Reach in a pragmatic hypertension trial: A critical RE-AIM component.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension control is falling in the US yet efficacious interventions exist. Poor patient reach has limited the ability of pragmatic trials to demonstrate effectiveness. This paper uses quantitative and qualitative data to understand factors influencing reach in Hyperlink 3, a pragmatic hypertension trial testing an efficacious pharmacist-led Telehealth Care intervention in comparison to a physician-led Clinic-based Care intervention. Referrals to both interventions were ordered by physicians. METHODS: A sequential-explanatory mixed methods approach was used to understand barriers and facilitators to reach. Reach was assessed quantitatively using EHR data, defined as the proportion of eligible patients attending intended follow-up hypertension care and qualitatively, via semi-structured interviews with patients who were and were not reached. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed via combined deductive and inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Of those eligible, 27% of Clinic-based (n = 532/1945) and 21% of Telehealth patients (n = 385/1849) were reached. In both arms, the largest drop was between physician-signed orders and patients attending initial intended follow-up care. Qualitative analyses uncovered patient barriers related to motivation, capability, and opportunity to attend follow-up care. CONCLUSIONS: Although the proportion of eligible patients with signed orders was high in both arms, the proportion ultimately reached was lower. Patients described barriers related to the influence of one's own personal beliefs or priorities, decision making processes, logistics, and patient perceptions on physician involvement on reach. Addressing these barriers in the design of pragmatic interventions is critical for future effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02996565.

The effect of depression treatment on work productivity.

OBJECTIVES: Depression is associated with lowered work functioning, including absence, productivity impairment at work, and decreased job retention. Although high-quality depression treatment provided in clinical trials has been found to reduce symptoms and improve work function, the effectiveness of routine treatment for depression in primary care has received less attention. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective cohort study investigated the relationship between improvements in both depression symptoms and productivity in outpatients from 77 clinics in Minnesota following routine depression treatment. METHODS: Data were obtained from patients receiving usual care for depression prior to initiation of a statewide quality improvement collaborative called DIAMOND (Depression Improvement Across Minnesota: Offering a New Direction). Patients started on antidepressants were surveyed on depression symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]), productivity loss (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire [WPAI]), health status, and demographics. Data were collected again 6 months later to assess changes in depression symptoms and productivity. RESULTS: Data from 432 employed patients with complete baseline and outcome data showed significant reductions in depression symptoms and increases in productivity (P < .0001) over 6 months. Greater improvements in productivity at 6 months were associated with greater improvement in depression symptoms as well as with greater depression severity (P < .0001) and poorer productivity (P < .0001) at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a significant relationship betweenimprovement in depression symptoms and improvements in productivity following routine primary care depression treatment. These findings underscore the benefit of depression care to improve work outcomes and to yield a potential return on healthcare investment to employers.

Variation in quality of diabetes care at the levels of patient, physician, and clinic.

INTRODUCTION: We studied variance in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values among adults with diabetes to identify variation in quality of diabetes care at the levels of patient, physician, and clinic, and to identify which levels contribute the most to variation and which variables at each level are related to quality of diabetes care. METHODS: Study subjects were 120 primary care physicians and their 2589 eligible adult patients with diabetes seen at 18 clinics. The dependent variable was HbA1c values recorded in clinical databases. Multivariate hierarchical models were used to partition variation in HbA1c values across the levels of patient, physician, or clinic and to identify significant predictors of HbA1c at each level. RESULTS: More than 95% of variance in HbA1c values was attributable to the patient level. Much less variance was seen at the physician and clinic level. Inclusion of patient and physician covariates did not substantially change this pattern of results. Intensification of pharmacotherapy (t = -7.40, P < .01) and patient age (t = 2.10, P < .05) were related to favorable change in HbA1c. Physician age, physician specialty, number of diabetes patients per physician, patient comorbidity, and clinic assignment did not predict change in HbA1c value. The overall model with covariates explained 11.8% of change in HbA1c value over time. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that most variance in HbA1c values is attributable to patient factors, although physicians play a major role in some patient factors (e.g., intensification of medication). These findings may lead to more effective care-improvement strategies and accountability measures.