Cross-sectional analysis of primary care clinics' policies, practices, and availability of patient support services during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Healthcare accessibility and utilization are important social determinants of health. Lack of access to healthcare, including missed or no-show appointments, can have negative health effects and be costly to patients and providers. Various office-based approaches and community partnerships can address patient access barriers.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To understand provider perceptions of patient barriers; (2) to describe the policies and practices used to address late or missed appointments, and (3) to evaluate access to patient support services, both in-clinic and with community partners.

METHODS

Mailed cross-sectional survey with online response option, sent to all Nebraska primary care clinics (n = 577) conducted April 2020 and January through April 2021. Chi-square tests compared rural-urban differences; logistic regression of clinical factors associated with policies and support services computed odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Response rate was 20.3% (n = 117), with 49 returns in 2020. Perceived patient barriers included finances, higher among rural versus urban clinics (81.6% vs. 56.1%, p =.009), and time (overall 52.3%). Welcoming environment (95.5%), telephone appointment reminders (74.8%) and streamlined admissions (69.4%) were the top three clinic practices to reduce missed appointments. Telehealth was the most commonly available patient support service in rural (79.6%) and urban (81.8%, p =.90) clinics. Number of providers was positively associated with having a patient navigator/care coordinator (OR = 1.20, CI = 1.02-1.40). For each percent increase in the number of privately insured patients, the odds of providing legal aid decreased by 4% (OR = 0.96, CI = 0.92-1.00). Urban clinics were less likely than rural clinics to provide social work services (OR = 0.16, CI = 0.04-0.67) or assist with applications for government aid (OR = 0.22, CI = 0.06-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Practices to reduce missed appointments included a variety of reminders. Although finances and inability to take time off work were the most frequently reported perceived barriers for patients' access to timely healthcare, most clinics did not directly address them. Rural clinics appeared to have more community partnerships to address underlying social determinants of health, such as transportation and assistance applying for government aid. Taking such a wholistic partnership approach is an area for future study to improve patient access.

Engaging Communities in Cancer Prevention and Control Activity Prioritization through a Statewide Needs Assessment: A Case Study from Nebraska

Community outreach and engagement (COE) activities are important in identifying catchment area needs, communicating these needs, and facilitating activities relevant to the population. The National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers are required to conduct catchment-wide cancer needs assessments as part of their COE activities. The University of Nebraska Medical Center Buffett Cancer Center undertook a three-year-long process to conduct a needs assessment, identify priorities, and develop workgroups to implement cancer prevention and control activities. Activities were conducted through collaborations with internal and external partners. The needs assessment focused on prevention, early detection, and treatment of cancer and involved secondary data analysis and focus groups with identified underrepresented priority populations (rural, African American, Hispanic, Native American, and LGBTQ+ populations). Results were tailored and disseminated to specific audiences via internal and external reports, infographics, and presentations. Several workgroups were developed through meetings with the internal and external partners to address identified priorities. COE-specific initiatives and metrics have been incorporated into University of Nebraska Medical Center and Buffett Cancer Center strategic plans. True community engagement takes a focused effort and significant resources. A systemic and long-term approach is needed to develop trusted relationships between the COE team and its local communities.

Factors associated with delaying medical care: cross-sectional study of Nebraska adults

BACKGROUND

Delayed medical care may result in adverse health outcomes and increased cost. Our purpose was to identify factors associated with delayed medical care in a primarily rural state.

METHODS

Using a stratified random sample of 5,300 Nebraska households, we conducted a cross-sectional mailed survey with online response option (27 October 2020 to 8 March 2021) in English and Spanish. Multiple logistic regression models calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 20.8% (n = 1,101). Approximately 37.8% of Nebraskans ever delayed healthcare (cost-related 29.7%, transportation-related 3.7%), with 22.7% delaying care in the past year (10.1% cost-related). Cost-related ever delay was associated with younger age [< 45 years aOR 6.17 (3.24-11.76); 45-64 years aOR 2.36 (1.29-4.32)], low- and middle-income [< $50,000 aOR 2.85 (1.32-6.11); $50,000-$74,999 aOR 3.06 (1.50-6.23)], and no health insurance [aOR 3.56 (1.21-10.49)]. Transportation delays were associated with being non-White [aOR 8.07 (1.54-42.20)], no bachelor's degree [≤ high school aOR 3.06 (1.02-9.18); some college aOR 4.16 (1.32-13.12)], and income < $50,000 [aOR 8.44 (2.18-32.63)]. Those who did not have a primary care provider were 80% less likely to have transportation delays [aOR 0.20 (0.05-0.80)].

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed care affects more than one-third of Nebraskans, primarily due to financial concerns, and impacting low- and middle-income families. Transportation-related delays are associated with more indicators of low socio-economic status. Policies targeting minorities and those with low- and middle-income, such as Medicaid expansion, would contribute to addressing disparities resulting from delayed care.

Heterogeneity and Risk of Bias in Studies Examining Risk Factors for Severe Illness and Death in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized the evidence on the impacts of demographics and comorbidities on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, as well as the sources of the heterogeneity and publication bias of the relevant studies. Two authors independently searched the literature from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and CINAHL on 18 May 2021; removed duplicates; screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts by using criteria; and extracted data from the eligible articles. The variations among the studies were examined by using Cochrane, Q.; I2, and meta-regression. Out of 11,975 articles that were obtained from the databases and screened, 559 studies were abstracted, and then, where appropriate, were analyzed by meta-analysis (n = 542). COVID-19-related severe illness, admission to the ICU, and death were significantly correlated with comorbidities, male sex, and an age older than 60 or 65 years, although high heterogeneity was present in the pooled estimates. The study design, the study country, the sample size, and the year of publication contributed to this. There was publication bias among the studies that compared the odds of COVID-19-related deaths, severe illness, and admission to the ICU on the basis of the comorbidity status. While an older age and chronic diseases were shown to increase the risk of developing severe illness, admission to the ICU, and death among the COVID-19 patients in our analysis, a marked heterogeneity was present when linking the specific risks with the outcomes.