Increasing Prenatal Care Compliance in At-Risk Black Women: Findings from a RCT of Patient Navigation and Behavioral Incentives.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, infant mortality remains a major public health concern, particularly for Black women and their infants who continue to experience disproportionately high mortality rates. Prenatal care is a key determinant of infant health, with inadequate prenatal care increasing risk for prematurity, stillbirth, neonatal loss, and infant death. The aim of the present study was to determine if concurrent delivery of patient navigation and behavioral incentives to at-risk Black pregnant women could improve prenatal care attendance and associated maternal and infant outcomes. METHODS: Participants were 150 Black pregnant women recruited at first prenatal visit and screening at risk for adverse maternal and infant outcomes. Women were randomized to either the patient navigation + behavioral incentives intervention (PNBI) or assessment + standard care control (ASC) group. All were followed throughout pregnancy and 12-week postpartum. Group comparisons were made using intention-to-treat and per-protocol sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: While no group differences were found in prenatal care visits, the average number of visits for both groups (9.3 for PNBI and 8.9 for ASC) approached the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended guidelines. There were also no group differences in maternal and infant outcomes. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol sensitivity analyses, however, consistently found PNBI women attended more postpartum visits than ASC controls (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Given ACOG's redefining of the postpartum period as the fourth trimester, study findings suggest PNBI may facilitate prevention and intervention efforts to more successfully reduce health disparities in outcomes for both mother and infant.

Introductory patient communication training for medical physics graduate students: Pilot experience.

Despite medical physics becoming a more patient-facing part of the radiation oncology team, medical physics graduate students have no training in patient communication. An introductory patient communication training for medical physics graduate students is presented here. This training exposes participants to foundational concepts and effective communication skills through a lecture and it allows them to apply these concepts through realistic simulated patient interactions. The training was conducted virtually, and eight students participated. The impact of the training was evaluated based on changes in both confidence and competence of the participants' patient communication skills. Participants were asked to fill out a survey to assess their confidence on communicating with patients before and after the training. They also underwent a simulated patient interaction pre- and postlecture. Their performance during these was evaluated by both the simulated patient actors and the participants themselves using a rubric. Each data set was paired and analyzed for significance using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test with an alpha of 0.05. Participants reported significantly higher confidence in their feeling of preparedness to interact with patients (mean = 2.38 vs. 3.88, p = 0.008), comfort interacting independently (mean = 2.00 vs. 4.00, p = 0.002), comfort showing patients they are actively listening (mean = 3.50 vs. 4.50, p = 0.005), and confidence handling challenging patient interactions (mean = 1.88 vs. 3.38, p = 0.01), after the training. Their encounter scores, as evaluated by the simulated patient actors, significantly increased (mean = 77% vs. 91%, p = 0.022). Self-evaluation scores increased, but not significantly (mean = 62% vs. 68%, p = 0.184). The difference between the simulated patient and self-evaluation scores for the postinstruction encounter was statistically significant (p = 0.0014). This patient communication training for medical physics graduate students is effective at increasing both the confidence and the competence of the participants in the subject. We propose that similar trainings be incorporated into medical physics graduate training programs prior to students entering into residency.

Validation of the TAPS-1: A Four-Item Screening Tool to Identify Unhealthy Substance Use in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance use (TAPS) tool is a combined two-part screening and brief assessment developed for adult primary care patients. The tool's first-stage screening component (TAPS-1) consists of four items asking about past 12-month use for four substance categories, with response options of never, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, and daily or almost daily. OBJECTIVE: To validate the TAPS-1 in primary care patients. DESIGN: Participants completed the TAPS tool in self- and interviewer-administered formats, in random order. In this secondary analysis, the TAPS-1 was evaluated against DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD) criteria to determine optimal cut-points for identifying unhealthy substance use at three severity levels (problem use, mild SUD, and moderate-to-severe SUD). PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand adult patients at five primary care sites. MAIN MEASURES: DSM-5 SUD criteria were determined via the modified Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Oral fluid was used as a biomarker of recent drug use. KEY RESULTS: Optimal frequency-of-use cut-points on the self-administered TAPS-1 for identifying SUDs were ≥ monthly use for tobacco and alcohol (sensitivity = 0.92 and 0.71, specificity = 0.80 and 0.85, AUC = 0.86 and 0.78, respectively) and any reported use for illicit drugs and prescription medication misuse (sensitivity = 0.93 and 0.89, specificity = 0.85 and 0.91, AUC = 0.89 and 0.90, respectively). The performance of the interviewer-administered format was similar. When administered first, the self-administered format yielded higher disclosure rates for past 12-month alcohol use, illicit drug use, and prescription medication misuse. Frequency of use alone did not provide sufficient information to discriminate between gradations of substance use problem severity. Among those who denied drug use on the TAPS-1, less than 4% had a drug-positive biomarker. CONCLUSIONS: The TAPS-1 can identify unhealthy substance use in primary care patients with a high level of accuracy, and may have utility in primary care for rapid triage.

Performance of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance Use (TAPS) Tool for Substance Use Screening in Primary Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Substance use, a leading cause of illness and death, is underidentified in medical practice. OBJECTIVE: The Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use (TAPS) tool was developed to address the need for a brief screening and assessment instrument that includes all commonly used substances and fits into clinical workflows. The goal of this study was to assess the performance of the TAPS tool in primary care patients. DESIGN: Multisite study, conducted within the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network, comparing the TAPS tool with a reference standard measure. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02110693). SETTING: 5 adult primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: 2000 adult patients consecutively recruited from clinic waiting areas. MEASUREMENTS: Interviewer- and self-administered versions of the TAPS tool were compared with a reference standard, the modified World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), which measures problem use and substance use disorder (SUD). RESULTS: Interviewer- and self-administered versions of the TAPS tool had similar diagnostic characteristics. For identifying problem use (at a cutoff of 1+), the TAPS tool had a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.95) and specificity of 0.87 (CI, 0.85 to 0.89) for tobacco and a sensitivity of 0.74 (CI, 0.70 to 0.78) and specificity of 0.79 (CI, 0.76 to 0.81) for alcohol. For problem use of illicit and prescription drugs, sensitivity ranged from 0.82 (CI, 0.76 to 0.87) for marijuana to 0.63 (CI, 0.47 to 0.78) for sedatives; specificity was 0.93 or higher. For identifying any SUD (at a cutoff of 2+), sensitivity was lower. LIMITATIONS: The low prevalence of some drug classes led to poor precision in some estimates. Research assistants were not blinded to participants' TAPS tool responses when they administered the CIDI. CONCLUSION: In a diverse population of adult primary care patients, the TAPS tool detected clinically relevant problem substance use. Although it also may detect tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use disorders, further refinement is needed before it can be recommended broadly for SUD screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.