their dental care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional qualitative study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 16 community-based, self-identified African-American seniors from March 2017 to August 2017 in Oregon. We coded data in ATLAS. ti and used thematic analysis to identify emergent themes within the social ecological framework and a cross-case comparative analysis to explore variation by participant characteristics. RESULTS: Regardless of dental insurance status, cost and perceived urgency of treatment were the primary drivers of participant's ability and interest in seeking dental care. Participants identified four solutions to improve oral health care in African-American seniors: affordable/free care and vouchers for dental work, better oral health education at a younger age, onsite community dental services, and navigators who can educate patients about insurance and dental providers who see low-income patients. CONCLUSIONS: Oral health decisions by African-American seniors were primarily driven by cost and perceived urgency irrespective of insurance coverage. Affordable dental care, early intervention, on-site services, and navigation may help to address key barriers and reduce oral health disparities faced by African-Americans.

Building Behavioral Health Homes: Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Creating Integrated Care Teams.

Adults with serious mental illness and substance use disorders have elevated risk of mortality and higher healthcare costs compared to the general population. As these disparities have been linked to poor management of co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care, the behavioral health setting may be a preferred setting for routine medical screening and treatment. This qualitative study describes early stages of integrating care teams in emerging medical homes based in mental health and addiction treatment settings. Clinicians and staff from ten agencies engaged in the Behavioral Health Home Learning Collaborative participated in qualitative interviews exploring local definitions of "behavioral health home" and initial barriers and facilitators to integration. Facilitators included clear staff roles, flexible scheduling, and interdisciplinary huddles and staff trainings. Challenges included workforce, limited use of electronic health records, and differing professional cultures. Participants advocated for new workflows and payment structures to accommodate scheduling demands and holistic case management.

Correction to: Building Behavioral Health Homes: Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Creating Integrated Care Teams.

The Publisher regrets that due to a malfunction in production, there are duplications and errors and rogue addresses in the author affiliations of the published article. The correct author affiliations are listed below.

A qualitative study of clinic and community member perspectives on intervention toolkits: "Unless the toolkit is used it won't help solve the problem".

BACKGROUND: Intervention toolkits are common products of grant-funded research in public health and primary care settings. Toolkits are designed to address the knowledge translation gap by speeding implementation and dissemination of research into practice. However, few studies describe characteristics of effective intervention toolkits and their implementation. Therefore, we conducted this study to explore what clinic and community-based users want in intervention toolkits and to identify the factors that support application in practice. METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study we conducted focus groups and interviews with a purposive sample of community health coalition members, public health experts, and primary care professionals between November 2010 and January 2012. The transdisciplinary research team used thematic analysis to identify themes and a cross-case comparative analysis to explore variation by participant role and toolkit experience. RESULTS: Ninety six participants representing primary care (n = 54, 56%) and community settings (n = 42, 44%) participated in 18 sessions (13 focus groups, five key informant interviews). Participants ranged from those naïve through expert in toolkit development; many reported limited application of toolkits in actual practice. Participants wanted toolkits targeted at the right audience and demonstrated to be effective. Well organized toolkits, often with a quick start guide, with tools that were easy to tailor and apply were desired. Irrespective of perceived quality, participants experienced with practice change emphasized that leadership, staff buy-in, and facilitative support was essential for intervention toolkits to be translated into changes in clinic or public -health practice. CONCLUSIONS: Given the emphasis on toolkits in supporting implementation and dissemination of research and clinical guidelines, studies are warranted to determine when and how toolkits are used. Funders, policy makers, researchers, and leaders in primary care and public health are encouraged to allocate resources to foster both toolkit development and implementation. Support, through practice facilitation and organizational leadership, are critical for translating knowledge from intervention toolkits into practice.

A qualitative study of rural primary care clinician views on remote monitoring technologies.

PURPOSE: Remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) may improve the quality of care, reduce access barriers, and help control medical costs. Despite the role of primary care clinicians as potential key users of RMTs, few studies explore their views. This study explores rural primary care clinician interest and the resources necessary to incorporate RMTs into routine practice. METHODS: We conducted 15 in-depth interviews with rural primary care clinician members of the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) from November 2011 to April 2012. Our multidisciplinary team used thematic analysis to identify emergent themes and a cross-case comparative analysis to explore variation by participant and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Clinicians expressed interest in RMTs most relevant to their clinical practice, such as supporting chronic disease management, noting benefits to patients of all ages. They expressed concern about the quantity of data, patient motivation to utilize equipment, and potential changes to the patient-clinician encounter. Direct data transfer into the clinic's electronic health record (EHR), availability in multiple formats, and review by ancillary staff could facilitate implementation. Although participants acknowledged the potential system-level benefits of using RMTs, adoption would be difficult without payment reform. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of RMTs by rural primary care clinicians may be influenced by equipment purpose and functionality, implementation resources, and payment. Clinician and staff engagement will be critical to actualize RMT use in routine primary care.