Interventions to Improve Long-Term Adherence to Physical Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of physical rehabilitation interventions, supplemented with one or more adherence-enhancing components, on outcomes among adults with hip or knee osteoarthritis or chronic lower back pain. DESIGN: Primary literature search from inception of each database to July 27, 2021, guided by relevant search terms and keywords to search titles and abstracts. All articles meeting eligibility criteria were included for data abstraction. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, and Embase. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomized and nonrandomized trials evaluating adherence-focused intervention components conducted in addition to an index usual care or usual care-like physical rehabilitation program among adults with hip or knee osteoarthritis or chronic low back pain. Eligible studies included a comparator group of the same index physical rehabilitation intervention without the adjunctive adherence components. Included studies measured outcomes at least 3 months after the rehabilitation course. RESULTS: Of the 10 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 6 interventions were delivered concurrent to an index rehabilitation program and 4 were delivered sequentially. Of the 3 studies that reported a positive effect on long-term adherence, only 1 was a low risk of bias study. There is very limited evidence of a beneficial treatment effect of adjunct adherence interventions on long-term physical function, self-efficacy, or adverse events. CONCLUSION: We found inadequate evidence evaluating adherence-enhancing interventions for the specific promotion of long-term adherence to home rehabilitation programs. Future studies should consider testing interventions specifically built to target behavioral maintenance of home rehabilitation programs.

Genomic classifiers and prognosis of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Refinement of the risk classification for localized prostate cancer is warranted to aid in clinical decision making. A systematic analysis was undertaken to evaluate the prognostic ability of three genomic classifiers, Decipher, GPS, and Prolaris, for biochemical recurrence, development of metastases and prostate cancer-specific mortality in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were queried for reports published from January 2010 to April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: prospective or retrospective studies reporting prognosis for patients with localized prostate cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: relevant data were extracted into a customized database by one researcher with a second overreading. Risk of bias was assessed using a validated tool for prognostic studies, Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS). Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by input from a third reviewer. We assessed the certainty of evidence by GRADE incorporating adaptation for prognostic studies. RESULTS: Data synthesis: a total of 39 studies (37 retrospective) involving over 10,000 patients were identified. Twenty-two assessed Decipher, 5 GPS, and 14 Prolaris. Thirty-four studies included patients who underwent prostatectomy. Based on very low to low certainty of evidence, each of the three genomic classifiers modestly improved upon the prognostic ability for biochemical recurrence, development of metastases, and prostate cancer-specific mortality compared to standard clinical risk-classification schemes. LIMITATIONS: downgrading of confidence in the evidence stemmed largely from bias due to the retrospective nature of the studies, heterogeneity in treatment received, and era in which patients were treated (i.e., prior to the 2000s). CONCLUSIONS: Genomic classifiers provide a small but consistent improvement upon the prognostic ability of clinical classification schemes, which may be helpful when treatment decisions are uncertain. However, evidence from current management-era data and of the predictive ability of these tests is needed.

Strategies for enhancing the representation of women in clinical trials: an evidence map.

BACKGROUND: Equitable sex- and gender-based representation in clinical trials is an essential step to ensuring evidence-based care for women. While multi-institutional actions have led to significant improvements in the inclusion of women in trials, inequity persists in areas like sex-neutral cancers and cardiovascular disease. We sought to identify strategies described or evaluated to boost the inclusion of women in clinical trials. METHODS: We used evidence mapping methodology to examine the breadth of relevant literature. We developed an a priori protocol and followed reporting guidance from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis where applicable. We searched MEDLINE® (via PubMed) and EMBASE (via Elsevier) databases from inception through April 4, 2023, and used standardized procedures incorporating duplication and data verification. We included articles that described strategies to improve the recruitment and retention of women in clinical trials. RESULTS: We identified 122 articles describing recruitment and retention strategies for 136 trials (377,595 women). Only one article distinguished between the sex and gender identity of participants, and none defined their use of the terms such as "women" or "female". The majority of articles (95%) described recruitment for only women, and 64% were conducted in the USA. Ninety-two articles (75%) described strategies in the context of sex-specific conditions (e.g., gynecologic diagnosis). The majority of included articles evaluated a behavioral intervention (52%), with 23% evaluating pharmacologic interventions and 4% invasive interventions. The most common trial phase for reported strategies was during outreach to potential participants (116 articles), followed by intervention delivery (76), enrollment (40), outcomes assessment (21), analysis and interpretation (3), and dissemination (4). We describe specific types of strategies within each of these phases. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the existing literature describing strategies to improve the inclusion of women draws from trials for sex-specific conditions and is largely related to outreach to potential participants. There is little information about how and if studies have attempted to proportionally increase the inclusion of women in trials with both men and women or those focused on invasive and pharmacologic interventions. Future work in this area should focus on how to increase the participation of women in mixed-sex studies and on those areas with remaining inequities in trial participation.

Optimizing the Equitable Deployment of Virtual Care for Women: Protocol for a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Examining Patient and Provider Perspectives Supplemented with Primary Qualitative Data.

Introduction: Women experience numerous barriers to patient-centered health care (e.g., lack of continuity). Such barriers are amplified for women from marginalized communities. Virtual care may improve equitable access. We are conducting a partner-engaged, qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) of patients' and providers' experiences with virtual health care delivery for women. Methods: We use a best-fit framework approach informed by the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework and Public Health Critical Race Praxis. We will supplement published literature with qualitative interviews with women from underrepresented communities and their health care providers. We will engage patients and other contributors through multiple participatory methods. Results: Our search identified 5525 articles published from 2010 to 2022. Sixty were eligible, of which 42 focused on women and 24 on provider experiences. Data abstraction and analysis are ongoing. Discussion: This work offers four key innovations to advance health equity: (1) conceptual foundation rooted in an antiracist action-oriented praxis; (2) worked example of centering QES on marginalized communities; (3) supplementing QES with primary qualitative information with populations historically marginalized in the health care system; and (4) participatory approaches that foster longitudinal partnered engagement. Health Equity Implications: Our approach to exploring virtual health care for women demonstrates an antiracist praxis to inform knowledge generation. In doing so, we aim to generate findings that can guide health care systems in the equitable deployment of comprehensive virtual care for women.

Team-Based Qualitative Rapid Analysis: Approach and Considerations for Conducting Developmental Formative Evaluation for Intervention Design.

Qualitative rapid analysis is one of many rapid research approaches that offer a solution to the problem of time constrained health services evaluations and avoids sacrificing the richness of qualitative data that is needed for intervention design. We describe modifications to an established team-based, rapid analysis approach that we used to rapidly collect and analyze semi-structured interview data for a developmental formative evaluation of a cardiovascular disease prevention intervention. Over 18 weeks, we conducted and analyzed 35 semi-structured interviews that were conducted with patients and health care providers in the Veterans Health Administration to identify targets for adapting the intervention in preparation for a clinical trial. We identified 12 key themes describing actionable targets for intervention modification. We highlight important methodological decisions that allowed us to maintain rigor when using qualitative rapid analysis for intervention adaptation and we provide practical guidance on the resources needed to execute similar qualitative studies. We additionally reflect on the benefits and challenges of the described approach when working within a remote research team environment.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04545489.

Rolling out PRIDE in All Who Served: Barriers and Facilitators for Sites Implementing an LGBTQ+ Health Education Group for Military Veterans.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) PRIDE in All Who Served health education group (PRIDE) was developed to improve health equity and access to care for military veterans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and/or other sexual/gender-diverse identities (LGBTQ+). This 10-week program rapidly spread to over 30 VHA facilities in 4 years. Veterans receiving PRIDE experience improved LGBTQ+ identity-related resilience and reductions in suicide attempt likelihood. Despite PRIDE's rapid spread across facilities, information is lacking on implementation determinants. The current study's goal was to clarify determinants of PRIDE group implementation and sustainment. METHODS: A purposive sample of VHA staff (N = 19) with experience delivering or implementing PRIDE completed teleconference interviews January-April 2021. The interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Rapid qualitative matrix analysis was completed with methods to ensure rigor (e.g., triangulation and investigator reflexivity). RESULTS: Key barriers and facilitators of PRIDE implementation were heavily related to facility inner setting (what is happening inside the facility), including implementation readiness (e.g., leadership support for LGBTQ+-affirming programming, access to LGBTQ+-affirming care training) and facility culture (e.g., systemic anti-LGBTQ+ stigma). Several implementation process facilitators enhanced engagement at sites, such as a centrally facilitated PRIDE learning collaborative and a formal process of contracting/training for new PRIDE sites. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Although aspects of the outer setting and larger societal influences were mentioned, the majority of factors impacting implementation success were at the VHA facility level and therefore may be more readily addressable through tailored implementation support. The importance of LGBTQ+ equity at the facility level indicates that implementation facilitation should ideally address institutional equity in addition to implementation logistics. Combining effective interventions with attention to local implementation needs will be required before LGBTQ+ veterans in all areas will benefit from PRIDE and other health equity-focused interventions.

Frontline Clinician Appraisement of Research Engagement: "I feel out of touch with research".

BACKGROUND: Health services research can benefit from frontline clinician input across all stages of research, yet their key perspectives are often not meaningfully engaged. OBJECTIVE: How can we improve clinician engagement in research? DESIGN: Convenience sampling and semi-structured interviews followed by descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach, followed by group participatory listening sessions with interviewees to further contextualize findings. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one multidisciplinary clinicians from one healthcare system. KEY RESULTS: We identified two major themes: perceptions of research (how research fits within job role) and characterizing effective engagement (what works and what does not work in frontline clinician engagement). "Perceptions of Research" encompassed three subthemes: prior research experience; desired degree of engagement; and benefits to clinicians engaging in research. "Characterizing Effective Engagement" had these subthemes: engagement barriers; engagement facilitators; and impact of clinician's racial identity. CONCLUSIONS: Investing in frontline clinicians as research collaborators is beneficial to clinicians themselves, the health systems that employ them, and those for which they care. Yet, there are multiple barriers to meaningful engagement.

Research Inclusion Across the Lifespan: A Good Start, but There Is More Work to Be Done.

While older adults account for a disproportionate amount of healthcare spending, they are often underrepresented in clinical research needed to guide clinical care. The purpose of this perspective is to make readers aware of new data on age at enrollment for participants included in National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical research. We highlight key findings of relevance to general internal medicine and suggest ways readers could support the inclusion of older adults in clinical research. Data from the NIH Research Inclusion Statistics Report show that there were 881,385 participants enrolled in all NIH-funded clinical research in 2021, of whom 170,110 (19%) were 65 years and older. However, on average, studies included a far lower percentage of older adults. Additionally, there were many conditions for which overall enrollment rates for older adults were lower than would be expected. For example, while 10% of participants in studies related to diabetes were ≥ 65 years old, older individuals represent 43% of all prevalent diabetes in the USA. Researchers should work with clinicians to advocate for older adults and ensure their participation in clinical research. Best practices and resources for overcoming common barriers to the inclusion of older adults in research could also be disseminated.

Videoconferencing of Movement-Based and Psychologically Informed Interventions for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Horizon Scan.

Introduction: With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, use of telehealth technology increased dramatically. Nonpharmacological approaches to pain management may be well suited for virtual care. Yet, it is not widely understood if this treatment modality is effective when delivered via videoconferencing. This review examines the effectiveness of movement-based and psychologically informed chronic pain management interventions delivered via videoconferencing compared to in-person care. Methods: Searches of MEDLINE® (via Ovid®), Embase (via Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Ovid) were performed from inception to June 10, 2021. All articles meeting eligibility criteria were included for data abstraction. Results: Eight thousand two hundred fifty-two citations were identified, and after removing duplicates, 4,661 citations remained. One study investigating acceptance and commitment therapy met eligibility criteria. The noninferiority randomized trial found no statistically significant difference in outcomes between delivery modalities. A horizon scan was conducted to assess planned or recent studies. Horizon scan results yielded six protocols in trial databases, one pilot study, and three published protocols for ongoing studies. Discussion: Findings from this study indicate that virtually delivered pain management is a possible substitute for in-person care. Given the paucity of evidence on this topic, further comparative and adequately powered studies that assess the impact of movement-based and psychologically informed pain management delivered via videoconferencing are needed. Conclusions: Research is needed to understand patient preferences of such interventions within a variety of settings. Such evaluations will be needed to guide clinical and operations practice to optimize equitable deployment and access to high-quality health care delivered via videoconferencing.

Incorporating TechQuity in Virtual Care Within the Veterans Health Administration: Identifying Future Research and Operations Priorities.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic dramatically changed healthcare delivery, driving rapid expansion of synchronous (i.e., real-time) audio-only and video telehealth, otherwise known as virtual care. Yet evidence describes significant inequities in virtual care utilization, with certain populations more dependent on audio-only virtual care than video-based care. Research is needed to inform virtual care policies and processes to counteract current inequities in access and health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Given the importance of incorporating equity into virtual care within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), we convened a Think Tank to identify priorities for future research and virtual care operations focused on achieving equitable implementation of virtual care within the VHA. METHODS: We used participatory activities to engage clinicians, researchers, and operational partners from across the VHA to develop priorities for equitable implementation of virtual care. We refined priorities through group discussion and force-ranked prioritization and outlined next steps for selected priorities. KEY RESULTS: Think Tank participants included 43 individuals from the VHA who represented diverse geographical regions, offices, and backgrounds. Attendees self-identified their associations primarily as operations (n = 9), research (n = 28), or both (n = 6). We identified an initial list of 63 potential priorities for future research and virtual care operations. Following discussion, we narrowed the list to four priority areas: (1) measure inequities in virtual care, (2) address emerging inequities in virtual care, (3) deploy virtual care equitably to accommodate differently abled veterans, and (4) measure and address potential adverse consequences of expanded virtual care. We discuss related information, data, key partners, and outline potential next steps. CONCLUSIONS: This Think Tank of research and operational partners from across the VHA identified promising opportunities to incorporate equity into the design and implementation of virtual care. Although much work remains, the priorities identified represent important steps toward achieving this vital goal.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of improvement coaching: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organisations and teams perform improvement activities to facilitate high-quality healthcare. The use of an improvement coach who provides support and guidance to the healthcare team may facilitate improvement activities; however, no systematic review exists on the facilitators and barriers to implementing an improvement coach. AIMS: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to examine the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improvement coaching. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE® , Embase and CINAHL. The final search was in March 2021. The screening eligibility criteria included the following: interdisciplinary team receiving the coaching, improvement coaching, designs with a qualitative component and primary purpose of evaluating practice facilitation in OECD countries. An ecologically-informed consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) served as the framework for coding. Patterns of barriers and facilitators across domains were identified through matrix analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Program. PRISMA reporting guidelines served as a guide for reporting this review. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with a qualitative component met the inclusion criteria. Four themes of barriers and facilitators crossed multiple CFIR domains: adaptability (e.g. making adjustments to the project; process, or approach); knowledge and skills (e.g. understanding of content and process for the project); engagement (e.g. willingness to be involved in the process) and resources (e.g. assets required to complete the improvement process). CONCLUSION: Improvement coaching is a complex intervention that influences the context, healthcare team being coached and improvement activities. Improvement coaches should understand how to minimise barriers and promote facilitators that are unique to each improvement project across the domains. Limitations of the study are related to the nature of the intervention including potential publication bias given quality improvement focus; the variety of terms similar to improvement coaching or selection of framework.

Participatory research to improve medication reconciliation for older adults in the community.

INTRODUCTION: Medication reconciliation, a technique that assists in aligning a care team's understanding of an individual's true medication regimen, is vital to optimize medication use and prevent medication errors. Historically, most medication reconciliation research has focused on institutional settings and transitional care, with comparatively little attention given to medication reconciliation in community settings. To optimize medication reconciliation for community-dwelling older adults, healthcare professionals and older adults must be engaged in co-designing processes that create sustainable approaches. METHODS: Academic researchers, older adults, and community- and health system-based healthcare professionals engaged in a participatory process to better understand medication reconciliation barriers and co-design solutions. The initiative consisted of two participatory research approaches: (1) Sparks Innovation Studios, which synthesized professional expertise and opinions, and (2) a Community Consultation Studio with older adults. Input from both groups informed a list of possible solutions and these were ranked based on evaluative criteria of feasibility, person-centeredness, equity, and sustainability. RESULTS: Sparks Innovation Studios identified a lack of ownership, fragmented healthcare systems, and time constraints as the leading barriers to medication reconciliation. The Community Consultation Studio revealed that older adults often feel dismissed in medical encounters and perceive poor communication with and among providers. The Community Consultation Studio and Sparks Innovation Studios resulted in four highly-ranked solutions to improve medication reconciliation: (1) support for older adults to improve health literacy and ownership; (2) ensuring medication indications are included on prescription labels; (3) trainings and incentives for front-line staff in clinic settings to become champions for medication reconciliation; and (4) electronic health record improvements that simplify active medication lists. CONCLUSION: Engaging community representatives with academic partners in the research process enhanced understanding of community priorities and provided a practical roadmap for innovations that have the potential to improve the well-being of community-dwelling older adults.

Implementing evidence-based telephone coaching for health behavior program enrollment: A quality improvement project.

INTRODUCTION: This program evaluation describes the use of implementation facilitation to support uptake of a telephone-based engagement coaching intervention, ACTIVATE, using paraprofessional staff, to support health behavior program enrollment. METHOD: The RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework guided the formative evaluation. A mixed-methods approach was used to integrate qualitative (i.e., rapid analysis approach) and quantitative (i.e., descriptive statistics, chi-square test of independence, logistic regression) analyses for each outcome. RESULTS: Most patients (95%; 319 of 335) were offered ACTIVATE, and 82 patients completed ACTIVATE. Delivery with paraprofessional staff was feasible with adaptations for translation from research to a clinical setting, which are described. External facilitation (a form of implementation facilitation) was associated with higher reach. DISCUSSION: Delivery of telephone-based coaching by paraprofessional staff to support health behavior program enrollment was feasible. External facilitation was important to the translation of ACTIVATE from research to clinical practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Telehealth for the Longitudinal Management of Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Extensive literature support telehealth as a supplement or adjunct to in-person care for the management of chronic conditions such as congestive heart failure (CHF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Evidence is needed to support the use of telehealth as an equivalent and equitable replacement for in-person care and to assess potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to address the following question: among adults, what is the effect of synchronous telehealth (real-time response among individuals via phone or phone and video) compared with in-person care (or compared with phone, if synchronous video care) for chronic management of CHF, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and T2DM on key disease-specific clinical outcomes and health care use? METHODS: We followed systematic review methodologies and searched two databases (MEDLINE and Embase). We included randomized or quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the effect of synchronously delivered telehealth for relevant chronic conditions that occurred over ≥2 encounters and in which some or all in-person care was supplanted by care delivered via phone or video. We assessed the bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias (ROB) tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. We described the findings narratively and did not conduct meta-analysis owing to the small number of studies and the conceptual heterogeneity of the identified interventions. RESULTS: We identified 8662 studies, and 129 (1.49%) were reviewed at the full-text stage. In total, 3.9% (5/129) of the articles were retained for data extraction, all of which (5/5, 100%) were randomized controlled trials. The CHF study (1/5, 20%) was found to have high ROB and randomized patients (n=210) to receive quarterly automated asynchronous web-based review and follow-up of telemetry data versus synchronous personal follow-up (in-person vs phone-based) for 1 year. A 3-way comparison across study arms found no significant differences in clinical outcomes. Overall, 80% (4/5) of the studies (n=466) evaluated synchronous care for patients with T2DM (ROB was judged to be low for 2, 50% of studies and high for 2, 50% of studies). In total, 20% (1/5) of the studies were adequately powered to assess the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin level between groups; however, no significant difference was found. Intervention design varied greatly from remote monitoring of blood glucose combined with video versus in-person visits to an endocrinology clinic to a brief, 3-week remote intervention to stabilize uncontrolled diabetes. No articles were identified for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CONCLUSIONS: This review found few studies with a variety of designs and interventions that used telehealth as a replacement for in-person care. Future research should consider including observational studies and studies on additional highly prevalent chronic diseases.

Primary Care Engagement Among Individuals with Experiences of Homelessness and Serious Mental Illness: an Evidence Map.

BACKGROUND: Experiences of homelessness and serious mental illness (SMI) negatively impact health and receipt of healthcare. Interventions that promote the use of primary care services for people with both SMI and homelessness may improve health outcomes, but this literature has not been evaluated systematically. This evidence map examines the breadth of literature to describe what intervention strategies have been studied for this population, elements of primary care integration with other services used, and the level of intervention complexity to highlight gaps for future intervention research and program development. METHODS: We followed an a priori protocol developed in collaboration with clinical stakeholders. We systematically searched the published literature to identify interventions for adults with homelessness who also had SMI. We excluded case reports, editorials, letters, and conference abstracts. Data abstraction methods followed standard practice. Data were categorized into intervention strategies and primary care integration strategies. Then we applied the Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) to characterize intervention complexity. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles met our inclusion criteria evaluating 15 unique interventions to promote engagement in primary care for adults with experiences of homelessness and SMI. Study designs varied widely from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies to single-site program evaluations. Intervention strategies varied across studies but primarily targeted patients directly (e.g., health education, evidence-based interactions such as motivational interviewing) with fewer strategies employed at the clinic (e.g., employee training, multidisciplinary teams) or system levels (e.g., data sharing). We identified elements of primary care integration, including referral strategies, co-location, and interdisciplinary care planning. Interventions displayed notable complexity around the number of intervention components, interaction between intervention components, and extent to which interventions were tailored to specific patient populations. DISCUSSION: We identified and categorized elements used in various combinations to address the primary care needs of individuals with experiences of homeless and SMI.

"Is it cancer or not?" A qualitative exploration of survivor concerns surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Of the nearly 50,000 women in the United States who undergo treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) annually, many may not benefit from treatment. To better understand the impact of a DCIS diagnosis, patients self-identified as having had DCIS were engaged regarding their experience. METHODS: In July 2014, a web-based survey was administered through the Susan Love Army of Women breast cancer listserv. The survey included open-ended questions designed to assess patients' perspectives about DCIS diagnosis and treatment. Deductive and inductive codes were applied to the responses; common themes were summarized. RESULTS: Among the 1832 women included in the analytic sample, the median age at diagnosis was 60 years. Four primary themes were identified: 1) uncertainty surrounding a DCIS diagnosis, 2) uncertainty about DCIS treatment, 3) concern about treatment side effects, and 4) concern about recurrence and/or developing invasive breast cancer. When diagnosed, participants were often uncertain about whether they had cancer or not and whether they should be considered a "survivor." Uncertainty about treatment manifested as questioning the appropriateness of the amount of treatment received. Participants expressed concern about the "cancer spreading" or becoming invasive and that they were not necessarily "doing enough" to prevent recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, national sample, participants with a history of DCIS reported confusion and concern about the diagnosis and treatment, which caused worry and significant uncertainty. Developing strategies to improve patient and provider communications regarding the nature of DCIS and acknowledging gaps in the current knowledge of management options should be a priority.

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Coaching on Process Outcomes in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: A culture of improvement is an important feature of high-quality health care systems. However, health care teams often need support to translate quality improvement (QI) activities into practice. One method of support is consultation from a QI coach. The literature suggests that coaching interventions have a positive impact on clinical outcomes. However, the impact of coaching on specific process outcomes, like adoption of clinical care activities, is unknown. Identifying the process outcomes for which QI coaching is most effective could provide specific guidance on when to employ this strategy. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021. Studies that addressed the effects of QI coaching on process of care outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We identified 1983 articles, of which 23 cluster-randomized trials met eligibility criteria. All but two took place in a primary care setting. Overall, interventions typically targeted multiple simultaneous processes of care activities. We found that coaching probably has a beneficial effect on composite process of care outcomes (n = 9) and ordering of labs and vital signs (n = 6), and possibly has a beneficial effect on changes in organizational process of care (n = 5), appropriate documentation (n = 5), and delivery of appropriate counseling (n = 3). We did not perform meta-analyses because of conceptual heterogeneity around intervention design and outcomes; rather, we synthesized the data narratively. Due to imprecision, inconsistency, and high risk of bias of the included studies, we judged the certainty of these results as low or very low. CONCLUSION: QI coaching interventions may affect certain processes of care activities such as ordering of labs and vital signs. Future research that advances the identification of when QI coaching is most beneficial for health care teams seeking to implement improvement processes in pursuit of high-quality care will support efficient use of QI resources. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020165069).

Risk of Transmitting Coronavirus Disease 2019 During Nebulizer Treatment: A Systematic Review.

Rationale: There is an urgent need to understand the risk of viral transmission during nebulizer treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objectives: To assess the risk of transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and influenza with administration of drugs via nebulizer. Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases, including PubMed®, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, preprint databases, and clinicaltrials.gov through December 1, 2020. Any study design in any language describing the risk of viral transmission with nebulizer treatment was eligible. Data were abstracted by one investigator and verified by a second. Results: We identified 22 articles: 1 systematic review, 7 cohort/case-control studies, 7 case series, and 7 simulation-based studies. Eight individual studies involved patients with SARS, five involved MERS, and one involved SARS-CoV-2. The seven cohort/case-control studies (four high risk of bias [ROB], three unclear ROB) found mixed results (median odds ratio 3.91, range 0.08-20.67) based on very weak data among a small number of health care workers (HCWs) with variable use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Case series had multiple potential contributors to transmission. Simulation studies found evidence for droplet dispersion after saline nebulization and measureable influenza viral particles up to 1.7 m from the source after 10 minutes of nebulization with a patient simulator. Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Conclusions: Case series raise concern of transmission risk, and simulation studies demonstrate droplet dispersion with virus recovery, but specific evidence that exposure to nebulizer treatment increases transmission of coronaviruses similar to COVID-19 is inconclusive. Tradeoffs balancing HCW safety and patient appropriateness can potentially minimize risk, including choice of delivery method for inhaled medications (e.g., nebulizer vs. metered dose inhaler) and PPE (e.g., N95 vs. surgical mask).