Boot Camp Translation using Community-Engaged messaging for adolescent Vaccination: A Cluster-Randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Routine vaccination coverage for adolescents living in the rural US is lower than adolescents living in urban areas. We sought to measure the effect of Boot Camp Translation (BCT), a community-based participatory intervention, on rural adolescent vaccination coverage. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was performed September 2018-November 2021 involving 16 rural Colorado counties. Intervention county community members engaged in BCT to develop interventions to improve adolescent vaccination locally. Adolescent vaccination coverage was measured using the Colorado Immunization Information System. RESULTS: For 11-12-year-olds, HPV initiation, HPV up-to-date, MenACWY, and Tdap vaccination coverage was lower post- versus pre-intervention in the control and intervention groups. For 11-12-year-olds in the intervention group, there was no significant difference post- versus pre-intervention in the odds of HPV vaccine initiation (adjusted ratio of odds ratios [aROR] = 0.93, 95 %: 0.85-1.02, p = 0.10) or up-to-date HPV vaccination (aROR: 1.10, 95 % CI: 0.98-1.23, p = 0.11) compared with the control group. Among 11-12-year-olds, the decrease in the proportion vaccinated with MenACWY and Tdap in the intervention group was significantly greater than the control group. Among 13-17-year-olds, there were significant increases in HPV initiation, HPV up-to-date, MenACWY, and Tdap vaccination coverage from pre- to post-intervention for both groups, with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: 11-12-year-old vaccination coverage decreased slightly from pre- to post-intervention while 13-17-year-old vaccination coverage increased. We saw no effect from the BCT intervention. Our findings about the effectiveness of BCT for improving vaccine uptake may not be generalizable because the study coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03955757.

Integrated Behavioral Health Adaptations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns threatened standard components of integrated behavioral health (IBH) such as in-person communication across care teams, screening, and assessment. Restrictions also exacerbated pre-existing challenges to behavioral health (BH) access. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were completed with clinicians from family medicine residency programs on the impact of the pandemic on IBH care delivery along with adaptations employed by care teams to ameliorate disruption. RESULTS: Participants (n = 41) from 14 family medicine residency programs described the rapid shift to virtual care, creating challenges for IBH delivery and increased demand for BH services. With patients and care team members at home, virtual warm handoffs and increased attention to communication were necessary. Screening and measurement were more difficult, and referrals to appropriate services were challenging due to higher demand. Tele-BH facilitated continued access to BH services but was associated with logistic challenges. Participants described adaptations to stay connected with patients and care teams and discussed the need to increase capacity for both in-person and virtual care. DISCUSSION: Most practices modified their workflows to use tele-BH as COVID-19 cases increased. Participants shared key learnings for successful implementation of tele-BH that could be applied in future health care crises. CONCLUSION: Practices adapted readily to challenges posed by pandemic restrictions and their ability to sustain key elements of IBH during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates innovation in maintaining access when in-person care is not possible, informing strategies applicable to other scenarios.

Integrated Behavioral Health Implementation and Training in Primary Care: A Practice-Based Research Network Study.

INTRODUCTION: Integrating behavioral health services into primary care has a strong evidence base, but how primary care training programs incorporate integrated behavioral health (IBH) into care delivery and training has not been well described. The goal of this study was to evaluate factors related to successful IBH implementation in family medicine (FM) residency programs and assess perspectives and attitudes on IBH among program leaders. METHODS: FM residency programs, all which are required to provide IBH training, were recruited from the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network. After completing eligibility screening that included the Integrated Practice Assessment Tool (IPAT) questionnaire, 14 training programs were included. Selected practices identified 3 staff in key roles to be interviewed: medical director or similar, behavioral health professional (BHP), and chief medical officer or similar. RESULTS: Forty-one individuals from 14 FM training programs were interviewed. IPAT scores ranged from 4 (Close Collaboration Onsite) to 6 (Full Collaboration). Screening, outcome tracking, and treatment differed among and within practices. Use of curricula and trainee experience also varied with little standardization. Most participants described similar approaches to communication and collaboration between primary care clinicians and BHPs and believed that IBH should be standard practice. Participants reported space, staff, and billing support as critical for sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery and training experiences in IBH varied widely despite recognition of the value and benefits to patients and care delivery processes. Standardizing resources and training and simplifying and assuring reimbursement for services may promote sustainable and high quality IBH implementation.

Advancing health equity through implementation science: Identifying and examining measures of the outer setting.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science (IS) could accelerate progress toward achieving health equity goals. However, the lack of attention to the outer setting where interventions are implemented limits applicability and generalizability of findings to different populations, settings, and time periods. We developed a data resource to assess outer setting across seven centers funded by the National Cancer Institute's IS Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network Program. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of the Outer Setting Data Resource and characterize the county-level outer context across Centers. METHODS: Our Data Resource captures seven key environments, including: (1) food; (2) physical; (3) economic; (4) social; (5) health care; (6) cancer behavioral and screening; and (7) cancer-related policy. Data were obtained from public sources including the US Census and American Community Survey. We present medians and interquartile ranges based on the distribution of all counties in the US, all ISC3 centers, and within each Center for twelve selected measures. Distributions of each factor are compared with the national estimate using single sample sign tests. RESULTS: ISC3 centers' catchment areas include 458 counties and over 126 million people across 28 states. The median percentage of population living within ½ mile of a park is higher in ISC3 counties (38.0%, interquartile range (IQR): 16.0%-59.0%) compared to nationally (18.0%, IQR: 7.0%-38.0%; p < 0.0001). The median percentage of households with no broadband access is significantly lower in ISC3 counties (28.4%, IQR: 21.4%-35.6%) compared the nation overall (32.8%, IQR: 25.8%-41.2%; p < 0.0001). The median unemployment rate was significantly higher in ISC3 counties (5.2%, IQR: 4.1%-6.4%) compared to nationally (4.9%, 3.6%-6.3%, p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the outer setting varies across Centers and often differs from the national level. These findings demonstrate the importance of assessing the contextual environment in which interventions are implemented and suggest potential implications for intervention generalizability and scalability.

Models for Delivering Weight Management in Primary Care: Qualitative Results from the MOST Obesity Study.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States (US). Primary care medical practices can educate patients about the health effects of obesity and help patients with obesity lose and manage their weight. However, implementation of weight management in primary care is challenging. We sought to examine how practices that implement weight management services do so feasibly. METHODS: Multiple methods including site visits, observations, interviews, and document reviews were utilized to identify and learn from primary care practices located across the US. A qualitative multidimensional classification of empirical cases was performed to identify unique delivery features that were feasible to implement in primary care. RESULTS: Across 21 practices, 4 delivery models were identified: group, integrated into standard primary care, hiring an "other" professional, and using a specific program. Model characteristics included who delivered the weight management services, whether delivered to an individual or group, the types of approaches used, and how the care was reimbursed or paid. Most practices integrated weight management services and primary care delivery, although some created specific carve-out programs. CONCLUSION: This study identified 4 models that may serve to overcome challenges in delivering weight management services in primary care. Based on practice characteristics, preferences, and resources, primary care practices can identify a model for successfully implementing weight management services that best fits their context and needs. It is time for primary care to truly address obesity care as the health issue it is and make it a standard of care for all patients with obesity.

Migraine care practices in primary care: results from a national US survey.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians play a critical role in diagnosis and treatment of migraine, yet barriers exist. This national survey assessed barriers to diagnosis and treatment of migraine, preferred approaches to receiving migraine education, and familiarity with recent therapeutic innovations. METHODS: The survey was created by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and Eli Lilly and Company and distributed to a national sample through the AAFP National Research Network and affiliated PBRNs from mid-April through the end of May 2021. Initial analyses were descriptive statistics, ANOVAs, and Chi-Square tests. Individual and multivariate models were completed for: adult patients seen in a week; respondent years since residency; and adult patients with migraine seen in a week. RESULTS: Respondents who saw fewer patients were more likely to indicate unclear patient histories were a barrier to diagnosing. Respondents who saw more patients with migraine were more likely to indicate the priority of other comorbidities and insufficient time were barriers to diagnosing. Respondents who had been out of residency longer were more likely to change a treatment plan due to attack impact, quality of life, and medication cost. Respondents who had been out of residency shorter were more likely to prefer to learn from migraine/headache research scientists and use paper headache diaries. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate differences in familiarity with migraine diagnosis and treatment options based on patients seen and years since residency. To maximise appropriate diagnosis within primary care, targeted efforts to increase familiarity and decrease barriers to migraine care should be implemented.

Integrated Primary Care and Health Behavior Support: A Survey of Behavioral Health Providers.

OBJECTIVES: Many behavioral health providers (BHPs) in primary care practices spend a majority of their time addressing mental health rather than behavior change. We wanted to better understand the practice of BHPs in integrated primary care. METHODS: Survey of BHPs from practices participating in the Colorado State Innovation Model (SIM) initiative. The survey measured what diagnoses BHPs receive referrals to treat, what they treat regardless of referral reason, which techniques they use, and think are most effective for mental health diagnoses and behavior change/weight management support, and their interest in providing support for weight management. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations. RESULTS: We received 79 surveys representing 64 out of 248 SIM practices (practice response rate of 26%). BHPs reported addressing health-related behaviors with patients referred to them for mental health diagnoses. They expressed interest in health behavior and believed the techniques they use for traditional mental health diagnoses also support behavior change. Most reported using cognitive behavioral therapy (89%), mindfulness (94%), and relaxation/stress management (94%). Time in practice was associated with receiving more referrals for weight management (rho(76) = .271, P = .018) and with addressing diet (rho(75) = .339, P = .003) and weight management (rho(75) = .323, P = .005). BHPs in practices that had care managers were more likely to report receiving referrals for weight management than BHPs in practices that did not employ a case manager (rτ(76) = .222, P = .038); practices employing a health coach were more likely to receive referrals for physical activity than practices without a health coach (rτ(76) = .257, P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: BHPs are interested in and frequently address health related behavior. Formalizing health behavior services from BHPs in primary care may provide opportunities to better support patients with behavior change and subsequently improve health outcomes.

Lung cancer screening in rural primary care practices in Colorado: time for a more team-based approach?

BACKGROUND: Despite lung cancer being a leading cause of death in the United States and lung cancer screening (LCS) being a recommended service, many patients eligible for screening do not receive it. Research is needed to understand the challenges with implementing LCS in different settings. This study investigated multiple practice members and patient perspectives impacting rural primary care practices related to LCS uptake by eligible patients. METHODS: This qualitative study involved primary care practice members in multiple roles (clinicians n = 9, clinical staff n = 12 and administrators n = 5) and their patients (n = 19) from 9 practices including federally qualified and rural health centers (n = 3), health system owned (n = 4) and private practices (n = 2). Interviews were conducted regarding the importance of and ability to complete the steps that may result in a patient receiving LCS. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis with immersion crystallization then organized using the RE-AIM implementation science framework to illuminate and organize implementation issues. RESULTS: Although all groups endorsed the importance of LCS, all also struggled with implementation challenges. Since assessing smoking history is part of the process to identify eligibility for LCS, we asked about these processes. We found that smoking assessment and assistance (including referral to services) were routine in the practices, but other steps in the LCS portion of determining eligibility and offering LCS were not. Lack of knowledge about screening and coverage, patient stigma, and resistance and practical considerations such as distance to LCS testing facilities complicated completion of LCS compared to screening for other types of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Limited uptake of LCS results from a range of multiple interacting factors that cumulatively affect consistency and quality of implementation at the practice level. Future research should consider team-based approaches to conduct of LCS eligibility and shared decision making.

Delivering diabetes shared medical appointments in primary care: early and mid-program adaptations and implications for successful implementation.

BACKGROUND: Self-management is essential for good outcomes in type 2 diabetes and patients often benefit from self-management education. Shared medical appointments (SMAs) can increase self-efficacy for self management but are difficult for some primary care practices to implement. Understanding how practices adapt processes and delivery of SMAs for patients with type 2 diabetes may provide helpful strategies for other practices interested in implementing SMAs. METHODS: The Invested in Diabetes study was a pragmatic cluster-randomized, comparative effectiveness trial designed to compare two different models of diabetes SMAs delivered in primary care. We used a multi-method approach guided by the FRAME to assess practices' experience with implementation, including any planned and unplanned adaptations. Data sources included interviews, practice observations and field notes from practice facilitator check-ins. RESULTS: Several findings were identified from the data: 1) Modifications and adaptations are common in implementation of SMAs, 2) while most adaptations were fidelity-consistent supporting the core components of the intervention conditions as designed, some were not, 3) Adaptations were perceived to be necessary to help SMAs meet patient and practice needs and overcome implementation challenges, and 4) Content changes in the sessions were often planned and enacted to better address the contextual circumstances such as patient needs and culture. DISCUSSION: Implementing SMAs in primary care can be challenging and adaptations of both implementation processes and content and delivery of SMAS for patients with type 2 diabetes were common in the Invested in Diabetes study. Recognizing the need for adaptations based on practice context prior to implementation may help improve fit and success with SMAs, but care needs to be given to ensure that adaptations do not weaken the impact of the intervention. Practices may be able to assess what might need to adapted for them to be successful prior to implementation but likely will continue to adapt after implementation. CONCLUSION: Adaptations were common in the Invested in Diabetes study. Practices may benefit from understanding common challenges in implementing SMAs and adapting processes and delivery based on their own context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov under Trial number NCT03590041, posted 18/07/2018.

Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control.

BACKGROUND: In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. METHODS: In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. RESULTS: Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.

The Psychosocial Needs of Patients Participating in Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) for diabetes are self-reported and often give insight into outcomes important to people with diabetes. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) see patients who may have higher levels of diabetes distress and lower levels of self-care behaviors. METHODS: The Invested in Diabetes study is a comparative effectiveness trial of diabetes Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs) in FQHCs and non-FQHC settings. PROs measure outcomes including validated measures on diabetes distress. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 616 people from 22 practices completed PROs prior to SMAs. At FQHCs, participants were younger (average 57.7 years vs 66.9 years, p < 0.0001), more likely to be female (36.8% vs 46.1%, p = 0.02), and fewer spoke English (72.7% vs 99.6%, p < 0.0001). RESULTS: At FQHCs, diabetes distress was higher (2.1 vs 1.8, P = .02), more people were current smokers (14.3% vs 4.7%, P = .0002), on insulin (48.9% vs 22.3%, P < .0001) and reported food insecurity (52.7% vs 26.2%, P < .0001). After controlling for sociodemographic factors, these differences were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Higher numbers of patients at FQHCs report diabetes distress and food insecurity compared with patients in non-FQHC settings, indicating that patient social circumstances need to be considered as part of program implementation.

Values and Meaning in Rural Primary Care Practices: Implications for Interventions Within Context.

OBJECTIVES: It is important to understand the unique perspectives and values that motivate patients and clinicians in rural primary care settings to participate in clinical care activities. Our objective was to explore perspectives, preferences, and values related to primary care that could influence implementation of evidence-based programs. METHODS: Qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews and using immersion/crystallization and thematic analysis. Participants were primary care practice members (clinicians, clinical staff, and administrators) and their patients in rural Colorado. RESULTS: Twenty-six practice members and 23 patients across 9 practices participated. There were 4 emergent themes that were consistent across practice members and some patients. Patient perspectives are located in parenthesis. They included: (1) Focus on quality patient care, patient satisfaction, and continuity of care (patients appreciated quality and compassionate care), (2) Importance of prevention and wellness (patients appreciated help with preventing health problems), (3) Clinician willingness and ability to meet patient preferences for care (patients described comfort with local care), and (4) Passion for serving underserved, uninsured, or vulnerable populations (patients described their vulnerabilities). There were differences in how the perspectives were operationalized by practice member role, illustrating the importance of different ways of addressing these values. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation requires consideration of context, and much of context is understanding what is important to those involved in the primary care experience. This study sheds light on salient values of rural primary care practice members and their patients, which may inform interventions designed with and for this setting.

IMAGINE: A Trial of Messaging Strategies for Social Needs Screening and Referral.

INTRODUCTION: Health-related social needs are associated with poor health outcomes. Many primary care practices now screen and refer patients with health-related social needs to assistance organizations, but some patients decline screening or assistance. Improving communication about health-related social needs screening and referral could increase screening response and assistance acceptance rates. STUDY DESIGN: This is a pragmatic, nonrandomized 3-stage trial of messages and communication strategies for health-related social needs screening and referral. Messages and strategies were informed by qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews and were developed through an iterative, patient-, and stakeholder-engaged process. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Settings included 3 primary care clinics serving primarily low-income patients in western Colorado. INTERVENTION: Stage 1 includes usual clinic processes for health-related social needs screening (form given to patients at the front desk without additional explanation), Stage 2 includes adding written patient-friendly messages regarding the purpose of health-related social needs screening and referral to usual clinic processes, and Stage 3 includes adding verbal messages delivered by a medical assistant (form given to patients by a medical assistant during the rooming process). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes include (1) screening form response rate and (2) acceptance of referral for assistance rate among patients with health-related social needs. Secondary outcomes include (1) comfort with screening, (2) perceived helpfulness of screening, and (3) receipt of explanation about screening. RESULTS: All data collection and analysis occurred in 2021. Study Stage 2 was not associated with significant changes in any outcomes. Stage 3 was associated with decreased odds of screening form response at 2 of the 3 clinics relative to those of Stage 1 (OR=0.1, 95% CI=0.1, 0.3; OR=0.4, 95% CI=0.2, 0.7) but with increased odds of assistance acceptance (OR=2.1, 95% CI=1.1, 4.0) among patients with needs who responded to the screening form. Stage 3 was also associated with higher odds of patients perceiving screening as helpful and receiving an explanation about screening. CONCLUSIONS: Altering practice workflows to provide verbal explanations of health-related social needs screening may reduce response rates but may encourage responders to accept assistance referrals. Optimal communication strategies and workflows will likely differ depending on the intended goals of health-related social needs screening and referral.

Methods for capturing and analyzing adaptations: implications for implementation research.

BACKGROUND: Interventions are often adapted; some adaptations may provoke more favorable outcomes, whereas some may not. A better understanding of the adaptations and their intended goals may elucidate which adaptations produce better outcomes. Improved methods are needed to better capture and characterize the impact of intervention adaptations. METHODS: We used multiple data collection and analytic methods to characterize adaptations made by practices participating in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study of a complex, multicomponent diabetes intervention. Data collection methods to identify adaptations included interviews, observations, and facilitator sessions resulting in transcripts, templated notes, and field notes. Adaptations gleaned from these sources were reduced and combined; then, their components were cataloged according to the framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions (FRAME). Analytic methods to characterize adaptations included a co-occurrence table, statistically based k-means clustering, and a taxonomic analysis. RESULTS: We found that (1) different data collection methods elicited more overall adaptations, (2) multiple data collection methods provided understanding of the components of and reasons for adaptation, and (3) analytic methods revealed ways that adaptation components cluster together in unique patterns producing adaptation "types." These types may be useful for understanding how the "who, what, how, and why" of adaptations may fit together and for analyzing with outcome data to determine if the adaptations produce more favorable outcomes rather than by adaptation components individually. CONCLUSION: Adaptations were prevalent and discoverable through different methods. Enhancing methods to describe adaptations may better illuminate what works in providing improved intervention fit within context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov under Trial number NCT03590041 , posted July 18, 2018.

A Study Examining the Usefulness of a New Measure of Research Engagement.

INTRODUCTION: Engagement of relevant stakeholders' ideas, opinions, and concerns is critical to the success of modern research projects. We have developed a tool to measure stakeholder engagement, called the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST). The purpose of this paper is to present the implementation and uptake of the stakeholder engagement measure REST among research teams, including the assessment of barriers and facilitating factors for use of the new research engagement measure in practice. METHODS: In this implementation study, project team members participated in baseline and follow-up web-based surveys. Web-based interviews were conducted with a subset of project teams that implemented the REST. On the baseline survey, project teams were asked to provide details about up to three ongoing or recently completed projects, were asked if they agreed with compensation for REST completion, and were asked if they would like to send the survey to stakeholders or would prefer our project team to email their project stakeholders. Follow-up surveys contained questions on reactions to implementing REST and results of REST. RESULTS: Project team members/researchers who completed the baseline survey (n=86) were mostly female (79%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (76%). Those who implemented REST were also mostly female (86%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (71%), with an average of 11 years in academic research. About 98% of all participants completing the baseline survey had the capacity to survey partners, while 100% of all teams who implemented REST did. A small portion of respondents indicated the time commitment of REST would be a barrier (29% of baseline survey respondents, 10% of those who implemented REST) and indicated workload would be a barrier (31% of baseline survey respondents, 14% of those who implemented REST). DISCUSSION: The data presented here indicate that REST implementation is feasible in a volunteer group of ongoing research projects.

Implementing health-related social needs screening in western Colorado primary care practices: Qualitative research to inform improved communication with patients.

Social determinants profoundly impact health. Many primary care practices now seek to screen their patients for health-related social needs (HRSN) and refer them to resources in the community. However, there is little empirical evidence to guide communication with patients in order to ensure their comfort with the process and increase the likelihood that it results in positive outcomes. This paper describes the first phase of the Improving Messaging Around Gaps in Needs and rEfferals (IMAGINE) study-a multi-phase study aiming to develop and test patient-centred messages about screening and referral for HRSN. In this initial qualitative phase, our objective was to identify communication strategies that might make western Colorado primary care patients more comfortable with the HRSN screening and referral process. From May to July 2020 we interviewed 10 staff members responsible for HRSN screening from primary care practices participating in the western Colorado Accountable Health Communities (AHC) initiative and 20 patients from 2 of these practices. We used a rapid qualitative analysis process that involved summarising interview transcripts across key domains of interest and then identifying emergent themes within each domain using a data matrix. Through this process, we examined current communication about HRSN screening, as well as suggestions for messages and other strategies that could improve communication. In most practices, the AHC Screening Tool was handed to patients by front desk staff at check-in with little explanation as to its purpose. Patients and staff alike recommended that patients be provided with information that: normalises the screening and referral process; assures privacy; clarifies that the purpose is to help and support rather than judge or report; emphasises community benefits; and respects patient autonomy. Interviewees also suggested broader strategies to support more effective communication, such as practice staff and clinicians building trusting relationships with patients and understanding and acknowledging the complex structural barriers that often prevent patients from accessing meaningful assistance. These findings provide actionable suggestions for improving communication about HRSN screening and referral in primary care settings. The next steps include developing specific messages based on these findings and testing their impact on screening tool completion rate, referral uptake, and patient-reported comfort with the process.

Growing PEACHnet: Building a Practice-Based Research Network in Western Colorado.

INTRODUCTION: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) have long sought to engage with communities and address questions relevant to multiple stakeholders and real-world primary care practice. Topic-generating processes that involve these stakeholders are crucial for identifying these questions. PBRNs often focus on certain populations or geographic areas. We are forming a new PBRN to address the health concerns and research interests of people in communities in Western Colorado. METHODS: To engage with and determine the questions important to multiple stakeholders in communities in western Colorado, we conducted community meetings at which we used Photovoice followed by Nominal Group Technique in group discussions across the region. We then conducted a survey to develop a list of priority research topics. RESULTS: Multiple stakeholders were ready and eager to engage with us to form a PBRN. Across all communities, many of the topics that emerged were related to the social determinants of health. Mental health-specifically, lack of access to services and high suicide incidence-was the most important topic according to community members. This was consistent across groups of stakeholders and corroborated other community work such as Community Health Needs Assessments. DISCUSSION: Using participatory methods increased our stakeholder engagement and helped build strong community-academic partnerships for our PBRN-related research. Use of Photovoice allowed all participants to express their thoughts and ideas and led to a clear path forward for this new research network.

Multistakeholder Perspectives on Data Sharing to Address Patient Food Insecurity.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDOH) influence health outcomes. Food insecurity (FI) is the most common need related to SDOH. Many primary care practices and health systems have begun to screen for FI and refer patients to resources. How this process is viewed by multiple stakeholders, including patients, health care workers, and staff at food assistance organizations (FAOs), will influence its impact. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, we completed 42 interviews with individuals from the 3 stakeholder groups. We then conducted a survey with 126 respondents using questions developed from the qualitative results. RESULTS: All stakeholders recognized the impact FI has on health outcomes, but perspectives varied on the value of sharing information through referrals to FAOs and concerning receipt of services, including privacy concerns and that the process would require significant work and not necessarily improve FI. DISCUSSION: Stakeholders agree that FI impacts health but have differences in perceptions around screening and referral done in health care settings. Perspectives of multiple stakeholders need to be considered when designing these systems. CONCLUSION: Successfully designing systems to address FI through referral to FAOs requires input of multiple stakeholders because perspectives on the value and work required for this process vary.

Patient perspectives on diabetes shared medical appointments before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Context: Shared Medical Appointments for diabetes (SMAs) are an evidence-based strategy improve health outcomes. However, which elements of SMAs are important remain unknown. Invested in Diabetes studied two implementation approaches (standardized [STD] vs. patient-driven [PTD]), using a curriculum focused on mental health and skill building in addition to diabetes self-management. Objective: To understand patient experiences and preferences, including care team and peer mentor involvement, and how teaching style affected satisfaction. Those completing SMAs after the COVID pandemic began discussed their experience with virtual SMAs. Study Design: Semi-structured interviews, conducted between 2019-21. Setting: 21 primary care practices in Colorado and Kansas. Population: Patients with type 2 diabetes who attended SMAs at participating sites. Outcome Measures: Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis (data triangulation and a constant comparative technique). Results: Forty-one patients from 14 participating clinics agreed to participate (25 STD, 16 PTD). All patients completed their 6-class cohort. Both newly diagnosed patients and those living with diabetes for longer found classes useful. Patients generally enjoyed the content, with nutrition favored most. Opinion on mental health topics and skill building varied, but overall deemed valuable. The social aspect of SMAs was seen as the biggest benefit. However, the peer mentor role (PTD only) was not always appreciated. Patient topic order selection and behavioral health as part of the care team (PTD only) were viewed as helpful but not necessary, though guest lecturers were supported by all. Facilitators were mostly seen as supportive and their teaching style agreeable, which contributed considerably to positive experiences. Those who did virtual SMAs had mostly positive views. The format allowed continuation of care that may have been halted due to the pandemic, let people with busy schedules to participate, and in some instances made sharing easier to do. Some would still have preferred an in-person class. Conclusions: Patients found SMAs beneficial, favoring classic diabetes self-management topics over mental health and skill building. The peer mentor role was not always well received, likely due to variations in the peer mentor. Teaching style was very important to satisfaction, and all patients wanted guest speakers with varied expertise. A virtual format was acceptable. .

Rural Adolescent Immunization: Delivery Practices and Barriers to Uptake.

BACKGROUND: Rural adolescent vaccination rates lag behind urban. We sought to assess rural-urban differences in barriers to adolescent vaccination, perceived parental vaccine attitudes, and immunization delivery practices among public health nursing (PHN), pediatric (Peds), and family medicine (FM) clinicians. METHODS: Internet and mail survey of Colorado PHN, Peds, and FM clinicians from June-August 2019. Study population was recruited from local health plans and the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Rural and urban responses were compared using Cochran Armitage trend, Fisher's exact, and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Response rate was 38% (163/433; 91 rural, 72 urban). Rural respondents were less likely than urban to agree most patients have insurance that covers vaccination (86% vs 97%; P = .02). Rural respondents were less likely than urban to indicate most parents in their practice would agree with statements about vaccine benefits (P = .02) and trust in medical providers (P = .05). Rural respondents were more likely than urban to report adolescents were somewhat/very likely to receive vaccines at public health departments (65% vs 28%; P < .0001) and less likely to report adolescents were somewhat/very likely to receive vaccines at pharmacies (26% vs 45%; P = .02). Fewer providers strongly recommended HPV vaccine (81% for females, 80% for males 11 to 12 years) than other adolescent immunizations (Tdap: 97%, MenACWY at 11 to 12 years: 87%; influenza at 11 to 17 years: 87%; each P < .005, rural-urban responses did not differ). CONCLUSIONS: Rural barriers to adolescent vaccination include logistic issues and parental vaccine attitudes. Efforts to improve rural adolescent vaccination should include public health departments and address vaccine confidence and access barriers.