A Pragmatic Approach to Identifying and Profiling Primary Care Clinicians and Primary Care Practices in the USA.

BACKGROUND: There are no consistent data on US primary care clinicians and primary care practices owing to the lack of standard methods to identify them, hampering efforts in primary care improvement. METHODS: We develop a pragmatic framework that identifies primary care clinicians and practices in the context of the US healthcare system, and applied the framework to the IQVIA OneKey Healthcare Professional database to identify and profile primary care clinicians and practices in the USA. RESULTS: Our framework prescribes sequential steps to identify primary care clinicians by cross-examining clinician specialties and organizational affiliations, and then identify primary care practices based on organization types and presence of primary care clinicians. Applying this framework to the 2021 IQVIA data, we identified 365,751 physicians with a primary specialty in primary care, and after excluding those who further specialized (24%), served as hospitalists (5%), or worked in non-primary care settings (41%), we determined that 179,369 (49%) of them were actually practicing primary care. We identified 287,506 nurse practitioners and 134,083 physician assistants and determined that 88,574 (31%) and 29,781 (22%), respectively, were delivering primary care. We identified 94,489 primary care practices, and found that 45% of them were with one primary care physician, 15% had two physicians, 12% employed nurse practitioners or physician assistants only, and 19% employed both primary care physicians and specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach offers a pragmatic and consistent alternative to the diverse methods currently used to identify and profile primary care workforce and organizations in the USA.

Identifying research needs for improving health care.

Insights from systematic reviews can help new studies better meet the priorities and needs of patients and communities. However, systematic reviews unfortunately have not yet achieved this position to direct and guide new research studies. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center Program uses systematic reviews to identify gaps in current evidence and has developed a systematic process of prioritizing these gaps with stakeholder input into clearly defined "future research needs." Eight Evidence-based Practice Centers began to apply this effort in 2010 to various clinical and policy topics. Gaps that prevented systematic reviewers from answering central questions of the review may include insufficient studies on subpopulations, insufficient studies with appropriate comparators, lack of appropriate outcomes measured, and methods problems. Stakeholder panels, consisting of advocacy groups, patients, researchers, clinicians, funders, and policymakers, help refine the gaps through multiple conference calls and prioritization exercises. Each report highlights a focused set of 4 to 15 high-priority needs with an accompanying description of possible considerations for study design. Identification of high-priority research needs could potentially speed the development and implementation of high-priority, stakeholder-engaged research.

Building internal capacity in pragmatic trials: a workshop for program scientists at the US National Cancer Institute.

BACKGROUND: Building capacity in research funding organizations to support the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials is an essential component of advancing biomedical and public health research. To date, efforts to increase the ability to design and carry out pragmatic trials have largely focused on training researchers. To complement these efforts, we developed an interactive workshop tailored to meet the roles and responsibilities of program scientists at the National Cancer Institute-the leading cancer research funding agency in the USA. The objectives of the workshop were to improve the understanding of pragmatic trials and enhance the capacity to distinguish between elements that make a trial more pragmatic or more explanatory among key programmatic staff. To our knowledge, this is the first reported description of such a workshop. MAIN BODY: The workshop was developed to meet the needs of program scientists as researchers and stewards of research funds, which often includes promoting scientific initiatives, advising prospective applicants, collaborating with grantees, and creating training programs. The workshop consisted of presentations from researchers with expertise in the design and interpretation of trials across the explanatory-pragmatic continuum. Presentations were followed by interactive, small-group exercises to solidify participants' understanding of the purpose and conduct of these trials, which were tailored to attendees' areas of expertise across the cancer control continuum and designed to reflect their scope of work as program scientists at NCI. A total of 29 program scientists from the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences and the Division of Cancer Prevention participated; 19 completed a post-workshop evaluation. Attendees were very enthusiastic about the workshop: they reported improved knowledge, significant relevance of the material to their work, and increased interest in pragmatic trials across the cancer control continuum. CONCLUSION: Training program scientists at major biomedical research agencies who are responsible for developing funding opportunities and advising grantees is essential for increasing the quality and quantity of pragmatic trials. Together with workshops for other target audiences (e.g., academic researchers), this approach has the potential to shape the future of pragmatic trials and continue to generate more and better actionable evidence to guide decisions that are of critical importance to health care practitioners, policymakers, and patients.

Missed Opportunities for Depression Screening and Treatment in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study estimates the prevalence of depression assessment in adults age 35 and older and how prevalence varies by sociodemographic characteristics and depressive symptoms. METHODS: We used a nationally representative survey, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, to evaluate if adults 35+ were being assessed for depression by their health care providers in 2014 and 2015. Using multivariate logistic regression, we examined the health and sociodemographic characteristics of patients associated with depression assessment. RESULTS: Approximately 50% of US adults aged 35+ were being assessed for depression (48.6%; 95% CI, 45.5%-51.6%). The following were less likely to be assessed: men compared with women (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46-0.72), adults 75+ compared with adults 50 to 64 years old (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.69), the uninsured compared with those with private insurance (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.18-0.51), and adults without recognized depressive symptoms compared with those with recognized symptoms (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.63). Compared with non-Hispanic whites, the following were less likely to be assessed: Asian (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.19-0.67), Hispanic (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.75), and African American (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Many Americans are not having their depression needs assessed. Certain populations are more likely to be missed, including men, people over 75 years old, minorities, and the uninsured. Additional efforts are needed to determine methods to increase screening recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force and to ensure that all Americans have their mental health needs met.

Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines: Update of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Policies and Procedures.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) provides independent, objective, and scientifically rigorous recommendations for clinical preventive services. A primary concern is to avoid even the appearance of members having special interests that might influence their ability to judge evidence and formulate unbiased recommendations. The conflicts of interest policy for the USPSTF is described, as is the formal process by which best practices were incorporated to update the policy. The USPSTF performed a literature review, conducted key informant interviews, and reviewed conflicts of interest policies of ten similar organizations. Important findings included transparency and public accessibility; full disclosure of financial relationships; disclosure of non-financial relationships (that create the potential for bias and compromise a member's objective judgment); disclosure of family members' conflicts of interests; and establishment of appropriate reporting periods. Controversies in best practices include the threshold of financial disclosures, ease of access to conflicts of interest policies and declarations, vague definition of non-financial biases, and request for family members' conflicts of interests (particularly those that are non-financial in nature). The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy includes disclosures for immediate family members, a clear non-financial conflicts of interest definition, long look-back period and application of the policy to prospective members. Conflicts of interest is solicited from all members every 4 months, formally reviewed, adjudicated, and made publicly available. The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy is publicly available as part of the USPSTF Procedure Manual. A continuous improvement process can be applied to conflicts of interest policies to enhance public trust in members of panels, such as the USPSTF, that produce clinical guidelines and recommendations.

Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing demand for rapid reviews and timely evidence synthesis. The goal of this project was to understand end-user perspectives on the utility and limitations of rapid products including evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with key informants representing: guideline developers (n = 3), health care providers/health system organizations (n = 3), research funders (n = 1), and payers/health insurers (n = 1). We elicited perspectives on important characteristics of systematic reviews, acceptable methods to streamline reviews, and uses of rapid products. We analyzed content of the interview transcripts and identified themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Key informants identified the following as critical features of evidence reviews: (1) originating from a reliable source (i.e., conducted by experienced reviewers from an established research organization), (2) addressing clinically relevant questions, and (3) trusted relationship between the user and producer. Key informants expressed strong preference for the following review methods and characteristics: use of evidence tables, quality rating of studies, assessments of total evidence quality/strength, and use of summary tables for results and conclusions. Most acceptable trade-offs to increase efficiencies were limiting the literature search (e.g., limiting search dates or language) and performing single screening of citations and full texts for relevance. Key informants perceived rapid products (particularly evidence inventories and rapid responses) as useful interim products to inform downstream investigation (e.g., whether to proceed with a full review or guideline, direction for future research). Most key informants indicated that evidence analysis/synthesis and quality/strength of evidence assessments were important for decision-making. They reported that rapid reviews in particular were useful for guideline development on narrow topics, policy decisions when a quick turn-around is needed, decision-making for practicing clinicians in nuanced clinical settings, and decisions about coverage by payers/health insurers. Rapid reviews may be more relevant within specific clinical settings or health systems; whereas, broad/national guidelines often need a traditional systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Key informants interviewed in our study indicated that evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews have utility in specific decisions and contexts. They indicated that the credibility of the review producer, relevance of key questions, and close working relationship between the end-user and producer are critical for any rapid product. Our findings are limited by the sample size which may have been too small to reach saturation for the themes described.

A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts.

OBJECTIVES: Describe characteristics of rapid reviews and examine the impact of methodological variations on their reliability and validity. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a literature review and interviews with organizations that produce rapid reviews or related products to identify methods, guidance, empiric evidence, and current practices. RESULTS: We identified 36 rapid products from 20 organizations (production time, 5 minutes to 8 months). Methods differed from systematic reviews at all stages. As time frames increased, methods became more rigorous; however, restrictions on database searching, inclusion criteria, data extracted, and independent dual review remained. We categorized rapid products based on extent of synthesis. "Inventories" list what evidence is available. "Rapid responses" present best available evidence with no formal synthesis. "Rapid reviews" synthesize the quality of and findings from the evidence. "Automated approaches" generate meta-analyses in response to user-defined queries. Rapid products rely on a close relationship with end users and support specific decisions in an identified time frame. Limited empiric evidence exists comparing rapid and systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid products have tremendous methodological variation; categorization based on time frame or type of synthesis reveals patterns. The similarity across rapid products lies in the close relationship with the end user to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs.