Explore the vast range of titles available.

Refugees experience high rates of food insecurity (FI) and its associated health outcomes, such as depression and hypertension. Prior research has identified barriers in accessing food among U.S. refugees. What remains unknown is when accessing food becomes a problem for U.S. refugees and what their preferred strategies are to address FI. Therefore, the objectives were to explore FI experiences among refugees to identify time points at which accessing food becomes a problem and to identify refugees' preferred strategies to address FI. In collaboration with one of the U.S. resettlement agencies in Utah, refugees were recruited for semi-structured interviews using convenience and snowball sampling. Thirty-six interviews were conducted between July and September 2024, in four different languages: English (4 interviews), Dari (6), Arabic (12), and Kinyarwanda (14). Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. FI was at its peak among refugees at four time points. First, when they found their first job in the U.S. Second, after six months in the U.S., when they had to renew their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) application. Third, when they were no longer receiving caseworkers' support from resettlement agencies. Fourth, when they faced fluctuations in employment or household expenditures. Refugees' preferred strategies to address FI were addressing language barriers, providing a champion to check on them frequently and help when needed, providing information on addressing unmet needs, extending and expanding SNAP benefits, and providing gardens to grow food. Four time points when refugees are at higher risk of FI were identified. Community organizations, policymakers, and resettlement agencies should therefore develop interventions to address FI among refugees, specifically around these four time points and informed by refugees' preferred strategies.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, (SARS-CoV-2,) caused an influx of patients with acute disease characterized by a variety of symptoms termed COVID-19 disease, with some patients going on to develop post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Individual factors like sex or coping styles are associated with a person's disease experience and quality of life. Individual differences in coping styles used to manage COVID-19 related stress correlate with physical and mental health outcomes. Our study sought to understand the relationship between COVID-19 symptoms, severity of acute disease, and coping profiles. An online survey to assess symptoms, functional status, and recovery in a large group of patients was nationally distributed online. The survey asked about symptoms, course of illness, and included the Brief-COPE and the adapted Social Relationship Inventory. We used descriptive and cluster analyses to characterize patterns of survey responses. 976 patients were included in the analysis. The most common symptoms reported by the patients were fatigue (72%), cough (71%), body aches/joint pain (66%), headache (62%), and fever/chills (62%). 284 participants reported PACS. We described three different coping profiles: outward, inward, and dynamic copers. Fatigue, cough, and body aches/joint pains were the most frequently reported symptoms. PACS patients were sicker, more likely to have been hospitalized. Of the three coping profiles, outward copers were more likely to be admitted to the hospital and had the healthiest coping strategies. Dynamic copers activated several coping strategies both positive and negative; they were also younger and more likely to report PACS. Cough, fatigue, and body aches/joint pain are common and most important to patients with acute COVID-19, while shortness of breath defined the experience for patients with PACS. Of the three coping profiles, dynamic copers were more likely to report PACS. Additional investigations into coping profiles in general, and the experience of COVID-19 and PACS is needed.

We explored experiences and perceptions surrounding the Self-Stewardship Time-Out Program (SSTOP) intervention across implementation sites to improve antimicrobial use. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with Antibiotic Stewardship physicians and pharmacists, from which 5 key themes emerged. SSTOP may serve to achieve sustainable promotion of antibiotic use improvements.

Patient-centered care promotes the involvement of patients in decision-making related to their health care. The adoption and implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) into routine care are constrained by several obstacles, including technical and time constraints, clinician and patient attitudes and perceptions, and processes that exist outside the standardized clinical workflow. We aimed to understand the integration and implementation characteristics of reported SDM interventions integrated into an electronic health record (EHR) system. We conducted a scoping review using the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley with guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Eligibility criteria included original research and reviews focusing on SDM situations in a real-world clinical setting and EHR integration of SDM tools and processes. We excluded retrospective studies, conference abstracts, simulation studies, user design studies, opinion pieces, and editorials. To identify eligible studies, we searched the following databases on January 11, 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library including CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. We systematically categorized descriptive data and key findings in a tabular format using predetermined data charting forms. Results were summarized using tables and associated narratives related to the review questions. Of the 2153 studies, 18 (0.84%) were included in the final review. There was a high degree of variation across studies, including SDM definitions, standardized measures, technical integration, and implementation strategies. SDM tools that targeted established health care processes promoted their use. Integrating SDM templates and tools into an EHR appeared to improve the targeted outcomes of most (17/18, 94%) studies. Most SDM interventions were designed for clinicians. Patient-specific goals and values were included in 56% (10/18) of studies. The 2 most common study outcome measures were SDM-related measures and SDM tool use. Understanding how to integrate SDM tools directly into a clinician's workflow within the EHR is a logical approach to promoting SDM into routine clinical practice. This review contributes to the literature by illuminating features of SDM tools that have been integrated into an EHR system. Standardization of SDM tools and processes, including the use of patient decision aids, is needed for consistency across SDM studies. The implementation approaches for SDM applications showed varying levels of planning and effort to promote SDM intervention awareness. Targeting accepted and established clinical processes may enhance the adoption and use of SDM tools. Future studies designed as randomized controlled trials are needed to expand the quality of the evidence base. This includes the study of integration methods into EHR systems as well as implementation methods and strategies deployed to operationalize the uptake of the SDM-integrated tools. Emphasizing patients' goals and values is another key area for future studies.

Food insecurity is a social determinant of health that impacts more than 10% of U.S. households every year. Many unexpected events make food-insecure people and those with unmet food needs seek information and help from both formal (e.g., community organizations) and informal (e.g., family/friends) resources. Food-related information seeking through telephone calls to a community referral system-211 network-has been used as a proxy for food insecurity but the context of these calls has not been characterized and the validity of this proxy measure is unknown. To investigate the content of food-related telephone calls to 211 and explore the indications of food insecurity during these calls. We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis on the transcripts of food-related calls to Utah's 211. From February to March 2022, 25 calls were sampled based on the location of callers to ensure the representation of rural residents. 13 calls from metropolitan and 12 calls from nonmetropolitan ZIP Codes were included. Using a purposive sampling approach, we also made sure that the sample varied with regard to race and ethnicity. Calls were transcribed and de-identified by our community partner-Utah's 211 and were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach by our research team. Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis including referral to 211, reasons for food-related calls, and reasons for unmet food needs. Results highlight the complex social environment around 211 food-related callers, lack of knowledge about available food resources, and indications of food insecurity in calls. Information seeking for food-related resources through 211 is a problem-solving source for people living in a complex social environment. Indications of food insecurity through these calls validate the use of these calls as a proxy measure for food insecurity. Interventions should be designed to increase awareness about the available resources and address the co-existing social needs with food insecurity.

Background Food insecurity, poor nutrition, and diet-related diseases create major intersecting health challenges. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has identified food insecurity as a high-priority problem and established regular clinical screening. Veterans with identified food insecurity and diet-sensitive cardiometabolic health conditions will benefit from the successful implementation of effective Food is Medicine interventions. Methods This pragmatic, quasi-experimental intervention study of effectiveness and implementation of a produce-prescription program is conducted in 2 VA hospital health systems in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Houston, Texas. Eligible Veterans have (a) a diet-sensitive cardiometabolic health condition (obesity, hypertension, and/or diabetes) identified in the electronic health record (EHR) by diagnostic codes (ICD-10) and/or lab values and (b) low-income identified by priority status in administrative data. Program enrollment is pragmatically integrated within the VA clinical care process of food security screening and service referrals. Eligible Veterans who screen positive for food insecurity during clinical care processes are referred to the intervention. The Veterans Affairs FreshConnect Produce Prescription (VA FCPRx) intervention program includes 12 months of a produce prescription allowance for purchasing fresh fruits or vegetables, provided as $100 monthly on a pre-paid card for use at local grocery stores. The program also includes culinary education through cooking courses provided by VA nutritionists or nutritional consults provided one-on-one by a VA dietitian. Process and outcome measures will be evaluated using the PRISM RE-AIM framework. Health outcomes related to diet-sensitive chronic conditions (e.g., HbA1c levels for patients with diabetes) and healthcare costs (e.g., outpatient costs) are assessed using EHR data. VA FCPRx participant outcomes are assessed in comparison to a group of similar Veterans using intention-to-treat analyses. Patient-reported outcomes, implementation strategies and outcomes, and staff and Veteran experience are assessed with a combination of surveys, focus groups, and program administrative data. Discussion This pragmatic quasi-experimental intervention study will provide important new evidence about the impact of a produce prescription program for U.S. Veterans on health outcomes, healthcare costs, and patient-reported outcomes. The assessment of effectiveness and implementation processes and outcomes will inform the design and scaling of impactful, pragmatic, cost-effective programs for food insecure Veterans with diet-sensitive cardiometabolic conditions.

Beliefs that the risks from a COVID-19 vaccine outweigh the risks from getting COVID-19 and concerns that the vaccine development process was rushed and lacking rigor have been identified as important drivers of hesitancy and refusal to get a COVID-19 vaccine. We tested whether messages designed to address these beliefs and concerns might promote intentions to get a COVID-19 vaccine. We conducted an online survey fielded between March 8-23, 2021 with US Veteran (n = 688) and non-Veteran (n = 387) respondents. In a between-subjects experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to a control group (with no message) or to read one of two intervention messages: 1. a fact-box styled message comparing the risks of getting COVID-19 compared to the vaccine, and 2. a timeline styled message describing the development process of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Most respondents (60%) wanted a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 17% expressed hesitancy and 23% did not want to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The fact-box styled message and the timeline message did not significantly improve vaccination intentions, F(2,358) = 0.86, p = .425, [Formula: see text] = .005, or reduce the time respondents wanted to wait before getting vaccinated, F(2,306) = 0.79, p = .453, [Formula: see text] = .005, compared to no messages. In this experimental study, we did not find that providing messages about vaccine risks and the development process had an impact on respondents' vaccine intentions. Further research is needed to identify how to effectively address concerns about the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines and the development process and to understand additional factors that influence vaccine intentions.

Background Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision‐making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development. Aim This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach. Methods We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider‐facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient‐facing SDM tool. Results The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient‐facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient–provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids. Conclusion These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions. Patient or Public Contribution Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM.

Background This study sought to understand the process of clinical decision-making for suspected pneumonia by emergency departments (ED) providers in Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers. The long-term goal of this work is to create clinical decision support tools to reduce unwarranted variation in diagnosis and treatment of suspected pneumonia. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 ED clinicians from 9 VA facilities demonstrating variation in antibiotic and hospitalization decisions. Interviews of ED providers focused on understanding decision making for provider-selected pneumonia cases and providers’ organizational contexts. Results Thematic analysis identified four salient themes: i) ED decision-making for suspected pneumonia is a social process; ii) the “diagnosis drives treatment” paradigm is poorly suited to pneumonia decision-making in the ED; iii) The unpredictability of the ED requires deliberate and effortful information management by providers in CAP decision-making; and iv) the emotional stakes and high uncertainty of pneumonia care drive conservative decision making. Conclusions Ensuring CDS reflects the realities of clinical work as a socially organized process with high uncertainty may ultimately improve communication between ED and admitting providers, continuity of care and patient outcomes.

The Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is a stressful environment for families of critically ill patients and these individuals are at risk to develop persistent psychological morbidity. Our study objective was to identify individual differences in coping with stress and information presentation preferences of respondents exposed to a simulated ICU experience. Participants were recruited from a university and two community populations. Participants completed questionnaires that measured demographic information and characteristics that may be relevant to an individual's ICU experience. Quality of life was measured by the EQ-5D, personality dimensions were examined with the abbreviated Big Five inventory, coping with stress was assessed with Brief COPE. Shared decision making preferences were assessed by the Degner Control Preferences Scale (CPS) and information seeking style was assessed with the Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS). Social support was examined using an abbreviated version of the Social Relationship Index. Participants also completed a vignette-based simulated ICU experience, in which they made a surrogate decision on behalf of a loved one in the ICU. Three hundred forty-three participants completed the study. Three distinct coping profiles were identified: adaptive copers, maladaptive copers, and disengaged copers. Profiles differed primarily on coping styles, personality, quality of their closest social relationship, and history of anxiety and depression. Responses to the simulated ICU decision making experience differed across profiles. Disengaged copers (15%) were more likely to elect to refuse dialysis on behalf of an adult sibling compared to adaptive copers (7%) or maladaptive copers (5%) (p = 0.03). Notably, the MBSS and the CPS did not differ by coping profile. Distinct coping profiles are associated with differences in responses to a simulated ICU experience. Tailoring communication and support to specific coping profiles may represent an important pathway to improving ICU experience for patients and families.