Telehealth for Women's Preventive Services for Reproductive Health and Intimate Partner Violence: a Comparative Effectiveness Review.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth delivery of preventive health services may improve access to care; however, its effectiveness and adverse effects are unknown. We conducted a comparative effectiveness review on the effectiveness and harms of telehealth interventions for women's reproductive health and intimate partner violence (IPV) services. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Scopus for English-language studies (July 2016 to May 2022) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of telehealth strategies for women's reproductive health and IPV versus usual care. Two investigators identified studies and abstracted data using a predefined protocol. Study quality was assessed using study design-specific standardized methods; disagreements were resolved through consensus. RESULTS: Eight RCTs, 1 nonrandomized trial, and 7 observational studies (n=10 731) were included (7 studies of contraceptive care and 9 of IPV services). Telehealth interventions to supplement contraceptive care demonstrated similar rates as usual care for contraceptive use, sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy (low strength of evidence [SOE]); evidence on abortion was insufficient. Outcomes were also similar between telehealth interventions to replace or supplement IPV services and comparators for repeat IPV, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, fear of partner, coercive control, self-efficacy, and safety behaviors (low SOE). In these studies, telehealth barriers included limited internet access, digital literacy, technical challenges, and confidentiality concerns. Strategies to ensure safety increased telehealth use for IPV services. Evidence on access, health equity, or harms was lacking. DISCUSSION: Telehealth interventions for contraceptive care and IPV services demonstrate equivalent clinical and patient-reported outcomes versus in-person care, although few studies are available. Effective approaches for delivering these services and how to best mobilize telehealth, particularly for women facing barriers to care remain uncertain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021282298.

Effectiveness of Telehealth for Women’s Preventive Services

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness, use, and implementation of telehealth for women’s preventive services for reproductive healthcare and interpersonal violence (IPV), and to evaluate patient preferences and engagement for telehealth, particularly in the context of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, Embase®, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases (July 1, 2016, to March 4, 2022);manual review of reference lists;suggestions from stakeholders;and responses to a Federal Register Notice.Review methodsEligible s and full-text articles of telehealth interventions were independently dual reviewed for inclusion using predefined criteria. Dual review was used for data ion, study-level risk of bias assessment, and strength of evidence (SOE) rating using established methods. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity of studies and limited available data.ResultsSearches identified 5,704 unique records. Eight randomized controlled trials, one nonrandomized trial, and seven observational studies, involving 10,731 participants, met inclusion criteria. Of these, nine evaluated IPV services and seven evaluated contraceptive care, the only reproductive health service studied. Risk of bias was low in one study, moderate in nine trials and five observational studies, and high in one study. Telehealth interventions were intended to replace usual care in 14 studies and supplement care in 2 studies. Delivery modes included telephone (5 studies), online modules (5 studies), and mobile applications (1 study), and was unclear or undefined in five studies. There were no differences between telehealth interventions to supplement contraceptive care and comparators for rates of contraceptive use, sexually transmitted infection, and pregnancy (low SOE);evidence was insufficient for abortion rates. There were no differences between telehealth IPV services versus comparators for outcomes measuring repeat IPV, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, fear of partner, coercive control, self-efficacy, and safety behaviors (low SOE). The COVID-19 pandemic increased telehealth utilization. Barriers to telehealth interventions included limited internet access and digital literacy among English-speaking IPV survivors, and technical challenges and confidentiality concerns for contraceptive care. Telehealth use was facilitated by strategies to ensure safety of individuals who receive IPV services. Evidence was insufficient to evaluate access, health equity, or harms outcomes.ConclusionsLimited evidence suggests that telehealth interventions for contraceptive care and IPV services result in equivalent clinical and patient-reported outcomes as in-person care. Uncertainty remains regarding the most effective approaches for delivering these services, and how to best mobilize telehealth, particularly for women facing barriers to healthcare.

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.

COVID-19-related adaptations to the implementation and evaluation of a clinic-based intervention designed to improve opioid safety.

The United States faces an opioid crisis with an unprecedented and increasing death rate from opioid overdose. Successfully reducing the rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose will require the engagement of frontline clinicians to prescribe opioids more safely and to build their capacity to treat patients with OUD using evidence-based approaches. The COVID-19 pandemic has created significant challenges for patients, clinicians and health systems and has been associated with increasing risks of overdoses and deaths. Herein, we review a multidisciplinary project designed to implement and evaluate clinic-based interventions in Oregon, USA, to improve pain management, opioid prescribing and treatment of OUD. The intervention, called Improving PaIn aNd OPiOId MaNagemenT in Primary Care (PINPOINT), combines practice facilitation, academic detailing and education through the Oregon ECHO Network. Implementation of PINPOINT has occurred across the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network and has involved 49 clinic sites to date. To evaluate the impact of the intervention, the research team created the Provider Results of Opioid Management and Prescribing Training (PROMPT), a dataset that links information from the state prescription drug monitoring program, all-payer claims database, emergency medical services, vital records and substance use disorder treatment system. The PROMPT dataset will allow evaluation of the impact of the intervention at both the clinician and clinic levels. Due to the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, elements of both implementation and evaluation required significant adaptations to continue to meet the original project goals.

The Importance of Practice Facilitation in Primary Care When Pandemic Takes Hold: Relationships of Resilience.

The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented in recent history as radically and forcefully changing healthcare delivery. Practice facilitators, who often use tools of improvement science, have long played a critical role in supporting routine primary care practice transformation when healthcare system and policy changes occur. However, current events have taken many healthcare systems to the brink of collapse. Our practice facilitation team, which has a long history of sustained primary care partnerships in rural under-resourced settings, is finding creative solutions to carry forward work in research and quality improvement, and the tools of improvement science are well-suited to address rapidly changing demands of primary care during such a crisis. We reflect here on practice facilitation through the pandemic-the value of applied improvement science, and the critical necessity of strong relationships, flexibility, and creativity to support ongoing primary care partnerships.