Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: the my own health report (MOHR) project

BACKGROUND: There is a pressing need for greater attention to patient-centered health behavior and psychosocial issues in primary care, and for practical tools, study designs and results of clinical and policy relevance. Our goal is to design a scientifically rigorous and valid pragmatic trial to test whether primary care practices can systematically implement the collection of patient-reported information and provide patients needed advice, goal setting, and counseling in response. METHODS: This manuscript reports on the iterative design of the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, a cluster randomized delayed intervention trial. Nine pairs of diverse primary care practices will be randomized to early or delayed intervention four months later. The intervention consists of fielding the MOHR assessment – addresses 10 domains of health behaviors and psychosocial issues – and subsequent provision of needed counseling and support for patients presenting for wellness or chronic care. As a pragmatic participatory trial, stakeholder groups including practice partners and patients have been engaged throughout the study design to account for local resources and characteristics. Participatory tasks include identifying MOHR assessment content, refining the study design, providing input on outcomes measures, and designing the implementation workflow. Study outcomes include the intervention reach (percent of patients offered and completing the MOHR assessment), effectiveness (patients reporting being asked about topics, setting change goals, and receiving assistance in early versus delayed intervention practices), contextual factors influencing outcomes, and intervention costs. DISCUSSION: The MOHR study shows how a participatory design can be used to promote the consistent collection and use of patient-reported health behavior and psychosocial assessments in a broad range of primary care settings. While pragmatic in nature, the study design will allow valid comparisons to answer the posed research question, and findings will be broadly generalizable to a range of primary care settings. Per the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) framework, the study design is substantially more pragmatic than other published trials. The methods and findings should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers attempting to make healthcare more patient-centered and relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0182574

Factors Related to Implementation and Reach of a Pragmatic Multisite Trial: The My Own Health Report (MOHR) Study

BACKGROUND: Contextual factors relevant to translating healthcare improvement interventions to different settings are rarely collected systematically. This study articulates a prospective method for assessing and describing contextual factors related to implementation and patient reach of a pragmatic trial in primary care. METHODS: In a qualitative case-series, contextual factors were assessed from the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, focused on systematic health risk assessments and goal setting for unhealthy behaviors and behavioral health in nine primary care practices. Practice staff interviews and observations, guided by a context template were conducted prospectively at three time points. Patient reach was calculated as percentage of patients completing MOHR of those who were offered MOHR and themes describing contextual factors were summarized through an iterative, data immersion process.These included practice members' motivations towards MOHR, practice staff capacity for implementation, practice information system capacity, external resources to support quality improvement, community linkages, and implementation strategy fit with patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically assessing contextual factors prospectively throughout implementation of quality improvement initiatives helps translation to other health care settings. Knowledge of contextual factors is essential for scaling up of effective interventions

How do women at increased breast cancer risk perceive and decide between risks of cancer and risk-reducing treatments? A synthesis of qualitative research

Objective: Risk‐reducing procedures can be offered to people at increased cancer risk, but many procedures can have iatrogenic effects. People therefore need to weigh risks associated with both cancer and the risk‐reduction procedure in their decisions. By reviewing relevant literature on breast cancer (BC) risk reduction, we aimed to understand how women at relatively high risk of BC perceive their risk and how their risk perceptions influence their decisions about risk reduction. Methods: Synthesis of 15 qualitative studies obtained from systematic searches of SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge, PsychINFO, and Medline electronic databases (inception‐June 2015). Results: Women did not think about risk probabilistically. Instead, they allocated themselves to broad risk categories, typically influenced by their own or familial experiences of BC. In deciding about risk‐reduction procedures, some women reported weighing the risks and benefits, but papers did not describe how they did so. For many women, however, an overriding wish to reduce intense worry about BC led them to choose aggressive risk‐reducing procedures without such deliberation. Conclusions: Reasoning that categorisation is a fundamental aspect of risk perception, we argue that patients can be encouraged to develop more nuanced and accurate categorisations of their own risk through their interactions with clinicians. Empirically‐based ethical reflection is required to determine whether and when it is appropriate to provide risk‐reduction procedures to alleviate worry

Global trends and correlates of covid-19 vaccination hesitancy: Findings from the icare study

The success of large-scale COVID-19 vaccination campaigns is contingent upon people being willing to receive the vaccine. Our study explored COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and its correlates in eight different countries around the globe. We analyzed convenience sample data collected between March 2020 and January 2021 as part of the iCARE cross-sectional study. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to explore the correlates of vaccine hesitancy. We included 32,028 participants from eight countries, and observed that 27% of the participants exhibited vaccine hesitancy, with increases over time. France reported the highest level of hesitancy (47.3%) and Brazil reported the lowest (9.6%). Women, younger individuals (≤29 years), people living in rural areas, and those with a lower perceived income were more likely to be hesitant. People who previously received an influenza vaccine were 70% less likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We observed that people reporting greater COVID-19 health concerns were less likely to be hesitant, whereas people with higher personal financial concerns were more likely to be hesitant. Our findings indicate that there is substantial vaccine hesitancy in several countries, with cross-national differences in the magnitude and direction of the trend. Vaccination communication initiatives should target hesitant individuals (women, younger adults, people with lower incomes and those living in rural areas), and should highlight the immediate health, social and economic benefits of vaccination across these settings. Country-level analyses are warranted to understand the complex psychological, socio-environmental, and cultural factors associated with vaccine hesitancy

Ending the Pandemic: How Behavioural Science Can Help Optimize Global COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake

Governments, public health officials and pharmaceutical companies have all mobilized resources to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns, social distancing, and personal protective behaviours have been helpful but have shut down economies and disrupted normal activities. Vaccinations protect populations from COVID-19 and allow a return to pre-pandemic ways of living. However, vaccine development, distribution and promotion have not been sufficient to ensure maximum vaccine uptake. Vaccination is an individual choice and requires acceptance of the need to be vaccinated in light of any risks. This paper presents a behavioural sciences framework to promote vaccine acceptance by addressing the complex and ever evolving landscape of COVID-19. Effective promotion of vaccine uptake requires understanding the context-specific barriers to acceptance. We present the AACTT framework (Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time) to identify the action needed to be taken, the person needed to act, the context for the action, as well as the target of the action within a timeframe. Once identified a model for identifying and overcoming barriers, called COM-B (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation lead to Behaviour), is presented. This analysis identifies issues associated with capability, opportunity and motivation to act. These frameworks can be used to facilitate action that is fluid and involves policy makers, organisational leaders as well as citizens and families

The impact of behavioral and mental health risk assessments on goal setting in primary care

Patient-centered health risk assessments (HRAs) that screen for unhealthy behaviors, prioritize concerns, and provide feedback may improve counseling, goal setting, and health. To evaluate the effectiveness of routinely administering a patient-centered HRA, My Own Health Report, for diet, exercise, smoking, alcohol, drug use, stress, depression, anxiety, and sleep, 18 primary care practices were randomized to ask patients to complete My Own Health Report (MOHR) before an office visit (intervention) or continue usual care (control). Intervention practice patients were more likely than control practice patients to be asked about each of eight risks (range of differences 5.3-15.8 %, p < 0.001), set goals for six risks (range of differences 3.8-16.6 %, p < 0.01), and improve five risks (range of differences 5.4-13.6 %, p < 0.01). Compared to controls, intervention patients felt clinicians cared more for them and showed more interest in their concerns. Patient-centered health risk assessments improve screening and goal setting.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01825746

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: A qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer screening rates are low among disadvantaged patients; few studies have explored barriers to screening in community health centers. The purpose of this study was to describe barriers to/facilitators of colorectal cancer screening among diverse patients served by community health centers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We identified twenty-three outpatients who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and their 10 primary care physicians. Using in-depth semi-structured interviews, we asked patients to describe factors influencing their screening decisions. For each unscreened patient, we asked his or her physician to describe barriers to screening. We conducted patient interviews in English (n = 8), Spanish (n = 2), Portuguese (n = 5), Portuguese Creole (n = 1), and Haitian Creole (n = 7). We audiotaped and transcribed the interviews, and then identified major themes in the interviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Four themes emerged: 1) Unscreened patients cited lack of trust in doctors as a barrier to screening whereas few physicians identified this barrier; 2) Unscreened patients identified lack of symptoms as the reason they had not been screened; 3) A doctor's recommendation, or lack thereof, significantly influenced patients' decisions to be screened; 4) Patients, but not their physicians, cited fatalistic views about cancer as a barrier. Conversely, physicians identified competing priorities, such as psychosocial stressors or comorbid medical illness, as barriers to screening. In this culturally diverse group of patients seen at community health centers, similar barriers to screening were reported by patients of different backgrounds, but physicians perceived other factors as more important.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Further study of these barriers is warranted.</p

Is no news good news? Inconclusive genetic test results in BRCA1 and BRCA2 from patients and professionals' perspectives

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Women from families with a high risk of breast or ovarian cancer in which genetic testing for mutations in the <it>BRCA1/2 </it>genes is inconclusive are a vulnerable and understudied group. Furthermore, there are no studies of the professional specialists who treat them - geneticists, genetic counsellors/nurses, oncologists, gynaecologists and breast surgeons.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a small qualitative study that investigated women who had developed breast cancer under the age of 45 and who had an inconclusive <it>BRCA1/2 </it>genetic diagnostic test (where no mutations or unclassified variants were identified). We arranged three focus groups for affected women and their close female relatives - 13 women took part. We also interviewed 12 health professionals who were involved in the care of these women.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The majority of the women had a good grasp of the meaning of their own or a family member's inconclusive result, but a few indicated some misunderstanding. Most of the women in this study underwent the test for the benefit of others in the family and none mentioned that they were having the test purely for themselves. A difficult issue for sisters of affected women was whether or not to undertake prophylactic breast surgery. The professionals were sensitive to the difficulties in explaining an inconclusive result. Some felt frustrated that technology had not as yet provided them with a better tool for prediction of risk.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Some of the women were left with the dilemma of what decision to make regarding medical management of their cancer risk. For the most part, the professionals believed that the women should be supported in whatever management decisions they considered best, provided these decisions were based on a complete and accurate understanding of the genetic test that had taken place in the family.</p

Academic detailing to increase colorectal cancer screening by primary care practices in Appalachian Pennsylvania

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequently diagnosed cancer and second leading cause of cancer death. Screening is a primary method to prevent CRC, yet screening remains low in the U.S. and particularly in Appalachian Pennsylvania, a largely rural area with high rates of poverty, limited health care access, and increased CRC incidence and mortality rates. Receiving a physician recommendation for CRC screening is a primary predictor for patient adherence with screening guidelines. One strategy to disseminate practice-oriented interventions is academic detailing (AD), a method that transfers knowledge or methods to physicians, nurses or office staff through the visit(s) of a trained educator. The objective of this study was to determine acceptability and feasibility of AD among primary care practices in rural Appalachian Pennsylvania to increase CRC screening.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A multi-site, practice-based, intervention study with pre- and 6-month post-intervention review of randomly selected medical records, pre- and post-intervention surveys, as well as a post-intervention key informant interview was conducted. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients current with CRC screening recommendations and having received a CRC screening within the past year. Four practices received three separate AD visits to review four different learning modules.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We reviewed 323 records pre-intervention and 301 post-intervention. The prevalence of being current with screening recommendation was 56% in the pre-intervention, and 60% in the post-intervention (p = 0. 29), while the prevalence of having been screened in the past year increased from 17% to 35% (p < 0.001). Colonoscopies were the most frequently performed screening test. Provider knowledge was improved and AD was reported to be an acceptable intervention for CRC performance improvement by the practices.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>AD appears to be acceptable and feasible for primary care providers in rural Appalachia. A ceiling effect for CRC screening may have been a factor in no change in overall screening rates. While the study was not designed to test the efficacy of AD on CRC screening rates, our evidence suggests that AD is acceptable and may be efficacious in increasing recent CRC screening rates in Appalachian practices which could be tested through a randomized controlled study.</p

How do women at increased, but unexplained, familial risk of breast cancer perceive and manage their risk? A qualitative interview study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The perception of breast cancer risk held by women who have not had breast cancer, and who are at increased, but unexplained, familial risk of breast cancer is poorly described. This study aims to describe risk perception and how it is related to screening behaviour for these women.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were recruited from a population-based sample (the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study - ABCFS). The ABCFS includes women diagnosed with breast cancer and their relatives. For this study, women without breast cancer with at least one first- or second-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 were eligible unless a <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>mutation had been identified in their family. Data collection consisted of an audio recorded, semi-structured interview on the topic of breast cancer risk and screening decision-making. Data was analysed thematically.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 24 interviews were conducted, and saturation of the main themes was achieved. Women were classified into one of five groups: don't worry about cancer risk, but do screening; concerned about cancer risk, so do something; concerned about cancer risk, so why don't I do anything?; cancer inevitable; cancer unlikely.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The language and framework women use to describe their risk of breast cancer must be the starting point in attempts to enhance women's understanding of risk and their prevention behaviour.</p