Colonoscopy Outreach for Rural Communities (CORC): A study protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a patient navigation program to improve colonoscopy completion for colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is one of the primary methods of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), a leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. However, up to half of patients referred to colonoscopy fail to complete the procedure, and rates of adherence are lower in rural areas. OBJECTIVES: Colonoscopy Outreach for Rural Communities (CORC) is a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a centralized patient navigation program provided remotely by a community-based organization to six geographically distant primary care organizations serving rural patients, to improve colonoscopy completion for CRC. METHODS: CORC is a type 1 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial. Participants aged 45-76 from six primary care organizations serving rural populations in the northwestern United States are randomized 1:1 to patient navigation or standard of care control. The patient navigation is delivered remotely by a trained lay-person from a community-based organization. The primary effectiveness outcome is completion of colonoscopy within one year of referral to colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes are colonoscopy completion within 6 and 9 months, time to completion, adequacy of patient bowel preparation, and achievement of cecal intubation. Analyses will be stratified by primary care organization. DISCUSSION: Trial results will add to our understanding about the effectiveness of patient navigation programs to improve colonoscopy for CRC in rural communities. The protocol includes pragmatic adaptations to meet the needs of rural communities and findings may inform approaches for future studies and programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT05453630. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT05453630. Registered July 6, 2022.

Feasibility of delivering survivorship care via lay health educators: A pilot randomized controlled trial among rural cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: We tested the feasibility of survivorship care plan (SCP) delivery with/without a lay health educator (LHE) telephone-delivered information session among rural cancer survivors, and their effects on health-related self-efficacy and knowledge of cancer history. METHODS: Randomized trial of cancer survivors from 3 rural oncology clinics featuring either SCP alone (control) or SCP plus LHE-delivered information session (intervention). Participants completed a questionnaire on health-related self-efficacy and knowledge of cancer-specific medical history. Responses were compared to medical records for accuracy. SCPs were then mailed to participants. Approximately 5 months later, participants completed a follow-up questionnaire. A subset of participants took part in subsequent qualitative interviews about their study experience. FINDINGS: Of 301 survivors approached, 72 (23.9%) were randomized (mean age 66.4 years; 3.1 years from diagnosis; 62.5% female), and 65 (90.3%) completed the study. Global mental and physical health or self-efficacy scores did not change significantly from baseline to follow-up for either group. In exploratory analyses, self-efficacy increased in participants with inadequate/marginal health literacy in the intervention arm (+0.7, 95% CI = 0.1-1.2; P = .01). Accuracy of knowledge did not improve but was high at baseline (mean 76.0±14.5%). 60.1% and 48.4% of control and intervention participants, respectively, found SCPs definitely/somewhat useful. Qualitative data (n = 20) suggested that SCPs were helpful to patients when primary and oncology care were less integrated. CONCLUSIONS: An LHE-delivered informational session was feasible but had limited benefit to rural cancer survivors versus delivery of SCP alone but may be of benefit to patients with low health literacy or with less integrated care.

Patient concerns about accessing sexual and reproductive health services outside of primary care: A survey in rural and urban settings in the Pacific Northwest.

OBJECTIVES: While primary care providers are a major source of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in the United States, particularly in rural areas, not all primary care settings offer a full range of SRH services. We aimed to understand primary care patient concerns regarding accessing SRH services, including abortion care, outside of their primary care clinic and if those concerns differed by urban or rural setting. STUDY DESIGN: An anonymous survey was distributed over a 2-week period between December 2019 to March 2020 to all adult patients in four primary care clinics in Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming. The survey assessed patient concerns regarding accessing SRH services outside of their primary care clinic and their willingness to travel to access SRH services. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 69% (745/1086). Over 85% of respondents identified at least one concern to seeking SRH services outside of a primary care setting, with cost, insurance coverage, length of wait time, and lack of an established relationship being the most frequently reported concerns. A majority of respondents were willing to travel a maximum of 1 hour for most SRH services. Respondents from rural-serving clinics were significantly more likely to be willing to travel longer amounts of time for medication abortion, aspiration abortion, and intrauterine device placement. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that a majority of both urban and rural primary care patients have concerns regarding accessing SRH services outside of their primary care clinic and are unwilling to travel more than 1 hour to access most SRH services. IMPLICATIONS: A majority of primary care patients have concerns regarding accessing SRH services outside of primary care settings. Health care policy changes should aim to strengthen the SRH services available in primary care settings to alleviate the burdens primary care patients face in accessing SRH services outside of their primary care clinic, particularly for rural populations.

Tailoring Implementation Strategies for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator Adoption in Primary Care Clinics.

INTRODUCTION: When implementing interventions in primary care, tailoring implementation strategies to practice barriers can be effective, but additional work is needed to understand how to best select these strategies. This study sought to identify clinicians' contributions to the process of tailoring implementation strategies to barriers in clinical settings. METHODS: We conducted a modified nominal group exercise involving 8 implementation scientists and 26 primary care clinicians in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network. Each group identified implementation strategies it felt would best address barriers to using a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator previously identified across 44 primary care clinics from the Healthy Hearts Northwest pragmatic trial (2015 to 2018). These barriers had been mapped beforehand to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains. We examined similarities and differences in the strategies that 30% or more of each group identified (agreed-on strategies) for each barrier and for barriers in each CFIR domain. We used the results to demonstrate how strategies might be tailored to individual clinics. RESULTS: Clinicians selected 23 implementation strategies to address 1 or more of the 13 barriers; implementation scientists selected 35. The 2 groups agreed on at least 1 strategy for barriers in each CFIR domain: Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Intervention Characteristics, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process. Conducting local needs assessment and assessing for readiness/identifying barriers and facilitators were the 2 most common implementation strategies chosen only by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician stakeholders identified implementation strategies that augmented those chosen by implementation scientists, suggesting that codesign of implementation processes between implementation scientists and clinicians may strengthen the process of tailoring strategies to overcome implementation barriers.

Patient opinions on sexual and reproductive health services in primary care in rural and urban clinics.

OBJECTIVES: Primary care providers are a major source of sexual and reproductive health care in the United States, particularly in rural areas, and not all providers offer the same services. This study aimed to understand patient preferences and expectations around reproductive health services including abortion care in a primary care setting and if those expectations differed by urban or rural setting. STUDY DESIGN: An anonymous survey was distributed to all patients 18 years or older in 4 primary care clinics in Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming over a 2-week period. The survey asked patients about which reproductive health services should be available in primary care. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 69% (745/1086). For all queried reproductive health services except for aspiration abortion, the majority of respondents reported that primary care clinics should have that service available. Forty-two percent of respondents reported that aspiration abortion should be available in primary care. Overall, most respondents reported that medication abortion (58%) and miscarriage management (65%) should be available in primary care. More respondents in urban clinics thought IUD services (84% vs 71%), medication abortion (74% vs 37%), and aspiration abortion (52% vs 28%) should be accessible in primary care compared to those in rural-serving clinics. CONCLUSIONS: This study of 4 primary care clinics in Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming, spanning urban and rural settings, highlights that most patients desire contraception services and miscarriage management to be available in primary care. IMPLICATIONS: Increasing training may help meet patient desires for access to reproductive services in primary care, however, further exploration of barriers to this care is warranted. High rates of respondents desiring miscarriage management access highlights the need to train more primary care clinicians to provide full spectrum miscarriage management options.

Patient navigation for hereditary colorectal cancer: Design of a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of pathways to genetic counseling.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of Lynch and other hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndromes through germline genetic testing has important implications for treatment and risk-management, yet guideline-recommended genetic counseling referral and attendance is suboptimal. METHODS: Our team developed an adapted patient navigation program-Pathways to Genetic Counseling-to address multilevel barriers to genetic counseling referral and receipt. This paper describes the methods of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing Pathways to Genetic Counseling's effectiveness at increasing genetic counseling attendance in the University of Washington Medicine health system. We will identify CRC patients eligible for genetic counseling (diagnosed before age 50 or at any age with evidence of inherited mismatch repair deficiency) through a combination of structured electronic health record queries and manual chart review. Patients will be randomized 1:1 prior to consent and receive either care as usual (no contact) or be invited to participate in patient navigation. We will use chart review to compare rates of genetic counseling referral and attendance within six months of randomization, regardless of patients' engagement with navigation. We plan to identify and randomize 161 eligible CRC patients over a nine-month period beginning in late 2021. DISCUSSION: Our pragmatic RCT design will provide real-world data on the potential for patient navigation to address longstanding care gaps in preventive genomic medicine. If effective, we hope to pilot Pathways to Genetic Counseling in additional settings with a long-term goal of improving appropriate diagnosis of hereditary CRC syndromes and subsequent cascade screening of eligible family members.

Early Response of Primary Care Practices to COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent public health mitigation strategies resulted in rapid and significant changes to delivery of primary care. The field of primary care faced an unprecedented dual challenge of providing routine care to patients while ensuring patient and staff safety and managing patients with a highly transmissible disease. This study describes how a diverse group of primary care practices addressed these challenges at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, in Spring 2020. METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey of representatives from primary care practices in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). Survey topics included clinical workforce, operations, and use of telemedicine in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: To safely manage patients with COVID-19 symptoms all clinics modified operations; 81.3% diverted patients with respiratory symptoms to a telemedicine evaluation, 68.8% diverted these patients to be seen in-person at another location, and 75% made in-clinic changes to maintain safety. The set of operational changes employed by clinics was diverse. To continue to provide routine patient care, all clinics employed telemedicine. Over 80% of clinics had never used telemedicine prior to March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: A diverse group of primary care clinics all rapidly implemented a variety of operational adaptations to address patient needs and maintain patient and staff safety at the onset of the COVID- 19 pandemic. Telemedicine, together with other measures, provided critical pathways for maintaining delivery of care.

Complementary and Integrative Health Knowledge and Practice in Primary Care Settings: A Survey of Primary Care Providers in the Northwestern United States.

BACKGROUND: The demand for complementary and integrative health (CIH) is increasing by patients who want to receive more CIH referrals, in-clinic services, and overall care delivery. To promote CIH within the context of primary care, it is critical that providers have sufficient knowledge of CIH, access to CIH-trained providers for referral purposes, and are comfortable either providing services or co-managing patients who favor a CIH approach to their healthcare. OBJECTIVE: The main objective was to gather primary care providers' perspectives across the northwestern region of the United States on their CIH familiarity and knowledge, clinic barriers and opportunities, and education and training needs. METHODS: We conducted an online, quantitative survey through an email invitation to all primary care providers (n = 483) at 11 primary care organizations from the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho) region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). The survey questions covered talking about CIH with patients, co-managing care with CIH providers, familiarity with and training in CIH modalities, clinic barriers to CIH integration, and interest in learning more about CIH modalities. RESULTS: 218 primary care providers completed the survey (45% response rate). Familiarity with individual CIH methods ranged from 73% (chiropracty) to 8% (curanderismo). Most respondents discussed CIH with their patients (88%), and many thought that their patients could benefit from CIH (41%). The majority (89%) were willing to co-manage a patient with a CIH provider. Approximately one-third of respondents had some expertise in at least one CIH modality. Over 78% were interested in learning more about the safety and efficacy of at least one CIH modality. CONCLUSION: Primary care providers in the Northwestern United States are generally familiar with CIH modalities, are interested in referring and co-managing care with CIH providers, and would like to have more learning opportunities to increase knowledge of CIH.

Evidence-Based Interventions and Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates: The Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, 2015-2017.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention administers the Colorectal Cancer Control Program to increase colorectal cancer screening rates among people aged 50-75 years in areas where rates are lower than state or national levels. The aim of this study is to better understand the effectiveness of specific Colorectal Cancer Control Program components. METHODS: The study population included clinics enrolled in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program during Years 1 and 2. Clinic data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention annually from 2015 to 2017 for program evaluation were used. The outcome variable was screening rate change through Program Year 2, and predictor variables were a new implementation or enhancement of evidence-based interventions and other program components. The analysis, conducted in 2020, used ordinary least square and generalized estimating equations regressions and first difference models to estimate the associations of independent variables with the outcome. RESULTS: Of the total 336 clinics, 50%-70% newly implemented or enhanced different evidence-based interventions. Among these, client reminders were most highly associated with the increase in screening rates (8.0 percentage points). Provider reminder was not significantly associated with any change in screening rates. Among all program components, having a colorectal cancer screening champion was most highly (8.4 percentage points) associated with screening rate change. Results from different models were slightly different but in agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Client reminders, provider assessment and feedback, and colorectal cancer screening champions were associated with increased clinic-level colorectal cancer screening rates. Universal implementation of these strategies can substantially increase colorectal cancer screening rates in the U.S.

Design of a study to implement population-based risk assessment for hereditary cancer genetic testing in primary care.

Identifying patients with high genetic risk for cancer has important clinical ramifications, but hereditary cancer risk is often not identified because of testing barriers at both the provider and patient level. It is unknown how to best implement appropriate genetic testing and follow-up care into an operating primary care clinic. Implementation studies to date have been conducted in high resourced facilities under optimal conditions, often not at the clinic level. This study aims to compare and evaluate two population-wide engagement strategies for identifying members of a primary care clinic's population with a family or personal history of cancer and offering high-risk individuals genetic testing for cancer susceptibility mutations. The two engagement strategies are: 1) point of care screening (POC), conducted when a patient is scheduled for an appointment and 2) direct patient engagement (DPE), where outreach provides the patient an opportunity to complete screening online on their own time. The study will identify changes, problems, and inefficiencies in clinical flow during and after the implementation of risk assessment and genomic testing for cancer risk across primary care clinics. It will also evaluate the effects of the two engagement strategies on patient, provider, and clinic leader outcomes, including perceptions of benefits, harms, and satisfaction with the engagement strategy and process of cancer risk assessment and genetic testing, across gender, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and genetic literacy divides. Finally, the study will evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of each engagement strategy.

Facilitating stakeholder engagement in early stage translational research.

INTRODUCTION: Stakeholder engagement can play an important role in increasing public trust and the understanding of scientific research and its impact. Frameworks for stakeholder identification exist, but these frameworks may not apply well to basic science and early stage translational research. METHODS: Four Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs led six focus groups and two semi-structured interviews using a semi-structured discussion guide to learn from basic science researchers about stakeholder engagement in their work. The 24 participants represented fourteen clinical and academic disciplines. RESULTS: Early stage translational researchers reported engagement with a broad array of stakeholders. Those whose research has a clinical focus reported working with a more diverse range of stakeholders than those whose work did not. Common barriers to stakeholder engagement were grouped into three major themes: a poor definition of concepts, absence of guidance, and limited resources. DISCUSSION: The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), the consortium of CTSAs, and the individual CTSA "hubs" are three actors that can help early stage translational researchers develop shared terms of reference, build the necessary skills, and assemble the appropriate resources for engaging stakeholders in Clinical and Translational Research. Getting this right will involve a coordinated push by all three entities.

Use of electronic health record data from diverse primary care practices to identify and characterize patients' prescribed common medications.

We use prescription of statin medications and prescription of warfarin to explore the capacity of electronic health record data to (1) describe cohorts of patients prescribed these medications and (2) identify cohorts of patients with evidence of adverse events related to prescription of these medications. This study was conducted in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network (WPRN)., a network of primary care practices across Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho DataQUEST, an electronic data-sharing infrastructure. We used electronic health record data to describe cohorts of patients prescribed statin or warfarin medications and reported the proportions of patients with adverse events. Among the 35,445 active patients, 1745 received at least one statin prescription and 301 received at least one warfarin prescription. Only 3 percent of statin patients had evidence of myopathy; 51 patients (17% of those prescribed warfarin) had a bleeding complication. Primary-care electronic health record data can effectively be used to identify patients prescribed specific medications and patients potentially experiencing medication adverse events.

Room for Improvement: Rates of Birth Cohort Hepatitis C Screening in Primary Care Practices-A WWAMI Region Practice and Research Network Study.

Introduction: An estimated 2.4 million people in the United States live with hepatitis C. Though there are effective treatments for chronic hepatitis C, many infected individuals remain untreated because 40% to 50% of individuals with chronic hepatitis C are unaware of their hepatitis C status. In 2013, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended that adults born between 1945 and 1965 should be offered one-time hepatitis C screening. The purpose of this study is to describe rates of birth cohort hepatitis C screening across primary care practices in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). Methods: Cross-sectional observational study of adult patients born between 1945 and 1965 who also had a primary care visit at 1 of 9 participating health systems (22 primary care clinics) between July 31, 2013 and September 30, 2015. Data extracted from the electronic health record systems at each clinic were used to calculate the proportion of birth cohort eligible patients with evidence of hepatitis C screening as well as proportions of screened patients with positive hepatitis C screening test results. Results: Of the 32 139 eligible patients, only 10.9% had evidence of hepatitis C screening in the electronic health record data (range 1.2%-49.1% across organizations). Among the 4 WPRN sites that were able to report data by race and ethnicity, the rate of hepatitis C screening was higher among African Americans (39.9%) and American Indians/Alaska Natives (23.2%) compared with Caucasians (10.7%; P < .001). Discussion: Rates of birth cohort hepatitis C screening are low in primary care practices. Future research to develop and test interventions to increase rates of birth cohort hepatitis C screening in primary care settings are needed.

Cross sectional study to assess the accuracy of electronic health record data to identify patients in need of lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States [Siegel et al. in CA Cancer J Clin 66:7-30, 1]. However, evidence from clinical trials indicates that annual low-dose computed tomography screening reduces lung cancer mortality [Humphrey et al. in Ann Intern Med 159:411-420, 2]. The objective of this study is to report results of a study designed to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of an electronic health record (EHR) query in comparison to patient self-report, to identify patients who may benefit from lung cancer screening. Cross sectional study comparing patient self report to EHR derived assessment of tobacco status and need for lung cancer screening. We invited 200 current or former smokers, ages 55-80 to complete a brief paper survey. 26 responded and 24 were included in the analysis. RESULTS: For 30% of respondents, there was not adequate EHR data to make a lung cancer screening determination. Compared to patient self-report, EHR derived data has a 67% sensitivity and 82% specificity for identifying patients that meet criteria for lung cancer screening. While the degree of accuracy may be insufficient to make a final lung cancer screening determination, EHR data may be useful in prompting clinicians to initiate conversations with patients in regards to lung cancer screening.

Patient-oriented health technologies: Patients' perspectives and use.

BACKGROUND: For patient-oriented mobile health tools to contribute meaningfully to improving healthcare delivery, widespread acceptance and use of such tools by patients are critical. However, little is known about patients' attitudes toward using health technology and their willingness to share health data with providers. AIMS: To investigate primary care patients' comfort sharing health information through mobile devices, and patients' awareness and use of patient portals. METHODS: Patients (n=918) who visited one of 6 primary care clinics in the Northwest US completed a survey about health technology use, medical conditions, and demographics. RESULTS: More patients were comfortable sharing mobile health information with providers than having third parties store their information (62% vs 30%, Somers D=.33, p<0.001). Patients older than 55 years were less likely to be comfortable sharing with providers (AORs 0.37-0.42, p<0.01). Only 39% of patients knew if their clinic offered a patient portal; however, of these, 67% used it. Health literacy limitations were associated with lower portal awareness (AOR=0.55, p=0.005) but not use. Portal use was higher among patients with a chronic condition (AOR= 3.18, p=0.004). CONCLUSION: Comfort, awareness, and use of health technologies were variable. Practices introducing patient-facing health technologies should promote awareness, address concerns about data security, and provide education and training, especially to older adults and those with health literacy limitations. Patient-facing health technologies provide an opportunity for delivering scalable health education and self-management support, particularly for patients with chronic conditions who are already using patient portals.

Patient Willingness to Have Tests to Guide Antibiotic Use for Respiratory Tract Infections: From the WWAMI Region Practice and Research Network (WPRN).

INTRODUCTION: The majority of consultations for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) lead to prescriptions for antibiotics, which have limited clinical benefit. We explored patients' willingness to have blood tests as part of the diagnostic work-up for RTIs, and patient knowledge about antibiotics. METHODS: Patients at 6 family medicine clinics were surveyed. Regression modeling was used to determine independent predictors of willingness to have venous and point-of-care (POC) blood tests, and knowledge of the value of antibiotics for RTIs. RESULTS: Data were collected from 737 respondents (response rate 83.8%), of whom 65.7% were women, 60.1% were white, and 25.1% were current smokers; patients' mean age was 46.9 years. Sex (female), race (white), and a preference to avoid antibiotics were independent predictors of greater level of antibiotic knowledge. A total of 63.1% were willing to have a venous draw and 79% a POC blood test, to help guide antibiotic decision-making. Non-American Indian/Alaskan Native race, current smoking, and greater knowledge of antibiotics were independent predictors of willingness to have a POC test. CONCLUSION: A large majority of patients seemed willing to have POC tests to facilitate antibiotic prescribing decisions for RTIs. Poor knowledge about antibiotics suggests better education regarding antibiotic use might influence patient attitudes towards use of antibiotics for RTIs.

Conflicts of Interest and Distribution of Resources to Community Partners: An Organizational Ethics Dilemma.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest can arise when faculty and staff administer programs that distribute research funds, training opportunities, and other resources across academic and community partners. We describe the ethical concerns encountered by a Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in administering its community-focused pilot grant program and how its Research Bioethics Consultation service helped to address them.Ethical Concerns: CTSA program faculty and staff identified ethical concerns in several areas, including appropriateness of including Regional Research Collaborations (RRC) faculty as principal or co-investigators on applications, determining how much help RRC faculty and staff should provide to prospective applicants, and creating a fair and effective application review process. DISCUSSION: The CTSA program identified common goals and values for its community-focused pilot grant program, and resolved the conflicts of interest with the new pilot grant policies. This approach could generalize to conflicts of interest that arise in other academic-community partnerships.

Family Medicine-Specific Practice-Based Research Network Productivity and Clinical and Translational Sciences Award Program Affiliation.

OBJECTIVE: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are groups of practices that work together to conduct research. Little is known about the degree to which PBRNs may be achieving success. This is the first general survey of family medicine-based PBRN directors in the United States and Canada to examine research productivity outcomes of PBRNs and explore the association between Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program affiliation and PBRN outcomes. METHODS: The Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance conducted the survey and e-mailed it to 102 PBRN directors from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's registration. RESULTS: A total of 54 (56%) PBRN directors responded to the survey. PBRNs with an affiliation with a CTSA program were more likely to report completion of quality improvement research and participation in multiple PBRN collaboration research projects. PBRNs affiliated with CTSA programs were less likely to report maintaining funding as a significant barrier. CONCLUSIONS: CTSA involvement with PBRNs results in family physician scientists' completing research and disseminating this research through publication. Also, PBRNs with CTSA partnerships have more funding availability. PBRN partnership with a CTSA is beneficial in furthering research in family medicine.

Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Curricula in US Medical Schools: A CERA Study.

INTRODUCTION: Health disparities among African Americans are an historic and pervasive problem in US health care. We examined the presence, requirements, and content of curricula in US medical schools dedicated to racial and ethnic health disparities. METHODS: We conducted a national CERA survey of Family Medicine department chairs. Chairs were asked about disparities curricula in their institutions. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent reported that their medical school curriculum included focus on racial and ethnic disparities. However, many were dissatisfied with the content and quality of their curricular offerings. There were no significant departmental predictors of the quality of health disparities curricula. CONCLUSION: The majority of medical schools address health disparities in their curricula, but optimally covering this important content remains a persistent challenge in medical school education.