Social determinants profoundly impact health. Many primary care practices now seek to screen their patients for health-related social needs (HRSN) and refer them to resources in the community. However, there is little empirical evidence to guide communication with patients in order to ensure their comfort with the process and increase the likelihood that it results in positive outcomes. This paper describes the first phase of the Improving Messaging Around Gaps in Needs and rEfferals (IMAGINE) study-a multi-phase study aiming to develop and test patient-centred messages about screening and referral for HRSN. In this initial qualitative phase, our objective was to identify communication strategies that might make western Colorado primary care patients more comfortable with the HRSN screening and referral process. From May to July 2020 we interviewed 10 staff members responsible for HRSN screening from primary care practices participating in the western Colorado Accountable Health Communities (AHC) initiative and 20 patients from 2 of these practices. We used a rapid qualitative analysis process that involved summarising interview transcripts across key domains of interest and then identifying emergent themes within each domain using a data matrix. Through this process, we examined current communication about HRSN screening, as well as suggestions for messages and other strategies that could improve communication. In most practices, the AHC Screening Tool was handed to patients by front desk staff at check-in with little explanation as to its purpose. Patients and staff alike recommended that patients be provided with information that: normalises the screening and referral process; assures privacy; clarifies that the purpose is to help and support rather than judge or report; emphasises community benefits; and respects patient autonomy. Interviewees also suggested broader strategies to support more effective communication, such as practice staff and clinicians building trusting relationships with patients and understanding and acknowledging the complex structural barriers that often prevent patients from accessing meaningful assistance. These findings provide actionable suggestions for improving communication about HRSN screening and referral in primary care settings. The next steps include developing specific messages based on these findings and testing their impact on screening tool completion rate, referral uptake, and patient-reported comfort with the process.
Although regular physical activity (PA) is a cornerstone of treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D), most adults with T2D are sedentary. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have proven the effectiveness of PA behavioral interventions for adults with T2D but have rarely been conducted in healthcare settings. We sought to identify PA interventions that are effective and practical to implement in clinical practice settings. Our first aim was to use the valid Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 (PRECIS-2) tool to assess the potential for future implementation of PA interventions in clinical practice settings. Our second aim was to identify interventions that effectively increased PA and glycemic control among the interventions in the top tertile of PRECIS-2 scores. We searched PubMed MED-LINE from January 1980 through May 2015 for RCTs of behavioral PA interventions coordinated by clinical practices for patients with T2D. Dual investigators assessed pragmatism by PRECIS-2 scores, and study effectiveness was extracted from original RCT publications. The PRECIS-2 scores of the 46 behavioral interventions (n = 13,575 participants) ranged from 3.0 to 4.8, where 5 is the most pragmatic score. In the most pragmatic tertile of interventions (n = 16) by PRECIS-2 scores, 30.8 and 31.3% of interventions improved PA outcomes and hemoglobin A1c, respectively. A minority of published evidence-based PA interventions for adults with T2D were both effective and pragmatic for clinical implementation. These should be tested for dissemination using implementation trial designs.
Background: Shared medical appointments (SMAs) have been shown to be an efficient and effective strategy for providing diabetes self-management education and self-management support. SMA features vary and it is not known which features are most effective for different patients and practice settings. The Invested in Diabetes study tests the comparative effectiveness of SMAs with and without multidisciplinary care teams and patient topic choice for improving patient-centered and clinical outcomes related to diabetes. Methods: This study compares the effectiveness of two SMA approaches using the Targeted Training for Illness Management (TTIM) curriculum. Standardized SMAs are led by a health educator with a set order of TTIM topics. Patient-driven SMAs are delivered collaboratively by a multidisciplinary care team (health educator, medical provider, behavioral health provider, and a peer mentor); patients select the order and emphasis on TTIM topics. Invested in Diabetes is a cluster randomized pragmatic trial involving approximately 1440 adult patients with type 2 diabetes. Twenty primary care practices will be randomly assigned to either standardized or patient-driven SMAs. A mixed-methods evaluation will include quantitative (practice-and patient-level data) and qualitative (practice and patient interviews, observation) components. The primary patient-centered outcome is diabetes distress. Secondary outcomes include autonomy support, self-management behaviors, clinical outcomes, patient reach, and practicelevel value and sustainability. Discussion: Practice and patient stakeholder input guided protocol development for this pragmatic trial comparing SMA approaches. Implementation strategies from the enhanced Replicating Effective Programs framework will help ensure practices maintain fidelity to intervention protocols while tailoring workflows to their settings. Invested in Diabetes will contribute to the literature on chronic illness management and implementation science using the RE-AIM model.
Introduction: Complex behavioral interventions such as diabetes shared medical appointments (SMAs) should be tested in pragmatic trials. Partnerships between dissemination and implementation scientists and practice-based research networks can support adaptation and implementation to ensure such interventions fit the context. This article describes adaptations to and implementation of the Targeted Training in Illness Management (TTIM) intervention to fit the primary care diabetes context. Methods: The Invested in Diabetes pragmatic trial engaged 22 practice-based research network practices to compare 2 models of diabetes SMAs, based on TTIM. We used surveys, interviews, and observation to assess practice contextual factors, such as practice size, location, payer mix, change and work culture, motivation to participate, and clinical and administrative capacity. The enhanced Replicating Effective Programs framework was used to guide adaptations to TTIM and implementation in participating practices. Results: Practices varied in size and patient demographics. All practices had integrated behavioral health, but limited health educators or prescribing providers. Adaptations to SMA delivery accommodated the need for flexibility in personnel and reduced scheduling burden. Adaptations to TTIM content were designed to fit general primary care diabetes and Spanish-speaking patients. Conclusion: Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs is a useful process framework for adaptation, implementation, and testing of diabetes SMAs in primary care. Adapting intervention content, delivery, and training to fit context can help ensure pragmatic trials have both internal and external validity. Attention to intervention fit to context can support continued practice engagement in research and sustainability of evidence-based interventions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.