Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Advances in early diagnosis and curative treatment have reduced high mortality rates associated with non‐small cell lung cancer. However, racial disparity in survival persists partly because Black patients receive less curative treatment than White patients. Methods We performed a 5‐year pragmatic, trial at five cancer centers using a system‐based intervention. Patients diagnosed with early stage lung cancer, aged 18‐85 were eligible. Intervention components included: (1) a real‐time warning system derived from electronic health records, (2) race‐specific feedback to clinical teams on treatment completion rates, and (3) a nurse navigator. Consented patients were compared to retrospective and concurrent controls. The primary outcome was receipt of curative treatment. Results There were 2841 early stage lung cancer patients (16% Black) in the retrospective group and 360 (32% Black) in the intervention group. For the retrospective baseline, crude treatment rates were 78% for White patients vs 69% for Black patients (P < 0.001); difference by race was confirmed by a model adjusted for age, treatment site, cancer stage, gender, comorbid illness, and income‐odds ratio (OR) 0.66 for Black patients (95% CI 0.51‐0.85, P = 0.001). Within the intervention cohort, the crude rate was 96.5% for Black vs 95% for White patients (P = 0.56). Odds ratio for the adjusted analysis was 2.1 (95% CI 0.41‐10.4, P = 0.39) for Black vs White patients. Between group analyses confirmed treatment parity for the intervention. Conclusion A system‐based intervention tested in five cancer centers reduced racial gaps and improved care for all. A multi‐faceted intervention tested in five cancer centers using the transparency of race‐specific data feedback, real‐time warnings derived from EHRs, and patient‐centered navigation improved care for both Black and White patients while reducing racial differences. Application of this system‐based, pragmatic approach at a health system level could have positive effects on treatment completion, equity and overall outcomes.

Background Community Health Workers (CHW) are recommended for delivery of interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease, but there is insufficient evidence to guide implementation of CHW interventions in rural, medically underserved areas. Methods Using a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design, we evaluated the implementation and effectiveness of an adapted, evidence-based cardiovascular disease risk reduction intervention among rural high-risk adults. CHWs at a community health center and local health department recruited, enrolled and counseled participants during 4 monthly home visits and 3 brief phone contacts. Participant data collection included pre- and post-intervention measurements of blood pressure, weight, and dietary and physical activity behaviors. We evaluated implementation with measures of intervention reach and delivery fidelity. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and paired t-tests. Results Study participants ( n  = 105) had a mean age of 62 years and included 88% Non-Hispanic Blacks and 82% females. Recruitment strategies resulted in the enrollment of 38% of interested and eligible participants who received 80% of the planned intervention visits and phone contacts. Mean differences in pre−/post-intervention measures showed significant mean reductions in blood pressure (− 5.4 mmHg systolic, p  = .006; − 2.3 mmHg diastolic, p  = .04) and body weight (− 3.8 lb., p  = .02). Self-reported dietary and physical activity behaviors also improved significantly. Conclusion This feasibility study demonstrated preliminary implementation and program effectiveness of a CHW-delivered intervention to reduce cardiovascular disease risk factors. Additionally, it identified areas for future refinements to strategies that strengthen community-clinical linkages with an integrated role of CHWs in rural health care delivery. If results from this feasibility study can be enhanced in a larger sample, there would be significant potential to positively impact the excess burden of chronic diseases that adversely impact rural, low-income, and medically underserved populations. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03582696 .

Background & aims In the United States, Non-Hispanic Black (Black) people are 2–threefold more likely than Non-Hispanic White (White) people to have pregnancy complications, such as a baby with low birthweight. Multi-level, community-based interventions aimed at mitigating the impacts of interpersonal and structural racism may decrease bias, improve the quality of care, and improve pregnancy outcomes. The Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity and the Heart Health Now studies reduced disparities in cancer treatment and cardiovascular risk, respectively. The Accountability for Care through Undoing Racism and Equity for Moms Study (ACURE4Moms) was modified from these successful interventions and designed to test the impact of multi-level, community-engaged antiracism interventions delivered on disparities in low birth weight (LBW) (Aim 1), experiences with perinatal depression and experiences with discrimination in medical settings (Aim 2) and other patient-centered outcomes. We will also measure implementation barriers and facilitators (Aim 3). Methods ACURE4Moms is a 4-arm, cluster-randomized trial which has enrolled 39 prenatal practices randomized to implement the following interventions for 2 years: Arm 1–Standard Care; Arm 2—Data Accountability and Transparency; Arm 3—Community-Based Doula linkages; and Arm 4—Data and Doula interventions combined. Practice staff in Arms 2–4 will also receive quarterly Maternal Healthcare Equity Education and Training. A subgroup of 100 Black patients from each practice will participate in a longitudinal survey that measures mental health symptoms and experiences with discrimination during pregnancy and postpartum. A stakeholder advisory board including doulas, community members, and policymakers helps to make decisions regarding study design, implementation, and dissemination. Multi-level mixed models will be used to evaluate outcomes using administrative, vital records and survey data. The primary outcome is a reduction in low birth weight for Black infants. Secondary outcomes include reductions in hospitalizations and emergency department use, mental health symptoms, and experiences with discrimination during pregnancy and postpartum. Intermediate outcomes include implementation barriers and facilitators. Discussion The findings of the ACURE4Moms study will inform policy makers, health systems, clinicians and communities about the effectiveness of multi-level, practice-based interventions to reduce maternal health disparities and provide information regarding scalability. Trial Registration This trial has been prospectively registered as (7/29/2022) with clinicaltrials.gov under the name Accountability for Care Through Undoing Racism & Equity for Moms (ACURE4Moms), Identifier: NCT05484804. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05484804 .

Background Practice facilitation is a promising strategy to enhance care processes and outcomes in primary care settings. It requires that practices and their facilitators engage as teams to drive improvement. In this analysis, we explored the practice and facilitator factors associated with greater team engagement at the mid-point of a 12-month practice facilitation intervention focused on implementing cardiovascular prevention activities in practice. Understanding factors associated with greater engagement with facilitators in practice-based quality improvement can assist practice facilitation programs with planning and resource allocation. Methods One hundred thirty-six ambulatory care small to medium sized primary care practices that participated in the EvidenceNow initiative’s NC Cooperative, named Heart Health Now (HHN), fit the eligibility criteria for this analysis. We explored the practice and facilitator factors associated with greater team engagement at the mid-point of a 12-month intervention using a retrospective cohort design that included baseline survey data, monthly practice activity implementation data and information about facilitator’s experience. Generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs) identified variables associated with greater odds of team engagement using an ordinal scale for level of team engagement. Results Among our practice cohort, over half were clinician-owned and 27% were Federally Qualified Health Centers. The mean number of clinicians was 4.9 (SD 4.2) and approximately 40% of practices were in Medically Underserved Areas (MUA). GLMMs identified a best fit model. The Model presented as odd ratios and 95% confidence intervals suggests greater odds ratios of higher team engagement with greater practice QI leadership 17.31 (5.24–57.19), [0.00], and practice location in a MUA 7.25 (1.8–29.20), [0.005]. No facilitator characteristics were independently associated with greater engagement. Conclusions Our analysis provides information for practice facilitation stakeholders to consider when considering which practices may be more amendable to embracing facilitation services.

Background Unhealthy alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable deaths in the USA and is associated with many societal and health problems. Less than a third of people who visit primary care providers in the USA are asked about or ever discuss alcohol use with a health professional. Methods/design This study is an adaptive, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the effect of primary care practice facilitation and telehealth services on evidence-based screening, counseling, and pharmacotherapy for unhealthy alcohol use in small-to-medium-sized primary care practices. Study participants will include primary care practices in North Carolina with 10 or fewer providers. All enrolled practices will receive a practice facilitation intervention that includes quality improvement (QI) coaching, electronic health record (EHR) support, training, and expert consultation. After 6 months, practices in the lower 50th percentile (based on performance) will be randomized to continued practice facilitation or provision of telehealth services plus ongoing facilitation for the next 6 months. Practices in the upper 50th percentile after the initial 6 months of intervention will continue to receive practice facilitation alone. The main outcome measures include the number (and %) of patients in the target population who are screened for unhealthy alcohol use, screen positive, and receive brief counseling. Additional measures include the number (and %) of patients who receive pharmacotherapy for AUD or are referred for AUD services. Sample size calculations determined that 35 practices are needed to detect a 10% increase in the main outcome (percent screened for unhealthy alcohol use) over 6 months. Discussion A successful intervention would significantly reduce morbidity among adults from unhealthy alcohol use by increasing counseling and other treatment opportunities. The study will produce important evidence about the effect of practice facilitation on uptake of evidence-based screening, counseling, and pharmacotherapy for unhealthy alcohol use when delivered on a large scale to small and medium-sized practices. It will also generate scientific knowledge about whether embedded telehealth services can improve the use of evidence-based screening and interventions for practices with slower uptake. The results of this rigorously conducted evaluation are expected to have a positive impact by accelerating the dissemination and implementation of evidence related to unhealthy alcohol use into primary care practices. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04317989 . Registered on March 23, 2020.

We examined whether an evidence-based cardiovascular disease risk reduction intervention (Heart Health Now) would improve rates for tobacco cessation screening and counseling in small primary care practices in North Carolina. Heart Health Now was a stepped wedge, stratified, cluster randomized trial for primary care practices that were staffed by 10 or fewer clinicians and had an electronic health record. The Heart Health Now intervention consisted of education tools, onsite practice facilitation for one year, and a practice-specific cardiovascular population management dashboard that included monthly, measure-specific run charts to help guide quality improvement. Our primary outcomes were practice-level rates of tobacco screening and tobacco cessation support—extracted from practices’ electronic health records—and measured at pre-intervention and 6 months post-intervention. The 28 practices included in our analyses represented 78,120 patients and 17,687 smokers. Significant change occurred in practices’ tobacco screening rates and cessation support rates over time. From pre- to post-intervention, screening rates significantly increased from 82.7 to 96.2% (p < 0.001). Similarly, cessation support rates significantly increased from 44.3 to 50.1% (p = 0.03). Several practice-level factors were associated with improvement including being in an academic health center or faculty practice, having more clinicians, and having a lower percentage of White patients. In conclusion, a multi-component intervention focused on multiple cardiovascular disease risk reduction in multiple small primary care practices successfully improved rates of tobacco screening and cessation support.

Purpose Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and pain are important supportive cancer care outcomes. The patient-provider relationship, a modifiable care experience, has been linked to healthcare outcomes; however, less is known about associations between patient-provider relationship and supportive care outcomes in cancer patients. We examined the role of multiple aspects of the patient-provider relationship in explaining patterns of HRQOL and pain among breast and lung cancer patients. Methods Our analysis included 283 breast and lung cancer patients from two cancer centers. Clinical data and survey data on patient sociodemographic factors, physical and mental HRQOL, pain, and patient-physician relationship (i.e., doctor’s respectfulness, time spent with doctors, patient involvement in decision-making, satisfaction with care, and following doctor’s advice/treatment plan) were collected at baseline and during treatment. We estimated adjusted modified Poisson regression models to assess associations between patient-physician relationship factors and physical and mental HRQOL and pain. Results Compared with patients reporting suboptimal respect from doctors, patients reporting optimal respect were less likely to report below average physical HRQOL (adjusted risk ratio (ARR), 0.73; 95%CI, 0.62–0.86), below average mental HRQOL (ARR, 0.71; 95%CI, 0.54–0.93), and moderate-to-severe pain (ARR, 0.53; 95%CI, 0.35–0.79). Patients reporting optimal involvement in care decision-making and patients who reported following their doctor’s advice/treatment plan were less likely to report below average mental HRQOL than their respective counterparts (ARR, 0.64; 95%CI, 0.50–0.83; ARR, 0.65; 95%CI, 0.48–0.86). Conclusion Multiple patient-physician relationship factors account for variations in HRQOL and pain in cancer patients. These findings provide insight into potential targets for improving the patient-provider relationship and supportive cancer care outcomes.

PurposeRacial disparities in cancer treatment-related symptom burden are well documented and linked to worse treatment outcomes. Yet, little is known about racial differences in patients’ treatment-related symptom management experiences. Such understanding can help identify modifiable drivers of symptom burden inequities. As part of the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms (CHAMPS) study, we examined racial differences in symptom management experiences among Black and White breast cancer survivors (BCS).MethodsWe conducted six focus groups (n = 3 Black BCS groups; n = 3 White BCS groups) with 22 stages I–IV BCS at two cancer centers. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Based on key community-based participatory research principles, our community/academic/medical partner team facilitated focus groups and conducted qualitative analyses.ResultsAll BCS described positive symptom management experiences, including clinician attentiveness to symptom concerns and clinician recommendations for pre-emptively managing symptoms. Black BCS commonly reported having to advocate for themselves to get information about treatment-related symptoms, and indicated dissatisfaction regarding clinicians’ failure to disclose potential treatment-related symptoms or provide medications to address symptoms. White BCS often described dissatisfaction regarding inadequate information on symptom origins and clinicians’ failure to offer reassurance.ConclusionsThis study elucidates opportunities for future research aimed at improving equity for cancer treatment-related symptom management. For Black women, warnings about anticipated symptoms and treatment for ongoing symptoms were particular areas of concern. Routine symptom assessment for all women, as well as clinicians’ management of symptoms for racially diverse cancer patients, need to be more thoroughly studied and addressed.

Purpose of ReviewOpioid deaths have risen to unprecedented rates in the USA. Efforts to mitigate the opioid crisis include supply-side strategies that reduce opioid availability. However, Patients of Color have historically reported less access to analgesia and worse pain burden and pain management than Whites. In this narrative review, we examine the recent literature on racial/ethnic disparities in pain care, including opioid access, and provide recommendations for advancing equity in pain management.Recent FindingsBoth cancer pain and non-cancer pain studies provide strong evidence of racial/ethnic disparities in pain burden and pain management. Compared with Whites, Patients of Color reported worse pain severity and less access to opioid and non-opioid analgesia. Rates of pain assessment/documentation during clinic visits were also lower among Patients of Color relative to their White counterparts.SummaryRacial/ethnic disparities continue to persist in pain burden and pain management. To prevent further exacerbation of existing racial/ethnic disparities in pain management, equity must be prioritized in the broader opioid debate.

Background The objective of Heart Health NOW (HHN) is to determine if primary care practice support—a comprehensive evidence-based quality improvement strategy involving practice facilitation, academic detailing, technology support, and regional learning collaboratives—accelerates widespread dissemination and implementation of evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in small- to medium-sized primary care practices and, additionally, increases practices’ capacity to incorporate other evidence-based clinical guidelines in the future. Methods/design HHN is a stepped wedge, stratified, cluster randomized trial to evaluate the effect of primary care practice support on evidence-based CVD prevention, organizational change process measures, and patient outcomes. Each practice will start the trial as a control, receive the intervention at a randomized time point, and then enter a maintenance period 12 months after the start of the intervention. The intervention will be randomized to practices in one of four strata defined by region of the state (east or west) and degree of practice readiness for change. Seventy-five practices in each region with a high degree of readiness will be randomized 1:1:1 in blocks of 3 sometime prior to month 8 to receive the intervention at month 9, 11, or 12. An additional 75 practices within each region that have a low degree of readiness or are recruited later will be randomized 1:1 in blocks of 2 prior to month 13 to receive the intervention at month 14 or 16. The sites will be ordered within each strata based on time of enrollment with the blocking based on this ordering. Evaluation will examine the effect of primary care practice support on (1) practice-level delivery of evidence-based CVD prevention, (2) patient-level health outcomes, (3) practice-level implementation of clinical and organizational changes that support delivery of evidence-based CVD prevention, and (4) practice-level capacity to implement future evidence-based clinical guidelines. Discussion Results will indicate whether primary care practice support is an effective strategy for widespread dissemination and implementation of evidence-based clinical guidelines in primary care practices. Discernible reductions in cardiovascular risk in 300 practices covering over an estimated 900,000 adult patients would likely lead to prevention of thousands of cardiovascular events within 10 years. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02585557