Rural, suburban, and urban differences in factors that impact physician adherence to clinical preventive service guidelines.

PURPOSE: Rural-urban disparities in provision of preventive services exist, but there is sparse research on how rural, suburban, or urban differences impact physician adherence to clinical preventive service guidelines. We aimed to identify factors that may cause differences in adherence to preventive service guidelines among rural, suburban, and urban primary care physicians. METHODS: This qualitative study involved in-depth semistructured interviews with 29 purposively sampled primary care physicians (10 rural, 10 suburban, 9 urban) in Missouri. Physicians were asked to describe barriers and facilitators to clinical preventive service guideline adherence. Using techniques from grounded theory analysis, 2 coders first independently conducted content analysis then reconciled differences in coding to ensure agreement on intended meaning of transcripts. FINDINGS: Patient epidemiologic differences, distance to health care services, and care coordination were reported as prominent factors that produced differences in preventive service guideline adherence among rural, suburban, and urban physicians. Epidemiologic differences impacted all physicians, but rural physicians highlighted the importance of occupational risk factors in their patients. Greater distance to health care services reduced visit frequency and was a prominent barrier for rural physicians. Care coordination among health care providers was problematic for suburban and urban physicians. Patient resistance to medical care and inadequate access to resources and specialists were identified as barriers by some rural physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The rural, suburban, or urban context impacts whether a physician will adhere to clinical preventive service guidelines. Efforts to increase guideline adherence should consider the barriers and facilitators unique to rural, suburban, or urban areas.

Training the workforce in evidence-based public health: an evaluation of impact among US and international practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: The Prevention Research Center in St. Louis developed a course on evidence-based public health in 1997 to train the public health workforce in implementation of evidence-based public health. The objective of this study was to assess use and benefits of the course and identify barriers to using evidence-based public health skills as well as ways to improve the course. METHODS: We used a mixed-method design incorporating on-site pre- and post-evaluations among US and international course participants who attended from 2008 through 2011 and web-based follow-up surveys among course participants who attended from 2005 through 2011 (n = 626). Respondents included managers, specialists, and academics at state health departments, local health departments, universities, and national/regional health departments. RESULTS: We found significant improvement from pre- to post-evaluation for 11 measures of knowledge, skill, and ability. Follow-up survey results showed at least quarterly use of course skills in most categories, majority endorsement of most course benefits, and lack of funding and coworkers who do not have evidence-based public health training as the most significant barriers to implementation of evidence-based public health. Respondents suggested ways to increase evidence-based decision making at their organization, focusing on organizational support and continued access to training. CONCLUSION: Although the evidence-based public health course is effective in improving self-reported measures of knowledge, skill, and ability, barriers remain to the implementation of evidence-based decision making, demonstrating the importance of continuing to offer and expand training in evidence-based public health.