Background Patient-reported outcomes—symptoms, treatment side effects, and health-related quality of life—are important to consider in chronic illness care. The increasing availability of health IT to collect patient-reported outcomes and integrate results within the electronic health record provides an unprecedented opportunity to support patients’ symptom monitoring, shared decision-making, and effective use of the health care system. Objective The objectives of this study are to co-design a dashboard that displays patient-reported outcomes along with other clinical data (eg, laboratory tests, medications, and appointments) within an electronic health record and conduct a longitudinal demonstration trial to evaluate whether the dashboard is associated with improved shared decision-making and disease management outcomes. Methods Co-design teams comprising study investigators, patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease, their care partners, and their clinicians will collaborate to develop the dashboard. Investigators will work with clinic staff to implement the co-designed dashboard for clinical testing during a demonstration trial. The primary outcome of the demonstration trial is whether the quality of shared decision-making increases from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal changes in satisfaction with care, self-efficacy in managing treatments and symptoms, health-related quality of life, and use of costly and potentially avoidable health care services. Implementation outcomes (ie, fidelity, appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, reach, adoption, and sustainability) during the co-design process and demonstration trial will also be collected and summarized. Results The dashboard co-design process was completed in May 2020, and data collection for the demonstration trial is anticipated to be completed by the end of July 2022. The results will be disseminated in at least one manuscript per study objective. Conclusions This protocol combines stakeholder engagement, health care coproduction frameworks, and health IT to develop a clinically feasible model of person-centered care delivery. The results will inform our current understanding of how best to integrate patient-reported outcome measures into clinical workflows to improve outcomes and reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and health care systems. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/38461

Purpose: Anchor institutions ("anchors") are large employers, rooted in a community by reason of mission, capital, or relationships. Many anchors have encouraged coronavirus vaccination for employees and their families. Our objective was to determine whether the presence of an anchor was associated with a higher county-level vaccination rate.Methods: A cross-sectional study focused on 745 small-and mid-sized US counties.We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Reference USA's US Business Database, Economic Innovation Group's Distressed Communities Index database, 2021 County Health Ratings and Rankings, 2020 US Presidential Election popular vote data, and National Center for Health Statistics urban-rural classification data. We constructed 3 explanatory variables of interest: a binary variable indicating whether the county had an anchor; a continuous variable representing the number of anchors within a county; and the percent of all workers in the county who were employed by an anchor. Multivariable linear regression models were adjusted for race/ethnicity, political party allegiance, rurality, economic distress, and prevalence of smoking and adult obesity. Findings:Counties with an anchor had vaccination rates 2.31 (P<.01) percentage points higher than those without an anchor. The number of anchors in a county was also significantly associated with higher vaccination rates. Conclusions:Efforts by anchors to encourage vaccination may have been successful, and that anchors may be well positioned to amplify public health messages. However, the influence and efforts of anchors to increase vaccination did not fully mitigate disparities in vaccination rates by race, ethnicity, and political party allegiance.

Background Although the cost of implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) is a key determinant of adoption, lack of cost information is widespread. We previously evaluated the cost of preparing to implement Family Check-Up 4 Health (FCU4Health), an individually tailored, evidence-based parenting program that takes a whole child approach, with effects on both behavioral health and health behavior outcomes, in primary care settings. This study estimates the cost of implementation, including preparation. Methods We assessed the cost of FCU4Health across the preparation and implementation phases spanning 32 months and 1 week (October 1, 2016–June 13, 2019) in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study. This family-level randomized controlled trial took place in Arizona with n = 113 predominantly low-income, Latino families with children ages > 5.5 to < 13 years. Using electronic cost capture and time-based activity-driven methods, budget impact analysis from the perspective of a future FCU4Health adopting entity—namely, ambulatory pediatric care clinicians—was used to estimate the cost of implementation. Labor costs were based on 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics, NIH-directed salary cap levels or known salaries, plus fringe benefits at a standard rate of 30%. Non-labor costs were based on actual amounts spent from receipts and invoices. Results The cost of FCU4Health implementation to 113 families was $268,886 ($2380 per family). Actual per family cost varied widely, as individual tailoring resulted in families receiving a range of 1–15 sessions. The estimated cost of replicating implementation for future sites ranged from $37,636-$72,372 ($333–$641 per family). Using our previously reported preparation costs (i.e., $174,489; $1544 per family), with estimated replication costs of $18,524–$21,836 ($164–$193 per family), the total cost of delivering FCU4Health was $443,375 ($3924 per family), with total estimated replication costs of $56,160–$94,208 ($497-$834 per family). Conclusions This study provides a baseline for costs associated with implementation of an individually tailored parenting program. Results provide critical information for decision makers and a model for future economic analysis and can be used to inform optimization thresholds for implementation and, when necessary, benchmarks for program adaptation to promote scale-up. Trial registration This trial was prospectively registered on January 6, 2017, at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03013309).