Primary Care Research Is Hard to Do During COVID-19: Challenges and Solutions.

Conducting research in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic is hard, due to baseline stresses on primary care, which have been compounded by the pandemic. We acknowledge and validate primary care researchers' frustrations. Using our experience on over 15 individual projects during the pandemic we identify 3 key challenges to conducting primary care research: (1) practice delivery trickle-down effects, (2) limited/changing resources and procedures for research, and (3) a generally tense milieu in US society during the pandemic. We present strategies, informed by a set of questions, to help researchers decide how to address these challenges observed during our studies. In order to overcome and grow from these challenging times we encourage normalization and self-compassion, and encourage researchers and funders to embrace pragmatic and adaptive research designs as the circumstances with COVID-19 evolve over time.

"It Made Me Feel like Things Are Starting to Change in Society:" A Qualitative Study to Foster Positive Patient Experiences during Phone-Based Social Needs Interventions.

Many healthcare organizations are screening patients for health-related social needs (HRSN) to improve healthcare quality and outcomes. Due to both the COVID-19 pandemic and limited time during clinical visits, much of this screening is now happening by phone. To promote healing and avoid harm, it is vital to understand patient experiences and recommendations regarding these activities. We conducted a pragmatic qualitative study with patients who had participated in a HRSN intervention. We applied maximum variation sampling, completed recruitment and interviews by phone, and carried out an inductive reflexive thematic analysis. From August to November 2021 we interviewed 34 patients, developed 6 themes, and used these themes to create a framework for generating positive patient experiences during phone-based HRSN interventions. First, we found patients were likely to have initial skepticism or reservations about the intervention. Second, we identified 4 positive intervention components regarding patient experience: transparency and respect for patient autonomy; kind demeanor; genuine intention to help; and attentiveness and responsiveness to patients' situations. Finally, we found patients could be left with feelings of appreciation or hope, regardless of whether they connected with HRSN resources. Healthcare organizations can incorporate our framework into trainings for team members carrying out phone-based HRSN interventions.

Before and During Pandemic Telemedicine Use: An Analysis of Rural and Urban Safety-Net Clinics.

INTRODUCTION: Differences in face-to-face and telemedicine visits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among rural and urban safety-net clinic patients were evaluated. In addition, this study investigated whether rural patients were as likely to utilize telemedicine for primary care during the pandemic as urban patients. METHODS: Using electronic health record data from safety-net clinics, patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 visit before or during the COVID-19 pandemic, March 1, 2019-March 31, 2021, were identified, and trends in face-to-face and telemedicine (phone and video) visits for patients by rurality using Rural‒Urban Commuting Area codes were characterized. Multilevel mixed-effects regression models compared service delivery method during the pandemic by rurality. RESULTS: Included patients (N=1,015,722) were seen in 446 safety-net clinics: 83% urban, 10.3% large rural, 4.1% small rural, and 2.6% isolated rural. Before COVID-19, little difference in the percentage of encounters conducted face-to-face versus through telemedicine by rurality was found. Telemedicine visits significantly increased during the pandemic by 27.2 percentage points among patients in isolated rural areas to 52.3 percentage points among patients in urban areas. Rural patients overall had significantly lower odds of using telemedicine for a visit during the pandemic than urban patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increased use of telemedicine in response to the pandemic, rural patients had significantly fewer telemedicine visits than those in more urban areas. Equitable access to telemedicine will depend on continued reimbursement for telemedicine services, but additional efforts are warranted to improve access to and use of health care among rural patients.

Improving screening, treatment, and intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care through clinic, practice-based research network, and health plan partnerships: Protocol of the ANTECEDENT study.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, contributing to 95,000 deaths annually. When offered in primary care, screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment (SBIRT), and medication-assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) can effectively address UAU. However, these interventions are not yet routine in primary care clinics. Therefore, our study evaluates tailored implementation support to increase SBIRT and MAUD in primary care. METHODS: ANTECEDENT is a pragmatic implementation study designed to support 150 primary care clinics in Oregon adopting and optimizing SBIRT and MAUD workflows to address UAU. The study is a partnership between the Oregon Health Authority Transformation Center-state leaders in Medicaid health system transformation-SBIRT Oregon and the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network. We recruited clinics providing primary care in Oregon and prioritized reaching clinics that were small to medium in size (<10 providers). All participating clinics receive foundational support (i.e., a baseline assessment, exit assessment, and access to the online SBIRT Oregon materials) and may opt to receive tailored implementation support delivered by a practice facilitator over 12 months. Tailored implementation support is designed to address identified needs and may include health information technology support, peer-to-peer learning, workflow mapping, or expert consultation via academic detailing. The study aims are to 1) engage, recruit, and conduct needs assessments with 150 primary care clinics and their regional Medicaid health plans called Coordinated Care Organizations within the state of Oregon, 2) implement and evaluate the impact of foundational and supplemental implementation support on clinic change in SBIRT and MAUD, and 3) describe how practice facilitators tailor implementation support based on context and personal expertise. Our convergent parallel mixed-methods analysis uses RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance). It is informed by a hybrid of the i-PARIHS (integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) and the Dynamic Sustainability Framework. DISCUSSION: This study will explore how primary care clinics implement SBIRT and MAUD in routine practice and how practice facilitators vary implementation support across diverse clinic settings. Findings will inform how to effectively align implementation support to context, advance our understanding of practice facilitator skill development over time, and ultimately improve detection and treatment of UAU across diverse primary care clinics.