Population health in primary care.

Population health in the United States continues to lag behind other wealthy nations. Primary care has the promise of enhancing population health; however, the implementation of a population health approach within primary care deserves further consideration. Clinicians and staff from a national sample of 10 innovative primary care practices participated in a working conference to reflect upon population health approaches in primary care. A series of small- and large-group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded through an immersion/crystallization approach. Two prominent themes emerged: (1) Transitioning to a population health focus generally develops through stages, with early implementation focusing on risk stratification and later, more advanced stages focusing on community health; and (2) Several inherent barriers confront implementation of a population health approach, including tensions with patient-centered care, and limitations of health information technology. A broader conceptualization of population health in terms of community health could more effectively allow partnerships among primary care, large health care systems, public health organizations, patients, and other partners in the community.

The Association between Relationship Satisfaction Concordance and Breast Cancer Survivors' Physical and Psychosocial Well-Being.

The purpose of this article is to examine the association of relationship satisfaction concordance between breast cancer survivors (BCSs) and their partners with matched controls on physical and psychosocial outcomes. Dyads of BCSs, age-matched controls, and partners were recruited as part of a larger, cross-sectional QOL survey study. Relationship concordance was measured by the ENRICH marital satisfaction score, with each dyad's score equaling the absolute value of the difference in satisfaction between survivor/control and their partner (lower score = greater concordance). Dependent variables for survivors/controls were social constraint, physical function, depression, fatigue, attention function, and sleep disturbance. Relationship satisfaction and concordance were used as the primary independent variables, while controlling for dyad category, race, education, income, and age within multiple linear regression models. The sample consisted of 387 dyads (220 BCSs, 167 controls). Relationship satisfaction concordance ranged from 0 to 53.4 (mean = 10.2). The BCS dyads had significantly worse concordance (11.1) than the controls (9.1) (p = 0.050). Within the multiple regression models, lower concordance was significantly associated with increased social constraint (p = 0.029), increased depression (p = 0.038), and increased fatigue (p = 0.006). Poor relationship satisfaction and concordance were significantly associated with poor physical and psychosocial outcomes. The maintenance of relationships should remain a focus through difficulties of cancer and into survivorship for survivors, partners, and providers.

Factors Associated with Cancer Prevention/Risk Reduction Behaviors among Latinos.

Improving understanding of behaviors that increase or reduce cancer risk for different Hispanic groups is a public health priority; such knowledge is sparse in new gateway immigration locations such as Indiana. The aims of this study were to: 1) describe cancer beliefs and cancer preventive/risk reduction behaviors (physical activity, tobacco, and alcohol use) among Hispanic adults; 2) examine differences in cancer beliefs and preventive behaviors by country/territory of birth, socioeconomic status, and area of residence (urban vs. rural); and 3) determine predictors of engagement in cancer prevention and risk reduction behaviors in this population. A cross-sectional online survey targeted adult Indiana residents who identified as Latino, Hispanic, or Spanish recruited using Facebook-targeted advertising. Complete survey data from 1520 respondents were analyzed using descriptive, unadjusted, and adjusted models. The majority of respondents believed they were unlikely to get cancer but held many other fatalistic beliefs about cancer. Only 35.6% of respondents had received the HPV vaccine, 37.6% reported they were currently smoking cigarettes, and 64% reported occasional or frequent drinking of alcohol. Respondents spent an average of 3.55 days per week engaged in moderate exercise. Differences were observed by country/territory of birth, income, and education but not by rural residence status. Predictors of cancer risk/risk reduction behaviors were identified. The Hispanic population in Indiana is diverse and effective interventions for cancer prevention should be culturally targeted based on country/territory of birth and individually tailored based on cancer-related beliefs.

Pharmacogenomics implementation across multiple clinic settings: a qualitative evaluation.

Aim: To advance clinical adoption and implementation of pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing, barriers and facilitators to these efforts must be understood. This study identified and examined barriers and facilitators to active implementation of a PGx program across multiple clinic settings in an academic healthcare system. Materials & methods: 28 contributors to the PGx implementation (e.g., clinical providers, informatics specialists) completed an interview to elicit their perceptions of the implementation. Results: Qualitative analysis identified several barriers and facilitators that spanned different stages of the implementation process. Specifically, unclear test payment mechanisms, decision support tool development, rigid workflows and provider education were noted as barriers to the PGx implementation. A multidisciplinary implementation team and leadership support emerged as key facilitators. Furthermore, participants also suggested strategies to overcome or maintain these factors. Conclusion: Assessing real-world implementation perceptions and suggested strategies from a range of implementation contributors facilitates a more comprehensive framework and best-practice guidelines for PGx implementation.

A comparison between perceived rurality and established geographic rural status among Indiana residents.

The study assessed the association and concordance of the traditional geography-based Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes to individuals' self-reported rural status per a survey scale. The study included residents from rural and urban Indiana, seen at least once in a statewide health system in the past 12 months. Surveyed self-reported rural status of individuals obtained was measured using 6 items with a 7-point Likert scale. Cronbach's alpha was used to measure the internal consistency between the 6 survey response items, along with exploratory factor analysis to evaluate their construct validity. Perceived rurality was compared with RUCA categorization, which was mapped to residential zip codes. Association and concordance between the 2 measures were calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and Gwet's Agreement Coefficient (Gwet's AC), respectively. Primary self-reported data were obtained through a cross-sectional, statewide, mail-based survey, administered from January 2018 through February 2018, among a random sample of 7979 individuals aged 18 to 75, stratified by rural status and race. All 970 patients who completed the survey answered questions regarding their perceived rurality. Cronbach's alpha value of 0.907 was obtained indicating high internal consistency among the 6 self-perceived rurality items. Association of RUCA categorization and self-reported geographic status was moderate, ranging from 0.28 to 0.41. Gwet's AC ranged from -0.11 to 0.26, indicating poor to fair agreement between the 2 measures based on the benchmark scale of reliability. Geography-based and self-report methods are complementary in assessing rurality. Individuals living in areas of relatively high population density may still self-identify as rural, or individuals with long commutes may self-identify as urban.

Accurate Documentation Contributes to Guideline-concordant Surveillance of Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Multisite Department of Veterans Affairs Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if accurate documentation of bladder cancer risk was associated with a clinician surveillance recommendation that is concordant with AUA guidelines among patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). METHODS: We prospectively collected data from cystoscopy encounter notes from four Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites to ascertain whether they included accurate documentation of bladder cancer risk and a recommendation for a guideline-concordant surveillance interval. Accurate documentation was a clinician-recorded risk classification matching a gold standard assigned by the research team. Clinician recommendations were guideline-concordant if the clinician recorded a surveillance interval that was in line with the AUA guideline. RESULTS: Among 296 encounters, 75 were for low-, 98 for intermediate-, and 123 for high-risk NMIBC. 52% of encounters had accurate documentation of NMIBC risk. Accurate documentation of risk was less common among encounters for low-risk bladder cancer (36% vs 52% for intermediate- and 62% for high-risk, P < .05). Guideline-concordant surveillance recommendations were also less common in patients with low-risk bladder cancer (67% vs 89% for intermediate- and 94% for high-risk, P < .05). Accurate documentation was associated with a 29% and 15% increase in guideline-concordant surveillance recommendations for low- and intermediate-risk disease, respectively (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Accurate risk documentation was associated with more guideline-concordant surveillance recommendations among low- and intermediate-risk patients. Implementation strategies facilitating assessment and documentation of risk may be useful to reduce overuse of surveillance in this group and to prevent unnecessary cost, anxiety, and procedural harms.

Comparison of health information exchange data with self-report in measuring cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Efficient measurement of the receipt of cancer screening has been attempted with electronic health records (EHRs), but EHRs are commonly implemented within a single health care setting. However, health information exchange (HIE) includes EHR data from multiple health care systems and settings, thereby providing a more population-based measurement approach. In this study, we set out to understand the value of statewide HIE data in comparison to survey self-report (SR) to measure population-based cancer screening. METHODS: A statewide survey was conducted among residents in Indiana who had been seen at an ambulatory or inpatient clinical setting in the past year. Measured cancer screening tests included colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer, human papilloma virus (HPV) and Pap tests for cervical cancer, and mammogram for breast cancer. For each screening test, the self-reported response for receipt of the screening (yes/no) and 'time since last screening' were compared with the corresponding information from patient HIE to evaluate the concordance between the two measures. RESULTS: Gwet's AC for HIE and self-report of screening receipt ranged from 0.24-0.73, indicating a fair to substantial concordance. For the time since receipt of last screening test, the Gwet's AC ranged from 0.21-0.90, indicating fair to almost perfect concordance. In comparison with SR data, HIE data provided relatively more additional information about laboratory-based tests: FIT (19% HIE alone vs. 4% SR alone) and HPV tests (27% HIE alone vs. 12% SR alone) and less additional information about procedures: colonoscopy (8% HIE alone vs. 23% SR alone), Pap test (13% HIE alone vs. 19% SR alone), or mammography (9% HIE alone vs. 10% SR alone). CONCLUSION: Studies that use a single data source should consider the type of cancer screening test to choose the optimal data collection method. HIE and self-report both provided unique information in measuring cancer screening, and the most robust measurement approach involves collecting screening information from both HIE and patient self-report.

A patient-centered nurse-supported primary care-based collaborative care program to treat opioid use disorder and depression: Design and protocol for the MI-CARE randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) contributes to rising morbidity and mortality. Life-saving OUD treatments can be provided in primary care but most patients with OUD don't receive treatment. Comorbid depression and other conditions complicate OUD management, especially in primary care. The MI-CARE trial is a pragmatic randomized encouragement (Zelen) trial testing whether offering collaborative care (CC) to patients with OUD and clinically-significant depressive symptoms increases OUD medication treatment with buprenorphine and improves depression outcomes compared to usual care. METHODS: Adult primary care patients with OUD and depressive symptoms (n ≥ 800) from two statewide health systems: Kaiser Permanente Washington and Indiana University Health are identified with computer algorithms from electronic Health record (EHR) data and automatically enrolled. A random sub-sample (50%) of eligible patients is offered the MI-CARE intervention: a 12-month nurse-driven CC intervention that includes motivational interviewing and behavioral activation. The remaining 50% of the study cohort comprise the usual care comparison group and is never contacted. The primary outcome is days of buprenorphine treatment provided during the intervention period. The powered secondary outcome is change in Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression scores. Both outcomes are obtained from secondary electronic healthcare sources and compared in "intent-to-treat" analyses. CONCLUSION: MI-CARE addresses the need for rigorous encouragement trials to evaluate benefits of offering CC to generalizable samples of patients with OUD and mental health conditions identified from EHRs, as they would be in practice, and comparing outcomes to usual primary care. We describe the design and implementation of the trial, currently underway. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05122676. Clinical trial registration date: November 17, 2021.

Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, and Surgery during the Pre- and Peri-pandemic: Experience of Patients in a Statewide Health Information Exchange.

BACKGROUND: Measures taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted routine diagnosis and care for breast cancer. The aim of this study was to characterize the effects of the pandemic on breast cancer care in a statewide cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using data from a large health information exchange, we retrospectively analyzed the timing of breast cancer screening, and identified a cohort of newly diagnosed patients with any stage of breast cancer to further access the information available about their surgical treatments. We compared data for four subgroups: pre-lockdown (preLD) 25 March to 16 June 2019; lockdown (LD) 23 March to 3 May 2020; reopening (RO) 4 May to 14 June 2020; and post-lockdown (postLD) 22 March to 13 June 2021. RESULTS: During LD and RO, screening mammograms in the cohort decreased by 96.3% and 36.2%, respectively. The overall breast cancer diagnosis and surgery volumes decreased up to 38.7%, and the median time to surgery was prolonged from 1.5 months to 2.4 for LD and 1.8 months for RO. Interestingly, higher mean DCIS diagnosis (5.0 per week vs. 3.1 per week, p < 0.05) and surgery volume (14.8 vs. 10.5, p < 0.05) were found for postLD compared with preLD, while median time to surgery was shorter (1.2 months vs. 1.5 months, p < 0.0001). However, the postLD average weekly screening and diagnostic mammogram did not fully recover to preLD levels (2055.3 vs. 2326.2, p < 0.05; 574.2 vs. 624.1, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment patterns were interrupted during the lockdown and still altered 1 year after. Screening in primary care should be expanded to mitigate possible longer-term effects of these interruptions.

Cancer-related knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors among Hispanic/Latino residents of Indiana.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the leading cause of death for Hispanics in the USA. Screening and prevention reduce cancer morbidity and mortality. METHODS: This study administered a cross-sectional web-based survey to self-identified Hispanic residents in the state of Indiana to assess their cancer-related knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors, as well as to identify what factors might be associated with cancer screening and prevention. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used to compare associations and logistic regression used to develop both univariate and multivariate regression models. RESULTS: A total of 1520 surveys were completed, median age of respondents was 53, 52% identified as men, 50.9% completed the survey in Spanish, and 60.4% identified the USA as their country of birth. Most were not able to accurately identify ages to begin screening for breast, colorectal, or lung cancer, and there were significant differences in cancer knowledge by education level. US-born individuals with higher income and education more often believed they were likely to develop cancer and worry about getting cancer. Sixty eight percent of respondents were up-to-date with colorectal, 44% with breast, and 61% with cervical cancer screening. Multivariate models showed that higher education, lack of fatalism, older age, lower household income, and unmarried status were associated with cervical cancer screening adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Among a Hispanic population in the state of Indiana, factors associated with cervical cancer screening adherence were similar to the general population, with the exceptions of income and marital status. Younger Hispanic individuals were more likely to be adherent with breast and colorectal cancer screening, and given the higher incidence of cancer among older individuals, these results should guide future research and targeted outreach.

COVID-19 Diagnosis and Risk of Death Among Adults With Cancer in Indiana: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies, generally conducted at single centers with small sample sizes, found that individuals with cancer experience more severe outcomes due to COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although early examinations revealed greater risk of severe outcomes for patients with cancer, the magnitude of the increased risk remains unclear. Furthermore, prior studies were not typically performed using population-level data, especially those in the United States. Given robust prevention measures (eg, vaccines) are available for populations, examining the increased risk of patients with cancer due to SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust population-level analyses of electronic medical records is warranted. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to evaluate the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause mortality among recently diagnosed adults with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed adults with cancer between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, using electronic health records linked to a statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing database. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We used the Kaplan-Meier estimator to estimate survival during the COVID-19 period (January 15, 2020, to December 31, 2020). We further modeled SARS-CoV-2 infection as a time-dependent exposure (immortal time bias) in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for clinical and demographic variables to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) among newly diagnosed adults with cancer. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using the above methods among individuals with cancer-staging information. RESULTS: During the study period, 41,924 adults were identified with newly diagnosed cancer, of which 2894 (6.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The population consisted of White (n=32,867, 78.4%), Black (n=2671, 6.4%), Hispanic (n=832, 2.0%), and other (n=5554, 13.2%) racial backgrounds, with both male (n=21,354, 50.9%) and female (n=20,570, 49.1%) individuals. In the COVID-19 period analysis, after adjusting for age, sex, race or ethnicity, comorbidities, cancer type, and region, the risk of death increased by 91% (adjusted HR 1.91; 95% CI 1.76-2.09) compared to the pre-COVID-19 period (January 1, 2019, to January 14, 2020) after adjusting for other covariates. In the adjusted time-dependent analysis, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 6.91; 95% CI 6.06-7.89). Mortality increased 2.5 times among adults aged 65 years and older (adjusted HR 2.74; 95% CI 2.26-3.31) compared to adults 18-44 years old, among male (adjusted HR 1.23; 95% CI 1.14-1.32) compared to female individuals, and those with ≥2 chronic conditions (adjusted HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.94-2.31) compared to those with no comorbidities. Risk of mortality was 9% higher in the rural population (adjusted HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.18) compared to adult urban residents. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight increased risk of death is associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with a recent diagnosis of cancer. Elevated risk underscores the importance of adhering to social distancing, mask adherence, vaccination, and regular testing among the adult cancer population.

Data-driven approach to implementation mapping for the selection of implementation strategies: a case example for risk-aligned bladder cancer surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Implementation Mapping is an organized method to select implementation strategies. However, there are 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies. Thus, it is difficult for implementation scientists to map all potential strategies to the determinants of their chosen implementation science framework. Prior work using Implementation Mapping employed advisory panels to select implementation strategies. This article presents a data-driven approach to implementation mapping, in which we systematically evaluated all 73 ERIC strategies using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework. We illustrate our approach using implementation of risk-aligned bladder cancer surveillance as a case example. METHODS: We developed objectives based on previously collected qualitative data organized by TICD determinants, i.e., what needs to be changed to achieve more risk-aligned surveillance. Next, we evaluated all 73 ERIC strategies, excluding those that were not applicable to our clinical setting. The remaining strategies were mapped to the objectives using data visualization techniques to make sense of the large matrices. Finally, we selected strategies with high impact, based on (1) broad scope, defined as a strategy addressing more than the median number of objectives, (2) requiring low or moderate time commitment from clinical teams, and (3) evidence of effectiveness from the literature. RESULTS: We identified 63 unique objectives. Of the 73 ERIC strategies, 45 were excluded because they were not applicable to our clinical setting (e.g., not feasible within the confines of the setting, not appropriate for the context). Thus, 28 ERIC strategies were mapped to the 63 objectives. Strategies addressed 0 to 26 objectives (median 10.5). Of the 28 ERIC strategies, 10 required low and 8 moderate time commitments from clinical teams. We selected 9 strategies based on high impact, each with a clearly documented rationale for selection. CONCLUSIONS: We enhanced Implementation Mapping via a data-driven approach to the selection of implementation strategies. Our approach provides a practical method for other implementation scientists to use when selecting implementation strategies and has the advantage of favoring data-driven strategy selection over expert opinion.

Impact of a Personal Health Record Intervention Upon Surveillance Among Colorectal Cancer Survivors: Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: There are currently an estimated 1.5 million individuals living in the United States with colorectal cancer (CRC), and although the 5-year survival rate has increased, survivors are at risk for recurrence, particularly within the first 2-3 years after treatment. National guidelines recommend continued surveillance after resection to identify recurrence early on. Adherence among survivors ranges from 23% to 94%. Novel interventions are needed to increase CRC survivors' knowledge and confidence in managing their cancer and thus to increase adherence to follow-up surveillance. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to develop and test the feasibility and efficacy of a stand-alone, web-based personal health record (PHR) to increase surveillance adherence among CRC survivors, with patient beliefs about surveillance as secondary outcomes. METHODS: A pre- and postintervention feasibility trial was conducted testing the efficacy of the colorectal cancer survivor (CRCS)-PHR, which had been previously developed using an iterative, user-centered design approach. RESULTS: The average age of the sample was 58 (SD 9.9) years, with 57% (16/28) male and the majority married (20/28, 71%) and employed full-time (15/28, 54%). We observed a significant increase in adherence to colonoscopy (before: 11/21, 52% vs after: 18/21, 86%; P=.005) and CEA (14/21, 67% vs 20/21, 95%; P=.01), as well as a slight increase in CT scans (14/21, 67% vs 18/21, 86%; P=.10). The only significant impact on secondary outcome (patient beliefs) was benefits of CEA test (P=.04), as most of the beliefs were high at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study lays the groundwork for continued development of the CRCS-PHR to increase CRC surveillance. Patient-centered technologies, such as the CRCS-PHR, represent an important potential approach to improving the receipt of guideline-concordant care and follow-up surveillance, and not just for CRC survivors. Researchers should continue to develop patient-centered health technologies with clinician implementation in mind to increase patient self-efficacy and surveillance adherence.

Examining Rural-Urban Differences in Fatalism and Information Overload: Data from 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: Rural populations experience a disproportionate cancer burden relative to urban populations. One possibility is that rural populations are more likely to hold counterproductive cancer beliefs such as fatalism and information overload that undermine prevention and screening behaviors. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2020, 12 U.S. cancer centers surveyed adults in their service areas using online and in-person survey instruments. Participants (N = 10,362) were designated as rural (n = 3,821) or urban (n = 6,541). All participants were 18 and older (M = 56.97, SD = 16.55), predominately non-Hispanic White (81%), and female (57%). Participants completed three items measuring cancer fatalism ("It seems like everything causes cancer," "There's not much you can do to lower your chances of getting cancer," and "When I think about cancer, I automatically think about death") and one item measuring cancer information overload ("There are so many different recommendations about preventing cancer, it's hard to know which ones to follow"). RESULTS: Compared with urban residents, rural residents were more likely to believe that (i) everything causes cancer (OR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.43); (ii) prevention is not possible (OR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.19-1.51); and (iii) there are too many different recommendations about cancer prevention (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41), and cancer is always fatal (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with their urban counterparts, rural populations exhibited higher levels of cancer fatalism and cancer information overload. IMPACT: Future interventions targeting rural populations should account for higher levels of fatalism and information overload.

Uses of Personal Health Records for Communication Among Colorectal Cancer Survivors, Caregivers, and Providers: Interview and Observational Study in a Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory.

BACKGROUND: Personal health records (PHRs) may be useful for patient self-management and participation in communication with their caregivers and health care providers. As each potential participant's role is different, their perception of the best uses of a PHR may vary. OBJECTIVE: The perspectives of patients, caregivers, and providers were all evaluated concurrently in relation to a PHR developed for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. METHODS: We explored group perceptions of a CRC PHR prototype. Scenario-based testing across eight use cases, with semistructured follow-up interviews, was videotaped in a human-computer interaction laboratory with patients, caregivers, and health care providers. Providers included oncologists, gastroenterologists, and primary care physicians. Discrete observations underwent grounded theory visual affinity analysis to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Observations fell into three major themes: the network (who should be granted access to the PHR by the patient), functions (helpful activities the PHR enabled), and implementation (how to adopt the PHR into workflow). Patients wanted physician access to their PHR, as well as family member access, especially when they lived at a distance. All groups noted the added value of linking the PHR to an electronic health record, self-tracking, self-management, and secure messaging. Patients and caregivers also saw information in the PHR as a useful memory tool given their visits to multiple doctors. Providers had reservations about patients viewing raw data, which they were not prepared to interpret or might be inaccurate; patients and caregivers did not express any reservations about having access to more information. Patients saw PHR communication functions as a potential tool for relationship building. Patients and caregivers valued the journal as a tool for reflection and delivery of emotional support. Providers felt the PHR would facilitate patient-physician communication but worried that sharing journal access would make the doctor-patient relationship less professional and had reservations about the time burden of reviewing. Strategies suggested for efficient adoption into workflow included team delegation. Establishment of parameters for patient uses and provider responses was perceived as good standard practice. CONCLUSIONS: PHR perceptions differed by role, with providers seeing the PHR as informational, while patients and caregivers viewed the tool as more relational. Personal health records should be linked to electronic health records for ease of use. Tailoring access, content, and implementation of the PHR is essential. Technology changes have the potential to change the nature of the patient-physician relationship. Patients and providers should establish shared expectations about the optimal use of the PHR and explore how emerging patient-centered technologies can be successfully implemented in modern medical practice to improve the relational quality of care.

Determinants of Risk-Aligned Bladder Cancer Surveillance-Mixed-Methods Evaluation Using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases Framework.

PURPOSE: For many patients with cancer, the frequency of surveillance after primary treatment depends on the risk for cancer recurrence or progression. Lack of risk-aligned surveillance means too many unnecessary surveillance procedures for low-risk patients and not enough for high-risk patients. Using bladder cancer as an example, we examined whether practice determinants differ between Department of Veterans Affairs sites where risk-aligned surveillance was more (risk-aligned sites) or less common (need improvement sites). METHODS: We used our prior quantitative data to identify two risk-aligned sites and four need improvement sites. We performed semistructured interviews with 40 Veterans Affairs staff guided by the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework that were deductively coded. We integrated quantitative data (risk-aligned site v need improvement site) and qualitative data from interviews, cross-tabulating salient determinants by site type. RESULTS: There were 14 participants from risk-aligned sites and 26 participants from need improvement sites. Irrespective of site type, we found a lack of knowledge on guideline recommendations. Additional salient determinants at need improvement sites were a lack of resources ("the next available without overbooking is probably seven to eight weeks out") and an absence of routines to incorporate risk-aligned surveillance ("I have my own guidelines that I've been using for 35 years"). CONCLUSION: Knowledge, resources, and lack of routines were salient barriers to risk-aligned bladder cancer surveillance. Implementation strategies addressing knowledge and resources can likely contribute to more risk-aligned surveillance. In addition, reminders for providers to incorporate risk into their surveillance plans may improve their routines.

Predicting COVID-19-Related Health Care Resource Utilization Across a Statewide Patient Population: Model Development Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the inability of health systems to leverage existing system infrastructure in order to rapidly develop and apply broad analytical tools that could inform state- and national-level policymaking, as well as patient care delivery in hospital settings. The COVID-19 pandemic has also led to highlighted systemic disparities in health outcomes and access to care based on race or ethnicity, gender, income-level, and urban-rural divide. Although the United States seems to be recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic owing to widespread vaccination efforts and increased public awareness, there is an urgent need to address the aforementioned challenges. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to inform the feasibility of leveraging broad, statewide datasets for population health-driven decision-making by developing robust analytical models that predict COVID-19-related health care resource utilization across patients served by Indiana's statewide Health Information Exchange. METHODS: We leveraged comprehensive datasets obtained from the Indiana Network for Patient Care to train decision forest-based models that can predict patient-level need of health care resource utilization. To assess these models for potential biases, we tested model performance against subpopulations stratified by age, race or ethnicity, gender, and residence (urban vs rural). RESULTS: For model development, we identified a cohort of 96,026 patients from across 957 zip codes in Indiana, United States. We trained the decision models that predicted health care resource utilization by using approximately 100 of the most impactful features from a total of 1172 features created. Each model and stratified subpopulation under test reported precision scores >70%, accuracy and area under the receiver operating curve scores >80%, and sensitivity scores approximately >90%. We noted statistically significant variations in model performance across stratified subpopulations identified by age, race or ethnicity, gender, and residence (urban vs rural). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the possibility of developing decision models capable of predicting patient-level health care resource utilization across a broad, statewide region with considerable predictive performance. However, our models present statistically significant variations in performance across stratified subpopulations of interest. Further efforts are necessary to identify root causes of these biases and to rectify them.

Financial hardship is associated with lower uptake of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings.

PURPOSE: Cancer screening uptake differs between groups in ways that cannot be explained by socioeconomic status alone. This study examined associations between material, psychosocial, and behavioral aspects of financial hardship and cancer screening behaviors. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to 7,979 people ages 18-75 who were seen in the statewide health system in Indiana. Participants reported SES, feelings about finances, and whether they had to forgo medical care due to cost. This was compared to uptake of mammogram, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, and Pap testing in best-fit multivariable logistic regression analyses controlling for demographic and healthcare characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 970 surveys were returned; the majority of respondents were female (54%), non-Hispanic White (75%), and over 50 years old (76%). 15% reported forgoing medical care due to cost; this barrier was higher among Black than White participants (24% vs. 13%; p = 0.001). In a best fit regression model for colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, those who reported they had to forgo medical care due to cost had lower odds of screening (aOR 0.41; 95% CI 0.22-0.74). Forgoing medical care due to cost was not significantly associated with Pap testing in bivariate analyses. For mammogram, forgoing medical care due to cost was significant in bivariate analyses (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.22-0.88), but was not significant in the multivariable model. CONCLUSION: Associations between financial hardship and cancer screening suggest the need to reduce barriers to cancer screening even among patients who have access to healthcare. Future research should explore barriers related to both healthcare and personal costs.