Confidence in diagnosing and managing care for cognitive impairment in primary care: a survey comparing barriers by primary care clinician type.

BACKGROUND: As cognitive impairment (CI) prevalence rises and primary care screening becomes commonplace, it is critical to understand how to support clinicians. We describe clinician-reported barriers to diagnosing and managing care for patients with CI in a health system with standardized screening. We also explore whether barriers differ by clinician type-physician or advanced-practice clinician (APC). METHODS: Theory-informed surveys were administered to primary care clinicians in a large integrated health system. The survey assessed barriers, confidence in diagnosing CI and managing CI care, beliefs about the consequences of diagnosing CI, and usability of the electronic health record (EHR) to diagnose and manage CI care; it also included open-ended response items. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to describe perceived barriers. Differences by clinician type were compared using chi-square. RESULTS: Of the 408 eligible clinicians, 249 started the survey and 247 completed the primary outcomes (61% response rate). Many said they were only a little or not at all confident in diagnosing (70%) and managing care for (60%) CI, with specific gaps in confidence in distinguishing types of dementia and having CI-related conversations with patients or family/care partners. APCs reported lower confidence than physicians. Other barriers were lack of time, low usability of EHR, and lack of family/care partner availability. These did not differ by clinician type. Open-ended responses suggest clinicians would like more support for CI care. CONCLUSION: Low levels of confidence among other barriers suggest an urgent need to develop and implement effective multifaceted strategies to improve CI care.

"I'm Torn": Qualitative Analysis of Dental Practitioner-Perceived Barriers, Facilitators, and Solutions to HPV Vaccine Promotion.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine can prevent HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers. Dental practitioners are uniquely positioned to promote HPV vaccines during routine dental care but experience barriers to doing so. Qualitative interviews were conducted with dental practitioners to understand barriers and inform intervention strategies to promote HPV vaccines. Dental practitioners were invited to participate in phone interviews about knowledge, self-efficacy, and the fear of negative consequences related to HPV vaccine promotion as well as feedback on potential interventions to address these barriers. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis with a sort-and-sift matrix approach. Interviews were completed with 11 practitioners from six dental clinics (avg. 31 min). Though most thought HPV vaccination was important, they lacked detailed knowledge about when and to whom the vaccine should be recommended. This led to a hypothesized need for discussions of sexual history, feelings of limited self-efficacy to make the recommendation, and fear of patient concerns. Still, practitioners were supportive of additional training opportunities and provided input into specific interventions. The nuance of how these barriers were described by practitioners, as well as the possible solutions they identified, will help shape future interventions supporting HPV vaccine promotion in dental care.

Don't Say "Beans" When Promoting Plant Protein to Family Meal Planners.

PURPOSE: To identify "headlines" that would engage recipients to consider plant protein over red meat. DESIGN: Mail and web survey. SETTING: Urban Minnesota community. SUBJECTS: 144 survey respondents from our health plan and community program distribution lists who live with at least 1 other person and eat meat. INTERVENTION: We asked respondents how likely they would be to click on each of 24 headlines with a motivator (eating plant protein for health vs for environmental reasons) and a barrier (family preferences, knowledge about plant proteins, or cooking skills). 16 headlines contained the word "beans". MEASURES: We created categorical variables for each headline construct: (1) motivator, (2) barrier, and (3) reference to beans. Using a mixed model with random effects, we compared, for each construct, respondents' self-reported likelihood to click on a headline. RESULTS: Health-related headlines performed significantly better than environmental headlines (P = .0019, 95% CI .01, .11). Family-oriented headlines performed slightly better than skills-oriented (P = .0927, 95% CI -.01, .11) and knowledge-oriented (P = .0960, 95% CI -.01, .11) headlines. Headlines containing the word "beans" performed significantly worse than those not containing "beans" (P < .0001, 95% CI -.22, -.12). CONCLUSIONS: The population represented by our survey respondents report being most likely to click on headlines that emphasize health and family. They report they are significantly less likely to click on headlines that promote beans.