Get screened: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to increase mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a large, safety net practice

Abstract Background Most randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to promote cancer screening, particularly those targeting poor and minority patients, enroll selected patients. Relatively little is known about the benefits of these interventions among unselected patients. Methods/Design "Get Screened" is an American Cancer Society-sponsored randomized controlled trial designed to promote mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a primary care practice serving low-income patients. Eligible patients who are past due for mammography or colorectal cancer screening are entered into a tracking registry and randomly assigned to early or delayed intervention. This 6-month intervention is multimodal, involving patient prompts, clinician prompts, and outreach. At the time of the patient visit, eligible patients receive a low-literacy patient education tool. At the same time, clinicians receive a prompt to remind them to order the test and, when appropriate, a tool designed to simplify colorectal cancer screening decision-making. Patient outreach consists of personalized letters, automated telephone reminders, assistance with scheduling, and linkage of uninsured patients to the local National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program. Interventions are repeated for patients who fail to respond to early interventions. We will compare rates of screening between randomized groups, as well as planned secondary analyses of minority patients and uninsured patients. Data from the pilot phase show that this multimodal intervention triples rates of cancer screening (adjusted odds ratio 3.63; 95% CI 2.35 - 5.61). Discussion This study protocol is designed to assess a multimodal approach to promotion of breast and colorectal cancer screening among underserved patients. We hypothesize that a multimodal approach will significantly improve cancer screening rates. The trial was registered at Clinical Trials.gov NCT00818857http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78264/1/1472-6963-10-280.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78264/2/1472-6963-10-280.pdfPeer Reviewe

The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative dissemination and implementation (PRIDI) cycle: adapting to the dynamic nature of public health emergencies (and beyond)

Background Public health emergencies—such as the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic—accelerate the need for both evidence generation and rapid dissemination and implementation (D&I) of evidence where it is most needed. In this paper, we reflect on how D&I frameworks and methods can be pragmatic (i.e., relevant to real-world context) tools for rapid and iterative planning, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of evidence to address public health emergencies. The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative D&I (PRIDI) cycle The PRIDI cycle is based on a “double-loop” learning process that recognizes the need for responsiveness and iterative adaptation of implementation cycle (inner loop) to the moving landscapes, presented by the outer loops of emerging goals and desired outcomes, emerging interventions and D&I strategies, evolving evidence, and emerging characteristics and needs of individuals and contexts. Stakeholders iteratively evaluate these surrounding landscapes of implementation, and reconsider implementation plans and activities. Conclusion Even when the health system priority is provision of the best care to the individuals in need, and scientists are focused on development of effective diagnostic and therapeutic technologies, planning for D&I is critical. Without a flexible and adaptive process of D&I, which is responsive to emerging evidence generation cycles, and closely connected to the needs and priorities of stakeholders and target users through engagement and feedback, the interventions to mitigate public health emergencies (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic), and other emerging issues, will have limited reach and impact on populations that would most benefit. The PRIDI cycle is intended to provide a pragmatic approach to support planning for D&I throughout the evidence generation and usage processes

Correction to: The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative dissemination and implementation (PRIDI) cycle: adapting to the dynamic nature of public health emergencies (and beyond)

No abstract was provided by the editors of this work

Primary Language, Income and the Intensification of Anti-glycemic Medications in Managed Care: the (TRIAD) Study

BACKGROUND Patients who speak Spanish and/or have low socioeconomic status are at greater risk of suboptimal glycemic control. Inadequate intensification of anti-glycemic medications may partially explain this disparity. OBJECTIVE To examine the associations between primary language, income, and medication intensification. DESIGN Cohort study with 18-month follow-up. PARTICIPANTS One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine patients with Type 2 diabetes who were not using insulin enrolled in the Translating Research into Action for Diabetes Study (TRIAD), a study of diabetes care in managed care. MEASUREMENTS Using administrative pharmacy data, we compared the odds of medication intensification for patients with baseline A1c ≥ 8%, by primary language and annual income. Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, Charlson score, diabetes duration, baseline A1c, type of diabetes treatment, and health plan. RESULTS Overall, 42.4% of patients were taking intensified regimens at the time of follow-up. We found no difference in the odds of intensification for English speakers versus Spanish speakers. However, compared to patients with incomes 75,000 (OR 2.22, 1.53-3.24) had increased odds of intensification. This latter pattern did not differ statistically by race. CONCLUSIONS Low-income patients were less likely to receive medication intensification compared to higher-income patients, but primary language (Spanish vs. English) was not associated with differences in intensification in a managed care setting. Future studies are needed to explain the reduced rate of intensification among low income patients in managed care

Do changes in traditional coronary heart disease risk factors over time explain the association between socio-economic status and coronary heart disease?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Socioeconomic status (SES) predicts coronary heart disease independently of the traditional risk factors included in the Framingham risk score. However, it is unknown whether <it>changes </it>in Framingham risk score variables over time explain the association between SES and coronary heart disease. We examined this question given its relevance to risk assessment in clinical decision making.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study data (initiated in 1987 with 10-years follow-up of 15,495 adults aged 45-64 years in four Southern and Mid-Western communities) were used. SES was assessed at baseline, dichotomized as low SES (defined as low education and/or low income) or not. The time dependent variables - smoking, total and high density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and use of blood pressure lowering medication - were assessed every three years. Ten-year incidence of coronary heart disease was based on EKG and cardiac enzyme criteria, or adjudicated death certificate data. Cox survival analyses examined the contribution of SES to heart disease risk independent of baseline Framingham risk score, without and with further adjustment for the time dependent variables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Adjusting for baseline Framingham risk score, low SES was associated with an increased coronary heart disease risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.53; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.27 to1.85). After further adjustment for the time dependent variables, the SES effect remained significant (HR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19 to1.74).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Using Framingham Risk Score alone under estimated the coronary heart disease risk in low SES persons. This bias was not eliminated by subsequent changes in Framingham risk score variables.</p

Contraceptive methods and use by women aged 35 and over: A qualitative study of perspectives

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>More than 30% of the pregnancies in women aged 35 and over are unintended. This paper compares perceptions about contraceptive methods and use among women with and without an unintended pregnancy after turning age 35.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 17 women. They were all 35 to 49 years old, regularly menstruating, sexually active, not sterilized, not desiring a pregnancy in the near future, and at least 3 months postpartum. We purposely sampled for women who had had at least one unintended pregnancy after age 35 (n = 9) and women who did not (n = 8). We assessed partnership, views of pregnancy and motherhood, desired lifestyle, perceived advantages and disadvantages of using and obtaining currently available well-known reversible contraceptives in the U.S. ''We also assessed contraceptive methods used at any time during their reproductive years, including current method use and, if appropriate, circumstances surrounding an unintended pregnancy after age 35.'' Each interview was taped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using Grounded Theory. Analysis focused on partnership, views of pregnancy, motherhood, desired lifestyle and perceived advantages and disadvantages of various reversible contraceptive methods.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The women without an unintended pregnancy after age 35 were more likely to (1) use contraceptive methods that helped treat a medical condition, (2) consider pregnancy as dangerous, or (3) express concerns about the responsibilities of motherhood. The women who experienced an unintended pregnancy after age 35 were more likely to (1) report unstable partnerships, (2) perceive themselves at lower risk of pregnancy, or (3) report past experiences with unwanted contraceptive side effects. There was a greater likelihood a woman would choose a contraceptive method if it was perceived as easy to use, accessible, affordable and had minimal side effects.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Women's perspective on contraceptive use after age 35 varies. Public health messages and health providers' care can help women in this age group by reviewing their fertility risks, as well as all contraceptive methods and their associated side effects. The impact of such interventions on unintended pregnancy rates in this age group should be tested in other areas of evidence-based medicine.</p

Defining and measuring gender: A social determinant of health whose time has come

This paper contributes to a nascent scholarly discussion of sex and gender as determinants of health. Health is a composite of biological makeup and socioeconomic circumstances. Differences in health and illness patterns of men and women are attributable both to sex, or biology, and to gender, that is, social factors such as powerlessness, access to resources, and constrained roles. Using examples such as the greater life expectancy of women in most of the world, despite their relative social disadvantage, and the disproportionate risk of myocardial infarction amongst men, but death from MI amongst women, the independent and combined associations of sex and gender on health are explored. A model for incorporating gender into epidemiologic analyses is proposed