Evaluation of the Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. Web Portal.

CONTEXT: The Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. (P.L.A.N.E.T.) Web portal was designed to ease access to data and evidence-based resources for cancer control practitioners and researchers focused on developing, implementing, and evaluating cancer control programs. OBJECTIVES: To determine usability, applicability, and opportunities to improve the P.L.A.N.E.T. Web portal after significant changes to the portal over time. DESIGN: The National Cancer Institute surveyed and interviewed cancer control professionals to assess factors influencing utilization of P.L.A.N.E.T. Data were collected from May 2017 to June 2018 via partner agencies, electronic publications, and online links. OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics with χ test were used to analyze the quantitative data and examine the relationship among variables. Qualitative interviews further informed the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Of the 724 participants surveyed, 51% were users of P.L.A.N.E.T., with the majority accessing P.L.A.N.E.T. within the last 6 months. Most users felt that P.L.A.N.E.T. effectively met their needs for accessing specific cancer data, identifying evidenced-based programs, and ascertaining details on various cancer topics. There were statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between users and nonusers of P.L.A.N.E.T., where users were more likely to have more experience in the cancer field, were older in age, and located in southern states. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that P.L.A.N.E.T. is seen as a viable and credible source for cancer control program planning and delivery. A reassessment of P.L.A.N.E.T.'s goals is warranted, which may support reaching out to new audiences, amplifying or removing underutilized resources, and adding additional resources and topics. Consideration for training and tutorials on P.L.A.N.E.T. would benefit partner agencies and build capacity for evidence-based program development.

Behavioral and mental health risk factor profiles among diverse primary care patients.

Behavioral and mental health risk factors are prevalent among primary care patients and contribute substantially to premature morbidity and mortality and increased health care utilization and costs. Although prior studies have found most adults screen positive for multiple risk factors, limited research has attempted to identify factors that most commonly co-occur, which may guide future interventions. The purpose of this study was to identify subgroups of primary care patients with co-occurring risk factors and to examine sociodemographic characteristics associated with these subgroups. We assessed 12 behavioral health risk factors in a sample of adults (n=1628) receiving care from nine primary care practices across six U.S. states in 2013. Using latent class analysis, we identified four distinct patient subgroups: a 'Mental Health Risk' class (prevalence=14%; low physical activity, high stress, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and sleepiness), a 'Substance Use Risk' class (29%; highest tobacco, drug, alcohol use), a 'Dietary Risk' class (29%; high BMI, poor diet), and a 'Lower Risk' class (27%). Compared to the Lower Risk class, patients in the Mental Health Risk class were younger and less likely to be Latino/Hispanic, married, college educated, or employed. Patients in the Substance Use class tended to be younger, male, African American, unmarried, and less educated. African Americans were over 7 times more likely to be in the Dietary Risk versus Lower Risk class (OR 7.7, 95% CI 4.0-14.8). Given the heavy burden of behavioral health issues in primary care, efficiently addressing co-occurring risk factors in this setting is critical.

Factors Related to Implementation and Reach of a Pragmatic Multisite Trial: The My Own Health Report (MOHR) Study.

BACKGROUND: Contextual factors relevant to translating healthcare improvement interventions to different settings are rarely collected systematically. This study articulates a prospective method for assessing and describing contextual factors related to implementation and patient reach of a pragmatic trial in primary care. METHODS: In a qualitative case-series, contextual factors were assessed from the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, focused on systematic health risk assessments and goal setting for unhealthy behaviors and behavioral health in nine primary care practices. Practice staff interviews and observations, guided by a context template were conducted prospectively at three time points. Patient reach was calculated as percentage of patients completing MOHR of those who were offered MOHR and themes describing contextual factors were summarized through an iterative, data immersion process.These included practice members' motivations towards MOHR, practice staff capacity for implementation, practice information system capacity, external resources to support quality improvement, community linkages, and implementation strategy fit with patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically assessing contextual factors prospectively throughout implementation of quality improvement initiatives helps translation to other health care settings. Knowledge of contextual factors is essential for scaling up of effective interventions.

The impact of behavioral and mental health risk assessments on goal setting in primary care.

Patient-centered health risk assessments (HRAs) that screen for unhealthy behaviors, prioritize concerns, and provide feedback may improve counseling, goal setting, and health. To evaluate the effectiveness of routinely administering a patient-centered HRA, My Own Health Report, for diet, exercise, smoking, alcohol, drug use, stress, depression, anxiety, and sleep, 18 primary care practices were randomized to ask patients to complete My Own Health Report (MOHR) before an office visit (intervention) or continue usual care (control). Intervention practice patients were more likely than control practice patients to be asked about each of eight risks (range of differences 5.3-15.8 %, p < 0.001), set goals for six risks (range of differences 3.8-16.6 %, p < 0.01), and improve five risks (range of differences 5.4-13.6 %, p < 0.01). Compared to controls, intervention patients felt clinicians cared more for them and showed more interest in their concerns. Patient-centered health risk assessments improve screening and goal setting.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01825746.

Implementation science in cancer prevention and control: a decade of grant funding by the National Cancer Institute and future directions.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has supported implementation science for over a decade. We explore the application of implementation science across the cancer control continuum, including prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship. METHODS: We reviewed funding trends of implementation science grants funded by the NCI between 2000 and 2012. We assessed study characteristics including cancer topic, position on the T2-T4 translational continuum, intended use of frameworks, study design, settings, methods, and replication and cost considerations. RESULTS: We identified 67 NCI grant awards having an implementation science focus. R01 was the most common mechanism, and the total number of all awards increased from four in 2003 to 15 in 2012. Prevention grants were most frequent (49.3%) and cancer treatment least common (4.5%). Diffusion of Innovations and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) were the most widely reported frameworks, but it is unclear how implementation science models informed planned study measures. Most grants (69%) included mixed methods, and half reported replication and cost considerations (49.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science in cancer research is active and diverse but could be enhanced by greater focus on measures development, assessment of how conceptual frameworks and their constructs lead to improved dissemination and implementation outcomes, and harmonization of measures that are valid, reliable, and practical across multiple settings.

Frequency and prioritization of patient health risks from a structured health risk assessment.

PURPOSE: To describe the frequency and patient-reported readiness to change, desire to discuss, and perceived importance of 13 health risk factors in a diverse range of primary care practices. METHODS: Patients (n = 1,707) in 9 primary care practices in the My Own Health Report (MOHR) trial reported general, behavioral, and psychosocial risk factors (body mass index [BMI], health status, diet, physical activity, sleep, drug use, stress, anxiety or worry, and depression). We classified responses as "at risk" or "healthy" for each factor, and patients indicated their readiness to change and/or desire to discuss identified risk factors with providers. Patients also selected 1 of the factors they were ready to change as most important. We then calculated frequencies within and across these factors and examined variation by patient characteristics and across practices. RESULTS: On average, patients had 5.8 (SD = 2.12; range, 0-13) unhealthy behaviors and mental health risk factors. About 55% of patients had more than 6 risk factors. On average, patients wanted to change 1.2 and discuss 0.7 risks. The most common risks were inadequate fruit/vegetable consumption (84.5%) and overweight/obesity (79.6%). Patients were most ready to change BMI (33.3%) and depression (30.7%), and most wanted to discuss depression (41.9%) and anxiety or worry (35.2%). Overall, patients rated health status as most important. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing routine comprehensive health risk assessments in primary care will likely identify a high number of behavioral and psychosocial health risks. By soliciting patient priorities, providers and patients can better manage counseling and behavior change.

Adoption, reach, implementation, and maintenance of a behavioral and mental health assessment in primary care.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend screening patients for unhealthy behaviors and mental health concerns. Health risk assessments can systematically identify patient needs and trigger care. This study seeks to evaluate whether primary care practices can routinely implement such assessments into routine care. METHODS: As part of a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial, 9 diverse primary care practices implemented My Own Health Report (MOHR)-an electronic or paper-based health behavior and mental health assessment and feedback system paired with counseling and goal setting. We observed how practices integrated MOHR into their workflows, what additional practice staff time it required, and what percentage of patients completed a MOHR assessment (Reach). RESULTS: Most practices approached (60%) agreed to adopt MOHR. How they implemented MOHR depended on practice resources, informatics capacity, and patient characteristics. Three practices mailed patients invitations to complete MOHR on the Web, 1 called patients and completed MOHR over the telephone, 1 had patients complete MOHR on paper in the office, and 4 had staff help patients complete MOHR on the Web in the office. Overall, 3,591 patients were approached and 1,782 completed MOHR (Reach = 49.6%). Reach varied by implementation strategy with higher reach when MOHR was completed by staff than by patients (71.2% vs 30.2%, P <.001). No practices were able to sustain the complete MOHR assessment without adaptations after study completion. Fielding MOHR increased staff and clinician time an average of 28 minutes per visit. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices can implement health behavior and mental health assessments, but counseling patients effectively requires effort. Practices will need more support to implement and sustain assessments.

How pragmatic is it? Lessons learned using PRECIS and RE-AIM for determining pragmatic characteristics of research.

BACKGROUND: The need for high-quality evidence that is applicable in real-world, routine settings continues to increase. Pragmatic trials are designed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in real-world settings, whereas explanatory trials aim to test whether an intervention works under optimal situations. There is a continuum between explanatory and pragmatic trials. Most trials have aspects of both, making it challenging to label and categorize a trial and to evaluate its potential for translation into practice. METHODS: We summarize our experience applying the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) combined with external validity items based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to three studies to provide a more robust and comprehensive assessment of trial characteristics related to translation of research. We summarize lessons learned using domains from the combined frameworks for use in study planning, evaluating specific studies, and reviewing the literature and make recommendations for future use. RESULTS: A variety of coders can be trained to use the PRECIS and RE-AIM domains. These domains can also be used for diverse purposes, content areas, and study types, but are not without challenges. Both PRECIS and RE-AIM domains required modification in two of the three studies to evaluate and rate domains specific to study type. Lessons learned involved: dedicating enough time for training activities related to the domains; use of reviewers with a range of familiarity with specific study protocols; how to best adapt ratings that reflect complex study designs; and differences of opinion regarding the value of creating a composite score for these criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Combining both frameworks can specifically help identify where and how a study is and is not pragmatic. Using both PRECIS and RE-AIM allows for standard reporting of key study characteristics related to pragmatism and translation. Such measures should be used more consistently to help plan more pragmatic studies, evaluate progress, increase transparency of reporting, and integrate literature to facilitate translation of research into practice and policy.

Real-world implementation and outcomes of health behavior and mental health assessment.

BACKGROUND: Assessing patient-reported health behaviors is a critical first step in prioritizing prevention in primary care. We assessed the feasibility of point-of-care behavioral health assessment in 9 diverse primary care practices, including 4 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), 4 practice-based research network practices, and a Department of Veterans Affairs practice. METHODS: In this prospective mixed-methods study, practices were asked to integrate a standardized paper-based health behavior and mental health assessment into their workflow for ≥50 patients. We used 3 data sources to examine the implementation process: (1) patient responses to the health assessment, (2) patient feedback surveys about how assessments were used during encounters, and (3) postimplementation interviews. RESULTS: Most nonurgent patients (71%) visiting the participating practices during the implementation period completed the health assessment, but reach varied by practice (range, 59% to 88%). Unhealthy diet, sedentary lifestyle, and stress were the most common patient problems, with similar frequencies observed across practices. The median number of "positive screens" per patient was similar among FQHCs (3.7 positives; standard deviation [SD], 1.8), practice-based research network practices (3.8 positives; SD, 1.9), and the Veterans Affairs clinic (4.1 positives; SD, 2.0). Primary care clinicians discussed assessment results with patients about half of the time (54%), with considerable variation between practices (range, 13% to 66%; lowest use among FQHC clinicians). Although clinicians were interested in routinely implementing assessments, many reported not feeling confident of having resources or support to address all patients' behavioral health needs. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices will need to revamp their patient-reported data collection processes to integrate routine health behavior assessments. Implementation support will be required if health assessments are to be actively used as part of routine primary care.

Understanding the context of health for persons with multiple chronic conditions: moving from what is the matter to what matters.

PURPOSE: An isolated focus on 1 disease at a time is insufficient to generate the scientific evidence needed to improve the health of persons living with more than 1 chronic condition. This article explores how to bring context into research efforts to improve the health of persons living with multiple chronic conditions (MCC). METHODS: Forty-five experts, including persons with MCC, family and friend caregivers, researchers, policy makers, funders, and clinicians met to critically consider 4 aspects of incorporating context into research on MCC: key contextual factors, needed research, essential research methods for understanding important contextual factors, and necessary partnerships for catalyzing collaborative action in conducting and applying research. RESULTS: Key contextual factors involve complementary perspectives across multiple levels: public policy, community, health care systems, family, and person, as well as the cellular and molecular levels where most research currently is focused. Needed research involves moving from a disease focus toward a person-driven, goal-directed research agenda. Relevant research methods are participatory, flexible, multilevel, quantitative and qualitative, conducive to longitudinal dynamic measurement from diverse data sources, sufficiently detailed to consider what works for whom in which situation, and generative of ongoing communities of learning, living and practice. Important partnerships for collaborative action include cooperation among members of the research enterprise, health care providers, community-based support, persons with MCC and their family and friend caregivers, policy makers, and payers, including government, public health, philanthropic organizations, and the business community. CONCLUSION: Consistent attention to contextual factors is needed to enhance health research for persons with MCC. Rigorous, integrated, participatory, multimethod approaches to generate new knowledge and diverse partnerships can be used to increase the relevance of research to make health care more sustainable, safe, equitable and effective, to reduce suffering, and to improve quality of life.

Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: the my own health report (MOHR) project.

BACKGROUND: There is a pressing need for greater attention to patient-centered health behavior and psychosocial issues in primary care, and for practical tools, study designs and results of clinical and policy relevance. Our goal is to design a scientifically rigorous and valid pragmatic trial to test whether primary care practices can systematically implement the collection of patient-reported information and provide patients needed advice, goal setting, and counseling in response. METHODS: This manuscript reports on the iterative design of the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, a cluster randomized delayed intervention trial. Nine pairs of diverse primary care practices will be randomized to early or delayed intervention four months later. The intervention consists of fielding the MOHR assessment--addresses 10 domains of health behaviors and psychosocial issues--and subsequent provision of needed counseling and support for patients presenting for wellness or chronic care. As a pragmatic participatory trial, stakeholder groups including practice partners and patients have been engaged throughout the study design to account for local resources and characteristics. Participatory tasks include identifying MOHR assessment content, refining the study design, providing input on outcomes measures, and designing the implementation workflow. Study outcomes include the intervention reach (percent of patients offered and completing the MOHR assessment), effectiveness (patients reporting being asked about topics, setting change goals, and receiving assistance in early versus delayed intervention practices), contextual factors influencing outcomes, and intervention costs. DISCUSSION: The MOHR study shows how a participatory design can be used to promote the consistent collection and use of patient-reported health behavior and psychosocial assessments in a broad range of primary care settings. While pragmatic in nature, the study design will allow valid comparisons to answer the posed research question, and findings will be broadly generalizable to a range of primary care settings. Per the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) framework, the study design is substantially more pragmatic than other published trials. The methods and findings should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers attempting to make healthcare more patient-centered and relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01825746.

Eliminating health disparities through transdisciplinary research, cross-agency collaboration, and public participation.

Despite efforts to the contrary, disparities in health and health care persist in the United States. To solve this problem, federal agencies representing different disciplines and perspectives are collaborating on a variety of transdisciplinary research initiatives. The most recent of these initiatives was launched in 2006 when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Office of Public Health Research and the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Minority Health brought together federal partners representing a variety of disciplines to form the Federal Collaboration on Health Disparities Research (FCHDR). FCHDR collaborates with a wide variety of federal and nonfederal partners to support and disseminate research that aims to reduce or eliminate disparities in health and health care. Given the complexity involved in eliminating health disparities, there is a need for more transdisciplinary, collaborative research, and facilitating that research is FCHDR's mission.

Approaching health disparities from a population perspective: the National Institutes of Health Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities.

Addressing health disparities has been a national challenge for decades. The National Institutes of Health-sponsored Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities are the first federal initiative to support transdisciplinary multilevel research on the determinants of health disparities. Their novel research approach combines population, clinical, and basic science to elucidate the complex determinants of health disparities. The centers are partnering with community-based, public, and quasi-public organizations to disseminate scientific findings and guide clinical practice in communities. In turn, communities and public health agents are shaping the research. The relationships forged through these complex collaborations increase the likelihood that the centers' scientific findings will be relevant to communities and contribute to reductions in health disparities.