Patients' Perspectives on Plans Generated During Primary Care Visits and Self-Reported Adherence at 3 Months: Data From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective primary care necessitates follow-up actions by the patient beyond the visit. Prior research suggests room for improvement in patient adherence. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand patients' views on their primary care visits, the plans generated therein, and their self-reported adherence after 3 months. METHODS: As part of a large multisite cluster randomized pragmatic trial in 3 health care organizations, patients completed 2 surveys-the first within 7 days after the index primary care visit and another 3 months later. For this analysis of secondary outcomes, we combined the results across all study participants to understand patient adherence to care plans. We recorded patient characteristics and survey responses. Cross-tabulation and chi-square statistics were used to examine bivariate associations, adjusting for multiple comparisons when appropriate. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess how patients' intention to follow, agreement, and understanding of their plans impacted their plan adherence, allowing for differences in individual characteristics. Qualitative content analysis was conducted to characterize the patient's self-reported plans and reasons for adhering (or not) to the plan 3 months later. RESULTS: Of 2555 patients, most selected the top box option (9=definitely agree) that they felt they had a clear plan (n=2011, 78%), agreed with the plan (n=2049, 80%), and intended to follow the plan (n=2108, 83%) discussed with their provider at the primary care visit. The most common elements of the plans reported included reference to exercise (n=359, 14.1%), testing (laboratory, imaging, etc; n=328, 12.8%), diet (n=296, 11.6%), and initiation or adjustment of medications; (n=284, 11.1%). Patients who strongly agreed that they had a clear plan, agreed with the plan, and intended to follow the plan were all more likely to report plan completion 3 months later (P<.001) than those providing less positive ratings. Patients who reported plans related to following up with the primary care provider (P=.008) to initiate or adjust medications (P≤.001) and to have a specialist visit were more likely to report that they had completely followed the plan (P=.003). Adjusting for demographic variables, patients who indicated intent to follow their plan were more likely to follow-through 3 months later (P<.001). Patients' reasons for completely following the plan were mainly that the plan was clear (n=1114, 69.5%), consistent with what mattered (n=1060, 66.1%), and they were determined to carry through with the plan (n=887, 53.3%). The most common reasons for not following the plan were lack of time (n=217, 22.8%), having decided to try a different approach (n=105, 11%), and the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the plan (n=105, 11%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' initial assessment of their plan as clear, their agreement with the plan, and their initial willingness to follow the plan were all strongly related to their self-reported completion of the plan 3 months later. Patients whose plans involved lifestyle changes were less likely to report that they had "completely" followed their plan. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03385512; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03385512. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/30431.

From COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy to Vaccine Acceptance: Results of a Longitudinal Survey.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 vaccines are widely available, but uptake is suboptimal. To develop strategies to increase vaccination rates, we sought to (1) characterize adults initially hesitant to be vaccinated for COVID-19 who later received the vaccine and (2) identify factors associated with their vaccination decision. METHODS: In January 2021, we conducted an online survey of US adults via Prolific that assessed vaccination intent, COVID-19-related knowledge and attitudes, and demographic characteristics. In May 2021, we recontacted respondents to assess vaccination status and factors influencing their vaccination decision. We used χ2 statistics and t tests to examine associations between respondents' vaccination status and their characteristics, knowledge, and attitudes. We analyzed reasons for vaccination using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 756 initially vaccine-hesitant respondents, 529 (70.0%) completed the follow-up survey. Nearly half of those initially not sure about vaccination (47.3%, 112 of 237) were vaccinated at follow-up, while 21.2% (62 of 292) of those initially planning not to be vaccinated were vaccinated at follow-up. Of those initially not sure, higher educational attainment, greater knowledge of COVID-19, and a doctor's recommendation were associated with vaccination. Of those initially intending not to be vaccinated, male sex, Democratic political affiliation, receipt of an influenza shot within 5 years, being more worried about COVID-19, and having greater COVID-19 knowledge were associated with increased likelihood of being vaccinated. Of 167 respondents who gave reasons for vaccination, protecting oneself and others (59.9%), practical issues (29.9%), social influences (17.4%), and vaccine safety (13.8%) were the main reasons. CONCLUSION: Providing information on the protective value of vaccination, implementing rules that make remaining unvaccinated burdensome, making vaccination easy, and providing social support may influence vaccine-hesitant adults to accept vaccination.

Impact of a physician recommendation on COVID-19 vaccination intent among vaccine hesitant individuals.

OBJECTIVE: To test the impact of varied physician recommendations on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: We conducted a vignette-based experimental survey on Prolific, an online research platform. COVID-19 vaccine hesitant, adult panel members were assigned to one of five messages that varied by recommendation style (participatory vs explicit) and strategy (acknowledgement of concerns; comparison to the flu shot; statement that millions of people have already received it; emphasis on protecting others). Vaccine hesitancy was re-assessed with the question, "Would you get vaccinated at this visit?". RESULTS: Of the 752 participants, 60.1% were female, 43.4% Black, 23.6% Latino, and 33.0% White; mean age was 35.6 years. Overall, 33.1% of the initially "not sure" and 13.1% of the initially "no" participants became less hesitant following any recommendation. Among the "not sure" participants, 20.3% of those who received a participatory recommendation became less hesitant compared with 34.3%- 39.5% for the explicit recommendations. The "protect others" message was most effective among initially "no" participants; 19.8% become less hesitant, compared to 8.7% for the participatory recommendation. CONCLUSION: A physician recommendation may reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: An explicit recommendation and "protect others" message appear to be important elements of a physician recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination.

Can sharing clinic notes improve communication and promote self-management? A qualitative study of patients with COPD.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of sharing clinic notes on communication and self-management among patients with COPD and to develop recommendations for writing patient-centered notes. METHODS: Thirty patients with COPD participated in 'think-aloud' interviews in which they reviewed their COPD-specific clinic note. Interviews were coded using conventional content analysis, organized by the six-function communication framework. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly White (93.3%), with a mean age of 65.5 years. More than half had a high school degree or less, half reported difficulty understanding spoken information, and nearly half sometimes need help reading medical materials. Patients indicated notes provided an opportunity to learn details of their condition and facilitated information sharing - strengthening information exchange. Reading notes enabled self-management through motivation, prompting information seeking, and reminding them of action steps. Patients reacted positively to statements suggesting the provider listened to them, saw them as a person, and was attentive to details, which fostered the relationship. Most patients reacted negatively to medical terminology, incorrect information, and wording that was perceived as disparaging. CONCLUSIONS: Sharing clinic notes with patients can promote information exchange, enable self-management, and strengthen the patient-provider relationship. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Incorporating patients' recommendations for writing notes could strengthen the benefits of sharing notes.

Preferences for COVID-19 vaccination information and location: Associations with vaccine hesitancy, race and ethnicity.

This study examined the association between preferences for being informed about the COVID-19 vaccine and where to receive it with vaccination intent and race/ethnicity. We conducted an online survey, oversampling Black and Latino panel members. The 1668 participants were 53.2% female, 34.8% White, 33.3% Black, and 31.8% Latino. Participants who were vaccine hesitant (answered "not sure" or "no" to vaccination intent) were more likely to prefer a conversation with their doctor compared to those who answered "yes" (25.0% and 23.4% vs 7.8%, P < .001, respectively). Among participants who responded "not sure", 61.8% prefer to be vaccinated at a doctor's office, compared with 35.2% of those who responded "yes" (P < .001). Preferred location differed by race/ethnicity (P < .001) with 67.6% of Black "not sure" participants preferring a doctor's office compared to 60.2% of Latino and 54.9% of White "not sure" participants. These findings underscore the need to integrate healthcare providers into COVID-19 vaccination programs.

Attitudes Toward a Potential SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine : A Survey of U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly instigated a global pandemic. Vaccine development is proceeding at an unprecedented pace. Once available, it will be important to maximize vaccine uptake and coverage. OBJECTIVE: To assess intent to be vaccinated against COVID-19 among a representative sample of adults in the United States and identify predictors of and reasons for vaccine hesitancy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey, fielded from 16 through 20 April 2020. SETTING: Representative sample of adults residing in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Approximately 1000 adults drawn from the AmeriSpeak probability-based research panel, covering approximately 97% of the U.S. household population. MEASUREMENTS: Intent to be vaccinated against COVID-19 was measured with the question, "When a vaccine for the coronavirus becomes available, will you get vaccinated?" Response options were "yes," "no," and "not sure." Participants who responded "no" or "not sure" were asked to provide a reason. RESULTS: A total of 991 AmeriSpeak panel members responded. Overall, 57.6% of participants (n = 571) intended to be vaccinated, 31.6% (n = 313) were not sure, and 10.8% (n = 107) did not intend to be vaccinated. Factors independently associated with vaccine hesitancy (a response of "no" or "not sure") included younger age, Black race, lower educational attainment, and not having received the influenza vaccine in the prior year. Reasons for vaccine hesitancy included vaccine-specific concerns, a need for more information, antivaccine attitudes or beliefs, and a lack of trust. LIMITATIONS: Participants' intent to be vaccinated was explored before a vaccine was available and when the pandemic was affecting a narrower swath of the United States. Questions about specific information or factors that might increase vaccination acceptance were not included. The survey response rate was 16.1%. CONCLUSION: This national survey, conducted during the coronavirus pandemic, revealed that approximately 3 in 10 adults were not sure they would accept vaccination and 1 in 10 did not intend to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Targeted and multipronged efforts will be needed to increase acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine when one becomes available. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

We Want to Know-A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Comprehensive Program Designed to Detect and Address Patient-Reported Breakdowns in Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients have important insights into care experiences, including breakdowns, but are often reluctant to speak up. The We Want to Know (WWTK) program was designed to make it easy for hospitalized patients to speak up about breakdowns in care and receive a response. METHODS: The WWTK program was implemented from June 2014 through May 2017 at a large, community hospital in Baltimore. Core program features include (1) multiple channels for patients to report breakdowns, (2) campaign materials to increase patient awareness of the WWTK program, and (3) a specialist to facilitate resolution of breakdowns. This program was evaluated using mixed methods to assess the frequency and type of reported breakdowns, patient awareness of the program, and stakeholder perspectives. RESULTS: WWTK specialists interviewed 4,676 patients; 822 (17.6%) reported a breakdown in care. Of these, 313 (38.1%) had not spoken with anyone at the hospital about the breakdown, and 547 (66.5%) described associated harm. There were also 55 patient-initiated reports to WWTK; 41 (74.5%) of these reported a care breakdown. Patients had not spoken with anyone at the hospital in 12 (29.3%) patient-initiated cases; 38 (92.7%) described associated harm. Hospital stakeholders found the level of detail and timeliness of reports to be helpful. CONCLUSION: Active outreach to hospitalized patients detects substantially more breakdowns in care than patient-initiated reporting. Both approaches identify breakdowns that are consequential to patients and provide opportunities to respond to individual patients.

Communicating with patients about breakdowns in care: a national randomised vignette-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Many patients are reluctant to speak up about breakdowns in care, resulting in missed opportunities to respond to individual patients and improve the system. Effective approaches to encouraging patients to speak up and responding when they do are needed. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors which influence speaking up, and to examine the impact of apology when problems occur. DESIGN: Randomised experiment using a vignette-based questionnaire describing 3 care breakdowns (slow response to call bell, rude aide, unanswered questions). The role of the person inquiring about concerns (doctor, nurse, patient care specialist), extent of the prompt (invitation to patient to share concerns) and level of apology were varied. SETTING: National online survey. PARTICIPANTS: 1188 adults aged ≥35 years were sampled from an online panel representative of the entire US population, created and maintained by GfK, an international survey research organisation; 65.5% response rate. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Affective responses to care breakdowns, intent to speak up, willingness to recommend the hospital. RESULTS: Twice as many participants receiving an in-depth prompt about care breakdowns would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no prompt (18.4% vs 8.8% respectively (p=0.0067)). Almost three times as many participants receiving a full apology would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no apology (34.1% vs 13.6% respectively ((p<0.0001)). Feeling upset was a strong determinant of greater intent to speak up, but a substantial number of upset participants would not 'definitely' speak up. A more extensive prompt did not result in greater likelihood of speaking up. The inquirer's role influenced speaking up for two of the three breakdowns (rudeness and slow response). CONCLUSIONS: Asking about possible care breakdowns in detail, and offering a full apology when breakdowns are reported substantially increases patients' willingness to recommend the hospital.

Positive deviance approaches to improving vaccination coverage rates within healthcare systems: a systematic review.

Aim: Our objective was to systematically review the use of the positive deviance approach to identify strategies to improve vaccination coverage rates. Materials & methods: We searched English language articles in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO without any date restrictions on 4 October 2017. We compiled a list of all strategies and evaluated the quality of these studies using the QATSDD tool. Results: After a review of 241 citations, we included eight studies. These studies focused on a wide variety of vaccines and settings. Core strategies that support vaccine uptake include the importance of tailoring and targeting in both messaging and delivery of vaccines and tracking delivery of vaccines. Patient and provider education, reminders, feedback loops, community collaborations, immunization registries and use of a medical home were also identified as other strategies. Conclusion: Our findings highlight several useful core strategies, which can be used to promote vaccination coverage. PROSPERO: CRD42017078221.

We want to know: patient comfort speaking up about breakdowns in care and patient experience.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient comfort speaking up about problems during hospitalisation and to identify patients at increased risk of having a problem and not feeling comfortable speaking up. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Eight hospitals in Maryland and Washington, District of Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients hospitalised at any one of eight hospitals who completed the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey postdischarge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response to the question 'How often did you feel comfortable speaking up if you had any problems in your care?' grouped as: (1) no problems during hospitalisation, (2) always felt comfortable speaking up and (3) usually/sometimes/never felt comfortable speaking up. RESULTS: Of 10 212 patients who provided valid responses, 4958 (48.6%) indicated they had experienced a problem during hospitalisation. Of these, 1514 (30.5%) did not always feel comfortable speaking up. Predictors of having a problem during hospitalisation included age, health status and education level. Patients who were older, reported worse overall and mental health, were admitted via the Emergency Department and did not speak English at home were less likely to always feel comfortable speaking up. Patients who were not always comfortable speaking up provided lower ratings of nurse communication (47.8 vs 80.4; p<0.01), physician communication (57.2 vs 82.6; p<0.01) and overall hospital ratings (7.1 vs 8.7; p<0.01). They were significantly less likely to definitely recommend the hospital (36.7% vs 71.7 %; p<0.01) than patients who were always comfortable speaking up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently experience problems in care during hospitalisation and many do not feel comfortable speaking up. Creating conditions for patients to be comfortable speaking up may result in service recovery opportunities and improved patient experience. Such efforts should consider the impact of health literacy and mental health on patient engagement in patient-safety activities.

Keeping the patient in the center: Common challenges in the practice of shared decision making.

OBJECTIVE: To examine situations where shared decision making (SDM) in practice does not achieve the goal of a patient-centered decision. METHODS: We explore circumstances in which elements necessary to realize SDM - patient readiness to participate and understanding of the decision - are not present. We consider the influence of contextual factors on decision making. RESULTS: Patients' preference and readiness for participation in SDM are influenced by multiple interacting factors including the patient's comprehension of the decision, their emotional state, the strength of their relationship with the clinician, and the nature of the decision. Uncertainty often inherent in information can lead to misconceptions and ill-formed opinions that impair patients' understanding. In combination with cognitive biases, these factors may result in decisions that are incongruent with patients' preferences. The impact of suboptimal understanding on decision making may be augmented by the context. CONCLUSIONS: There are circumstances in which basic elements required for SDM are not present and therefore the clinician may not achieve the goal of a patient-centered decision. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A flexible and tailored approach that draws on the full continuum of decision making models and communication strategies is required to achieve the goal of a patient-centered decision.

Hospital Procalcitonin Testing and Antibiotic Treatment of Patients Admitted for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbation.

RATIONALE: Randomized trials suggest that assessment of serum procalcitonin (PCT) levels can be used to safely limit antibiotic use among patients hospitalized for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of PCT testing on antibiotic treatment of patients hospitalized for exacerbations of COPD in routine practice. METHODS: We conducted a series of cross-sectional and longitudinal multivariable analyses using data from 2009 to 2011 and 2013 to 2014 from a sample of 505 U.S. hospitals. RESULTS: Of 203,177 patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation in 2013 to 2014, nearly 9 out of 10 were treated with antibiotics. Hospital PCT testing rates ranged from 0 to 83%. In cross-sectional analysis, there was a weak negative association between the rate of PCT testing and risk-adjusted rates of antibiotic initiation (Spearman correlation, -0.12; P = 0.005); each 10-point increase in the percentage of patients undergoing PCT testing was associated with a 0.7% decline in risk-adjusted antibiotic use (P = 0.001). There was no association between hospital rates of PCT testing and duration of antibiotic treatment. In a longitudinal analysis, comparing treatment patterns in 2009 to 2011 and 2013 to 2014, we did not observe a significant difference in the change in antibiotic treatment rates or duration of therapy between hospitals that had adopted PCT testing compared with those that had not. CONCLUSIONS: As currently implemented, PCT testing appears to have had little impact on decisions to initiate antibiotic therapy or on duration of treatment for COPD exacerbations. Implementation research is necessary to translate the promising outcomes from PCT testing observed in randomized trials into clinical practice.

Successful Use of Noninvasive Ventilation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. How Do High-Performing Hospitals Do It?

RATIONALE: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is a cornerstone of treatment for patients with severe exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), where it has been shown to reduce the need for intubation, hospital length of stay, and mortality. Despite high-quality evidence and strong recommendations in clinical guidelines, use of NIV varies widely across hospitals. OBJECTIVES: To identify approaches used by hospitals that have been successful in implementing NIV to treat patients with severe exacerbations of COPD. METHODS: Adopting a positive deviance approach, in-depth interviews were conducted with key stakeholders from a sample of high-performing hospitals selected from a large and representative network of 386 U.S. hospitals. High performers were defined as hospitals in which a high proportion of patients with COPD requiring mechanical ventilation were treated with NIV, and that also achieved low risk-adjusted mortality for all patients with COPD. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes and subthemes were identified through iterative readings of the transcripts and discussion until the team agreed that all important themes and subthemes had been identified. All transcripts were coded by three or four researchers. Differences in coding were discussed to negotiate consensus, resulting in a single agreed-on set of coded transcripts. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 32 participants from seven hospitals. Hospitals were diverse regarding size, teaching status, and geographic location. Participants included respiratory therapists (n = 15), physicians (n = 10), and nurses (n = 7). The qualitative analyses revealed three interrelated domains that characterized effective NIV use: processes, structural elements, and contextual factors. Several themes comprised each domain. Key processes included timely identification of appropriate patients, early initiation of NIV, frequent reassessment of patients, and attention to patient comfort. Necessary structural elements included adequate equipment, sufficient numbers of qualified respiratory therapists, and flexibility in staffing. Important contextual factors included provider buy-in, respiratory therapist autonomy, interdisciplinary teamwork, and staff education. Hospital leaders, policies, and protocols were identified as playing a supporting role in promoting essential elements. CONCLUSIONS: We identified factors, such as respiratory therapist autonomy, that facilitated essential processes (e.g., timely initiation) of NIV use at high-performing hospitals. These findings may be useful to hospitals seeking to optimize their use of NIV among patients with COPD.

Hospital Volume and Outcomes of Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients Hospitalized With an Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between hospital noninvasive ventilation caseload and outcomes among patients with an acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of 13,893 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treated with noninvasive ventilation. SETTING: A total of 243 U.S. hospitals participating in the Premier Inpatient Database. PATIENTS: A total of 13,893 patients admitted between July 2009 and June 2011. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Annual hospital volume of noninvasive ventilation was analyzed as a continuous variable, as well as after grouping it in four categories. The median hospital annual volume of noninvasive ventilation use was 627 and varied from 234 admissions in quartile 1 to 1,529 admissions in quartile 4. Noninvasive ventilation failure occurred in 15.2%, and in-hospital mortality was 6.5%. After adjusting for patient characteristics, relative to low-volume hospitals, high-volume hospitals did not have lower noninvasive ventilation failure (odds ratio quartile 4 vs quartile 1, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.65-1.68) or in-hospital mortality (odds ratio quartile 4 vs quartile 1, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.12). In a hierarchical multivariable analysis with adjustment for patient characteristics where volume was assessed as a continuous variable, hospital volume was not related to outcomes, including noninvasive ventilation failure (p = 0.87), in-hospital mortality (p = 0.88), 30-day readmission for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p = 0.83), or hospital length of stay (p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this large retrospective cohort study suggest that hospitals with higher noninvasive ventilation volume do not achieve better outcomes of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation treated with noninvasive ventilation; even hospitals with low noninvasive ventilation volume are able to successfully implement this intervention.

Surrogate decision makers' perspectives on preventable breakdowns in care among critically ill patients: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe surrogate decision makers' (SDMs) perspectives on preventable breakdowns in care among critically ill patients. METHODS: We screened 70 SDMs of critically ill patients for those who identified a preventable breakdown in care, defined as an event where the SDM believes something "went wrong", that could have been prevented, and resulted in harm. In-depth interviews were conducted with SDMs who identified an eligible event. RESULTS: 32 of 70 participants (46%) identified at least one preventable breakdown in care, with a total of 75 discrete events. Types of breakdowns involved medical care (n=52), communication (n=59), and both (n=40). Four additional breakdowns were related to problems with SDM bedside access to the patient. Adverse consequences of breakdowns included physical harm, need for additional medical care, emotional distress, pain, suffering, loss of trust, life disruption, impaired decision making, and financial expense. 28 of 32 SDMs raised their concerns with clinicians, yet only 25% were satisfactorily addressed. CONCLUSION: SDMs of critically ill patients frequently identify preventable breakdowns in care which result in harm. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: An in-depth understanding of the types of events SDMs find problematic and the associated harms is an important step towards improving the safety and patient-centeredness of healthcare.

"Is this normal? Is this not normal? There's no set example": Sexual Health Intervention Preferences of LGBT Youth in Romantic Relationships.

Limited research has examined the romantic relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth (LGBT) despite evidence of relationship-oriented risks, including STI/HIV infection, unplanned pregnancy, and interpersonal violence. In efforts to inform future dyadic sexual health interventions for LGBT youth, this couples-based study aimed to identify the most salient sexual and relationships concerns of young same-sex couples and to assess their preferences for intervention content and format. Participants were a subset 36 young, racially and ethnically diverse, same-sex couples (N = 72 individuals) recruited from two on-going longitudinal studies. Interviews were coded using a constant comparison method and a process of inductive and deductive thematic analysis was used to interpret the data. The analysis yielded the following intervention themes: addressing sexual risk and protective behaviors, improving communication, coping with family and relationship violence, and identifying role models and sources of support. The couples reported a clear preference for small group interventions and many recommended a mixed format approach for intervention delivery (i.e., including dyadic and online sessions). Additionally, recommendations for participant recruitment included a combination of Internet-based and social network referrals.