Assessment of Physician Priorities in Delivery of Preventive Care

Developing the Healthy Actions and Lifestyles to Avoid Dementia or Hispanos y el ALTo a la Demencia program

INTRODUCTION

With Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) representing an enormous public health challenge, there is a need to support individuals in learning about and addressing their modifiable risk factors (e.g., diet, sleep, and physical activity) to prevent or delay dementia onset. However, there is limited availability for evidence-informed tools that deliver both quality education and support for positive behavior change such as by increasing self-efficacy and personalizing goal setting. Tools that address the needs of Latino/a, at higher risk for ADRD, are even more scarce.

METHODS

We established a multidisciplinary team to develop the Healthy Actions and Lifestyles to Avoid Dementia or Hispanos y el ALTo a la Demencia (HALT-AD) program, a bilingual online personalized platform to educate and motivate participants to modify their risk factors for dementia. Grounded in social cognitive theory and following a cultural adaptation framework with guidance from a community advisory board, we developed HALT-AD iteratively through several cycles of rapid prototype development, user-centered evaluation through pilot testing and community feedback, and refinement.

RESULTS

Using this iterative approach allowed for more than 100 improvements in the content, features, and design of HALT-AD to improve the program's usability and alignment with the interests and educational/behavior change support needs of its target audience. Illustrative examples of how pilot data and community feedback informed improvements are provided.

DISCUSSION

Developing HALT-AD iteratively required learning through trial and error and flexibility in workflows, contrary to traditional program development methods that rely on rigid, pre-set requirements. In addition to efficacy trials, studies are needed to identify mechanisms for effective behavior change, which might be culturally specific. Flexible and personalized educational offerings are likely to be important in modifying risk trajectories in ADRD.

Underlying motivations hampering Flemish primary care physicians from overcoming the barriers in osteoporosis care: an EMR-facilitated clinical reasoning study

BACKGROUND

Over half of the European population aged minimum 65 years presents with at least two chronic diseases. Attention towards these diseases exhibits disparities, with limited primary care physician (PCP) attention for osteoporosis. This was confirmed in a previous integrated osteoporosis care (IOC) project in which notable difficulties to enlist PCPs arose. Consequently, this study was initiated in Flemish PCPs for in-depth analysis of underlying mechanisms hampering PCPs to fully commit to osteoporosis care.

METHODS

A qualitative Electronic Medical Record (EMR)-facilitated clinical reasoning study was conducted. A semi-structured interview guide was employed to guide PCPs from reflections on their own patients to broader views regarding osteoporosis care. An inductive thematic analysis was performed using NVivo 12.

RESULTS

Thirteen PCPs were interviewed. They stated that osteoporosis patients often had complex (medical) profiles. PCPs emphasised the ongoing necessity for prioritisation within this context. This leads to a competition for PCP attention during consultations at three levels: i. between acute versus preventive care; ii. between primary fracture prevention and other preventive services and iii. between secondary fracture prevention and other preventive services; spanning eight areas of competition: disease significance, perceived impact, PCP awareness, the patient agenda, PCP competence, PCP support, perceived patient burden, and efficiency of care provision. Applicability of these areas of competition differed between levels.

CONCLUSION

The intricate context in which PCPs operate, creates a competition for PCP attention leading to a lack of attention for fracture prevention. To preserve efforts in fracture prevention, areas of competition should be systematically addressed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Approval for the study has been provided by the Ghent University Hospital Ethics Committee (BC-09797).

Barriers and Facilitators to Optimal Fluoride Varnish Application

OBJECTIVE

National guidelines recommend that all children under age six receive fluoride varnish (FV) in medical settings. However, application rates remain low. This study aimed to update understanding of barriers and facilitators to guideline concordant FV application.

METHODS

We conducted virtual semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample (eg, FV application rates, geographic location, practice size and type) of pediatric primary care clinicians and medical assistants in Massachusetts between February 1 and June 30, 2022. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) served as the study's theoretical framework and data were analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Of the 31 participants, 90% identified as White and 81% as female. Major themes, which linked to four CFIR domains, included: variation in perceived adequacy of reimbursement; differences in FV application across practice types; variation in processes, protocols, and priorities; external accountability for quality of care; and potential levers for change. Important subthemes included challenges for small practices; role of quality measures in delivering guideline-concordant preventive oral health care; and desire for preventive care coordination with dentists.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that potential barriers and facilitators to guideline concordant FV application exist at multiple levels that may warrant further study. Examples include testing the effectiveness of quality measures for FV application and testing strategies for implementing consistent processes and protocols for improving FV application rates.

Primary care provider perspectives on the role of community pharmacy in colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lists 32 grade A or B recommended preventive services for non-pregnant United States (US) adults, including colorectal cancer screening (CRC). Little guidance is given on how to implement these services with consistency and fidelity in primary care. Given limited patient visit time and competing demands, primary care providers (PCPs) tend to prioritize a small subset of these recommendations. Completion rates of some of these services, including CRC screening, are suboptimal. Expanding delivery of preventive services to other healthcare providers, where possible, can improve access and uptake, particularly in medically underserved areas or populations. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (at-home, stool-based testing) for CRC screening can be distributed and resulted without PCP involvement. Pharmacists have long delivered preventive services (e.g., influenza vaccination) and may be a good option for expanding CRC screening delivery using FIT, but it is not clear how PCPs would perceive this expansion.

METHODS

We used semi-structured interviews with PCPs in North Carolina and Washington state to assess perceptions and recommendations for a potential pharmacy-based FIT distribution program (PharmFIT™). Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to elucidate potential multi-level facilitators of and barriers to implementation of PharmFIT™.

RESULTS

We completed 30 interviews with PCPs in North Carolina (N = 12) and Washington state (N = 18). PCPs in both states were largely accepting of PharmFIT™, with several important considerations. First, PCPs felt that pharmacists should receive appropriate training for identifying patients eligible and due for FIT screening. Second, a clear understanding of responsibility for tracking tests, communication, and, particularly, follow-up of positive test results should be established and followed. Finally, clear electronic workflows should be established for relay of test result information between the pharmacy and the primary care clinic.

CONCLUSION

If the conditions are met regarding pharmacist training, follow-up for positive FITs, and transfer of documentation, PCPs are likely to support PharmFIT™ as a way for their patients to obtain and complete CRC screening using FIT.

Physician-Reported Barriers to Osteoporosis Screening: A Nationwide Survey

OBJECTIVE

Despite increased awareness, osteoporosis screening rates remain low. The objective of this survey study was to identify physician-reported barriers to osteoporosis screening.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of 600 physician members of the Endocrine Society, American Academy of Family Practice, and American Geriatrics Society. The respondents were asked to rate barriers to osteoporosis screening in their patients. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses to determine correlates with the most commonly reported barriers.

RESULTS

Of 566 response-eligible physicians, 359 completed the survey (response rate, 63%). The most commonly reported barriers to osteoporosis screening included patient nonadherence (63%), physician concern about cost (56%), clinic visit time constraints (51%), low on the priority list (45%), and patient concern about cost (43%). Patient nonadherence as a barrier was correlated with physicians in academic tertiary centers (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-5.13), whereas clinic visit time constraints were correlated with physicians in both community-based academic affiliates and academic tertiary care ([OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.10-3.50] and [OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.22-5.07], respectively). Geriatricians (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.76) and physicians with >10 years in practice were less likely to report clinic visit time constraints as a barrier (11-20 years: OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85; >20 years: OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.65). Physicians with more patient-facing time (3-5 compared with 0.5-2 d/wk) were more likely to place screening low on the priority list (OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.34-5.29).

CONCLUSION

Understanding barriers to osteoporosis screening is vital in developing strategies to improve osteoporosis care.

Personalized Disease Prevention (PDP): study protocol for a cluster-randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends 25 primary preventive services for middle-aged adults, but it can be difficult to do them all.

METHODS

The Personalized Disease Prevention (PDP) cluster-randomized clinical trial will evaluate whether patients and their providers benefit from an evidence-based decision tool to prioritize preventive services based on their potential to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy. The decision tool will be individualized for patient risk factors and available in the electronic health record. This Phase III trial seeks to enroll 60 primary care providers (clusters) and 600 patients aged 40-75 years. Half of providers will be assigned to an intervention to utilize the decision tool with approximately 10 patients each, and half will be assigned to usual care. Mixed-methods follow-up will include collection of preventive care utilization from electronic health records, patient and physician surveys, and qualitative interviews. We hypothesize that quality-adjusted life expectancy will increase by more in patients who receive the intervention, as compared with controls.

DISCUSSION

PDP will test a novel, holistic approach to help patients and providers prioritize the delivery of preventive services, based on patient risk factors in the electronic health record.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05463887. Registered on July 19, 2022.

Priorities for improvement across cancer and non-cancer related preventive services among rural and non-rural clinicians

Introduction

It is not realistic for most clinicians to perform the multitude of recommended preventive primary care services. This is especially true in low resource and rural settings, creating challenges to delivering high-quality care. This study collected stakeholder input from clinicians on which services they most need to improve.

Methods

The authors conducted a survey of primary care physicians 9–12/2021, with an emphasis on rural practices, to assess areas in which clinicians felt the greatest needs for improvement. The survey focused on primary prevention (behavior change counseling) and cancer screening, and contrasted needs for improvement for these services vs. other types of screening, and between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural practices.

Results

There were 326 respondents from 4 different practice-based research networks, a wide range of practice types, 49 states and included 177 clinicians in rural settings. Respondents rated the need to improve delivery of primary prevention counseling services highest, with needs for nutrition and dietary assessment and counseling rated highest followed by physical activity and with almost no differences between rural and nonrural. Needs for improvement in cancer screenings were rated higher than non-cancer screenings, except for blood pressure screening.

Conclusions

Both rural and nonrural primary care clinicians feel a need for improvement, especially with primary prevention activities. Although future research is needed to replicate these findings with different populations and other types of preventive service activities, greater priority should be given to development of practical, stakeholder informed assistance and resources for primary care to conduct primary prevention.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01845-1.

Turning eating disorders screening in primary practice into treatment: A clinical practice approach

OBJECTIVE

The rate of screening for eating disorders (EDs) by general practitioners (GPs) in primary health care is low. We examined an approach to increase screening and the impact on referrals.

METHOD

Low cost assessment/treatment pathways were established in February 2019 for patients with an ED. Between October 2020 and June 2021 information was sent to GP practices about screening for EDs, along with provision of an online screening tool and training.

RESULTS

Of the 44 GP practices invited to participate in the screening initiative, 42 (95.5%) agreed. Only 12 (27%) had referred patients before the initiative, 53 patients over 19 months (2.8/month). Over the 10-month initiative 90 patients were referred and started treatment from 50% of the practices (8.2/month); 73 (81%) had an ED and six had disordered eating but not an ED. Qualitative feedback from GPs suggested they would not screen for a condition if there were no readily identifiable treatment pathway available.

DISCUSSION

Results suggest that the three elements of the initiative (provision of assessment and treatment pathways, access to a screening tool, provision of information on screening) increased the likelihood that GPs would use a screening tool, leading to an almost three-fold increase in referrals.

PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE

An initiative used to translate screening for an eating disorder to treatment in primary health care had three components. First, provision of an easy referral process to assessment as well as treatment. Second, screening tools were made available on computer desktops. Third, information and training provided to GPs was used to support their clinical observation and increase confidence in initiating screening. Adoption of this initiative almost tripled referrals for assessment.

Clinicians' perceptions of barriers to cervical cancer screening for women living with behavioral health conditions: a focus group study

Background

Women with behavioral health (BH) conditions (e.g., mental illness and substance abuse) receive fewer cervical cancer (CC) screenings, are diagnosed at more advanced cancer stages, and are less likely to receive specialized treatments. The aim of this study was to identify barriers that healthcare providers face in providing CC screening to women with BH conditions.

Methods

Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we conducted four focus groups in North Florida with 26 primary care and BH clinicians and staff to examine perceived barriers to CC screening among their patients with BH conditions to guide the future development of a tailored cervical cancer screening and follow-up intervention. Thematic analysis was used to analyze verbatim transcripts from audiotaped focus groups.

Results

Three main themes of barriers emerged from the data: 1) BH conditions related barriers included a history of trauma, stigma and discrimination, and uncontrolled comorbid conditions, 2) System level barriers related to lack of integration between BH and primary care, and 3) Similar barriers to the general population including lack of health insurance, insufficient processes to send out reminders, and challenges with communicating with patients.

Conclusions

Tailored CC screening interventions that address the unique needs of women with BH conditions are needed. Strategies that address improving trust between patients and healthcare providers, identifying avenues to improve receipt of screening during time-limited clinical visits, connecting BH and primary care providers, and addressing the social determinants of health have potential to improve CC screening rates for women with BH conditions.

Effect of Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations vs Usual Care on Patient Interest and Use of Recommendations: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

This randomized clinical trial examines the feasibility and acceptability of a decision-making tool for increasing patient interest in individualized recommendations for preventive care services.

Objective

To pilot a tool to help patients compare life expectancy gains from evidence-based preventive services.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial examined patient and physician responses to a pilot decision tool incorporating personalized risk factors at 3 US primary care clinics between 2017 and 2020. Eligible patients were between ages 45 to 70 years with 2 or more high-risk factors. Patients were followed-up after 1 year.

Interventions

The gain in life expectancy associated with guideline adherence to each recommended preventive service was estimated. Personalized estimates incorporating risk factors in electronic health records were displayed in a physician-distributed visual aid. During development, physicians discussed individualized results with patients using shared decision-making (SDM). During the trial, patients were randomized to receive individualized recommendations or usual care (nonmasked, parallel, 1:1 ratio).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcome was patient interest in individualized recommendations, assessed by survey. Secondary outcomes were use of SDM, decisional comfort, readiness to change, and preventive services received within 1 year.

Results

The study enrolled 104 patients (31 development, 39 intervention, 34 control), of whom 101 were included in analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [5.3] years; 73 [72.3%] women; 80 [79.2%] Black patients) and 20 physicians. Intervention patients found the tool helpful and wanted to use it again, rating it a median 9 of 10 (IQR, 8-10) and 10 of 10 (8-10), respectively. Compared with the control group, intervention patients more often correctly identified the service least likely (18 [46%] vs 0; P = .03) to improve their life expectancy. A greater number of patients also identified the service most likely to improve their life expectancy (26 [69%] vs 10 [30%]; P = .07), although this result was not statistically significant. Intervention patients reported greater mean [SD] improvement in SDM (4.7 [6.9] points) and near-term readiness to change (13.8 points for top-3-ranked recommendations). Point estimates indicated that patients in the intervention group experienced greater, although non-statistically significant, reductions in percentage of body weight (-2.96%; 95% CI, -8.18% to 2.28%), systolic blood pressure (-6.42 mm Hg; 95% CI, -16.12 to 3.27 mm Hg), hemoglobin A1c (-0.68%; 95% CI, -1.82% to 0.45%), 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score (-1.20%; 95% CI, -3.65% to 1.26%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-8.46 mg/dL; 95% CI, -26.63 to 9.70 mg/dL) than the control group. Nineteen of 20 physicians wanted to continue using the decision tool in the future.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this clinical trial, an individualized preventive care decision support tool improved patient understanding of primary prevention and demonstrated promise for improved shared decision-making and preventive care utilization.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023813.