Our findings suggest that standard measures used to assess the outcomes of CAM treatments fail to capture the full range of outcomes that are important to patients. In order to capture the full impact of CAM therapies, future trials should include a broader range of outcomes measures.

BackgroundLong-term adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly important for fecal testing. Some U.S. studies report that only 25% of individuals repeat fecal testing annually. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by patients with suboptimal screening adherence to refine interventions for starting ongoing adherence to CRC screening. We also explored whether participants, particularly never screeners, would be willing to do a CRC screening blood test.MethodsForty-one patients who previously enrolled in the Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) trial were interviewed 4–5 years later. Participants were purposively selected to include men and women with diverse race/ethnicities who had either been inconsistent screeners or had never screened during the first three years of SOS despite receiving at least two rounds of mailed fecal tests. Two interviewers conducted 30-min telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. An iterative thematic analysis approach was used.ResultsThemes related to screening barriers were more pervasive among never screeners including: (1) Avoidance (inattention, procrastination) (2) Concerns about handling stool; (3) Health concerns; (4) Fear of a cancer diagnosis or positive test results. Themes related to screening facilitators were more often mentioned by participants who screened at least once including: (1) Use of a simpler 1-sample fecal test; (2) Convenience of mailings and doing the test at home; (3) Salience of prevention, especially as one got older; and (4) Influence of recommendations from providers, family and friends. Participants had diverse preferences for the number (3 on average) and types (phone, mail, text) of screening reminders. Some participants did not prefer e-mail links to the patient shared electronic health record because of difficulties remembering their password. It was acceptable for a nurse or medical assistant not from their clinic to call them as long as that person was knowledgeable about their records and could communicate with their physician. Participants, especially never screeners, were generally very enthusiastic about the potential option of a CRC screening blood test.ConclusionFuture CRC screening programs should be designed to minimize these barriers and maximize facilitators to improve long-term screening adherence.Trial registrationPrimary Funding Agency: The National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01CA121125). Registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00697047.

BackgroundSmoking remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States. Therefore, researchers are constantly exploring new ways to promote smoking cessation. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies could be effective cessation tools. Despite the availability of commercial quit-smoking apps, little research to date has examined smokers’ preferred treatment intervention components (ie, design features). Honoring these preferences is important for designing programs that are appealing to smokers and may be more likely to be adopted and used.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to understand smokers’ preferred design features of mHealth quit-smoking tools.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods approach consisting of focus groups and written surveys to understand the design preferences of adult smokers who were interested in quitting smoking (N=40). Focus groups were stratified by age to allow differing perspectives to emerge between older (>40 years) and younger (<40 years) participants. Focus group discussion included a “blue-sky” brainstorming exercise followed by participant reactions to contrasting design options for communicating with smokers, providing social support, and incentivizing program use. Participants rated the importance of preselected design features on an exit survey. Qualitative analyses examined emergent discussion themes and quantitative analyses compared feature ratings to determine which were perceived as most important.ResultsParticipants preferred a highly personalized and adaptive mHealth experience. Their ideal mHealth quit-smoking tool would allow personalized tracking of their progress, adaptively tailored feedback, and real-time peer support to help manage smoking cravings. Based on qualitative analysis of focus group discussion, participants preferred pull messages (ie, delivered upon request) over push messages (ie, sent automatically) and preferred interaction with other smokers through closed social networks. Preferences for entertaining games or other rewarding incentives to encourage program use differed by age group. Based on quantitative analysis of surveys, participants rated the importance of select design features significantly differently (P<.001). Design features rated as most important included personalized content, the ability to track one’s progress, and features designed to help manage nicotine withdrawal and medication side effects. Design features rated least important were quit-smoking videos and posting on social media. Communicating with stop-smoking experts was rated more important than communicating with family and friends about quitting (P=.03). Perceived importance of various design features varied by age, experience with technology, and frequency of smoking.ConclusionsFuture mHealth cessation aids should be designed with an understanding of smokers’ needs and preferences for these tools. Doing so does not guarantee treatment effectiveness, but balancing user preferences with best-practice treatment considerations could enhance program adoption a...

Discomfort, lack of confidence in skills, and environmental constraints may cause primary care providers to miss opportunities to discuss human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk with patients. We used a systems approach to address both intrapersonal and environmental barriers to HIV risk assessment and prevention counseling in a managed care clinical setting. The design was one-group pretest/posttest. The study took place in two primary care clinics of a large Pacific Northwest managed care organization. Participants (n = 49) included physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and social workers. The intervention included training, clarification of provider/staff roles, assess to tools and materials, and reminders/reinforcers. Outcome measures were provider attitudes, beliefs, outcome expectations, knowledge, confidence in skills, and perceived supports and barriers, measured by written pretest/posttest surveys administered 12 months apart. Seven months after the most intensive part of the intervention, providers' attitudes and beliefs were more favorable to HIV risk assessment and prevention counseling. They were less likely to express frustration with high-risk patients (decrease from 100% to 79% agreement, p = 0.001) and more confident that their advice would be effective with gay men and single adult heterosexuals (p = 0.002 and 0.005, respectively). They reported more confidence in their training in sexual history taking (p = 0.0003) and their skills assessing readiness for change (p = 0.007), and more support in practice environments. This study demonstrated that it is possible to affect important personal and environmental factors that influence primary care providers' HIV prevention behavior using an interactive, real-world systems approach. Further research is needed on providers' impact on patient behavior.