Enhancing Uterine Fibroid Care: Clinician Perspectives on Diagnosis, Disparities, and Strategies for Improving Health Care.

Objective: To explore clinicians' perspectives on diagnosing, treating, and managing uterine fibroids, identifying gaps and challenges in health care delivery, and offering recommendations for improving care. Materials and Methods: A qualitative design was used to conduct 14 semistructured interviews with clinicians who treat fibroid patients in central Indiana. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. Constant comparative analysis was used to identify emergent themes. Results: Four themes emerged. (1) Lack of patient fibroid awareness: Patients lacked fibroid awareness, leading to challenges in explaining diagnoses and treatment. Misconceptions and emotional distress highlighted the need for better education. (2) Inequities in care and access: Health care disparities affected Black women and rural patients, with transportation, scheduling delays, and financial constraints hindering access. (3) Continuum of care: Clinicians prioritized patient-centered care and shared decision-making, tailoring treatment based on factors like severity, location, size, cost, fertility goals, and recovery time. (4) Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impact: The pandemic posed challenges and opportunities, prompting telehealth adoption and consideration of nonsurgical options. Conclusions: Clinician perspectives noted patient challenges with fibroids, prompting calls for enhanced education, interdisciplinary collaboration, and accessible care to address crucial aspects of fibroid management and improve women's well-being. Practice Implications: Clinicians identified a lack of patient awareness and unequal access to fibroid care, highlighting the need for improved education and addressing disparities. Findings also emphasized the importance of considering multidimensional aspects of fibroid care and adapting to challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending broader education, affordability, interdisciplinary collaboration, and research for better fibroid health care.

County-Level Factors Associated With Influenza and COVID-19 Vaccination in Indiana, 2020‒2022.

Objectives. To assess COVID-19 and influenza vaccination rates across Indiana's 92 counties and identify county-level factors associated with vaccination. Methods. We analyzed county-level data on adult COVID-19 vaccination from the Indiana vaccine registry and 2021 adult influenza vaccination from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We used multiple linear regression (MLR) to determine county-level predictors of vaccinations. Results. COVID-19 vaccination ranged from 31.2% to 87.6% (mean = 58.0%); influenza vaccination ranged from 33.7% to 53.1% (mean = 42.9%). In MLR, COVID-19 vaccination was significantly associated with primary care providers per capita (b = 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.02, 0.05), median household income (b = 0.23; 95% CI = 0.12, 0.34), percentage Medicare enrollees with a mammogram (b = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.08, 0.51), percentage uninsured (b = -1.22; 95% CI = -1.57, -0.87), percentage African American (b = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.19, 0.42), percentage female (b = -0.97; 95% CI = -1.79, ‒0.15), and percentage who smoke (b = -0.75; 95% CI = -1.26, -0.23). Influenza vaccination was significantly associated with percentage uninsured (b = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.22, 1.21), percentage African American (b = -0.07; 95% CI = -0.13, -0.01), percentage Hispanic (b = -0.28; 95% CI = -0.40, -0.17), percentage who smoke (b = -0.85; 95% CI = -1.06, -0.64), and percentage who completed high school (b = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.21, 0.87). The MLR models explained 86.7% (COVID-19) and 70.2% (influenza) of the variance. Conclusions. Factors associated with COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations varied. Variables reflecting access to care (e.g., insurance) and higher risk of severe disease (e.g., smoking) are notable. Programs to improve access and target high-risk populations may improve vaccination rates. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(4):415-423. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307553).

Differences in Provider Hepatitis C Virus Screening Recommendations by Patient Risk Status.

Providers' recommendation is among the strongest predictors to patients engaging in preventive care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare providers' Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) screening recommendation quality between high-risk and average-risk patients to determine if providers are universally recommending HCV screening, regardless of risk behaviors. This cross-sectional survey of 284 Indiana providers in 2020 assessed provider characteristics, HCV screening recommendation practices (strength, presentation, frequency, timeliness), self-efficacy, and barriers to recommending HCV screening. T-test and Chi-square compared recommendation practices for high-risk and average-risk patients. Prevalence ratios were calculated for variables associated with HCV recommendation strength comparing high-risk and average-risk patients. Logistic regression analyses examined factors associated with HCV recommendation strength for high- and average-risk patients, with odds ratios. Compared to average-risk patients, high-risk patients received higher proportion of HCV recommendations that were strong (70.4 % v. 42.4 %), routine (61.9 % v. 55.6 %), frequent (37.7 % v. 28 %), and timely (74.2 % v. 54.9 %) (P-values < 0.001). Compared to average-risk patients, providers with high-risk patients had a lower percentage of giving a strong recommendation if they were nurse practitioner (PR = 0.49). For high-risk patients, providers with higher self-efficacy (aOR = 2.16;95 %CI = 0.99-4.69) had higher odds, while those with higher perceived barriers (aOR = 0.19;95 %CI = 0.09-0.39) and those with an internal medicine specialty compared to family medicine (aOR = 0.22;95 %CI = 0.08-0.57) had lower odds of giving a strong recommendation. These data suggest providers are not universally recommending HCV screening for all adults regardless of reported risk. Future research should translate these findings into multilevel interventions to improve HCV screening recommendations regardless of patient risk status.

Development and Feasibility Testing of a Multilevel Intervention to Increase Hepatitis C Virus Screening Among Baby Boomers in Primary Care.

Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) results in an increased risk of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Only 15% of baby boomers (born 1945-1965) have ever been screened. We aimed to develop a multilevel intervention to increase HCV screening for baby boomers in a primary care setting. This study included two phases: intervention development (phase 1) and feasibility testing (phase 2). In phase 1, we partnered with a Community Advisory Board and a Provider Advisory Board to develop a multilevel intervention to increase HCV screening to be delivered to both providers and patients in primary care. Phase 2 assessed intervention feasibility, acceptability, and usability by conducting Concurrent Think Aloud (CTA) interviews and surveys using previously validated scales with patients (n = 8) and providers (n = 7). Phase 1 results: The patient-level intervention included a mailed reminder letter and CDC pamphlet and a 7-min in-clinic educational video. The provider-level intervention included a 30-min educational session and monthly performance feedback e-mails. Phase 2 results: Qualitatively, both the patient and provider-level intervention were feasible, acceptable, and usable by the target audiences. Quantitatively, on a 1-4 scale, the range of patient-level scores was 3.00-4.00 and provider level was 3.50-4.00 for feasibility, acceptability, and usability. This intervention could improve HCV screening among a high-risk population and therefore reduce HCV-related morbidity and mortality. This project developed a feasible, acceptable, and usable multilevel intervention aimed at increasing HCV screening in primary care.

"I think people should be more aware:" Uterine fibroid experiences among women living in Indiana, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To understand healthcare experiences among patients with uterine fibroids (fibroids) across the continuum of care, from early symptoms through diagnosis, treatment, and management, while also investigating health disparities. METHODS: We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with patients with fibroids. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis. Eligible participants were women aged 18 and over, residing within 75 miles of one of the two recruitment locations (Tippecanoe or Marion County) in Indiana, USA. RESULTS: Women experienced myriad physical symptoms, which often manifested into psychological and sexual disturbances and infiltrated all aspects of daily life. Internet searches were frequently mentioned as their main information source. Fertility became a prominent factor in deciding treatment options. However, health disparities prevented some from receiving quality fibroids healthcare. Some women reported staying home during COVID-19 pandemic facilitated the management of physical symptoms. Overall, participants advocated for greater fibroids awareness and education. CONCLUSION: Results highlight barriers and facilitators to fibroids-related decisions, behaviors, and outcomes. Translation of research to practice was guided by a combined Social-Ecological Model and social determinants of health framework for development of strategic interventions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Interventions should aim to improve fibroids healthcare access, education and awareness, and patient-provider communication for minority, rural, and low socioeconomic status communities disproportionately impacted by fibroids.