Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing an Evidence-Based Community Health Worker Model.

Importance: Community health worker (CHW) programs may improve health outcomes, increase quality of life, and reduce hospitalizations and cost of care. However, knowledge is limited on the barriers and facilitators associated with scaling evidence-based CHW programs to maximize their public health outcomes. Objective: To identify barriers and facilitators to implementing an evidence-based CHW model. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study examined perspectives of Individualized Management of Person-Centered Targets (IMPaCT) program staff (health system leaders, program managers, and community health workers) and patients receiving the intervention between March 9, 2020, and July 22, 2021, at 5 institutionally and geographically diverse health systems across the US. The collected data were analyzed between December 1, 2021, and April 27, 2022. Program staff were recruited via purposive sampling, and patients were recruited via convenience sampling. Intervention: The disease-agnostic IMPaCT CHW model includes a standardized implementation approach and a structured set of theory-informed intervention components to create and achieve individualized action plans. Main Outcomes and Measures: Interview guides were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. A rapid qualitative analytic technique was used to identify key themes, which were categorized into barriers and facilitators associated with framework ecological domains. Results: Of a total 41 individuals invited, 39 agreed to participate (95% response rate; mean [SD] age, 45.0 [12.6] years; 30 women). General barriers included economic and policy constraints, including insufficient funding for CHW programs, clinical integration challenges, and CHW difficulty with maintaining boundaries. Program-specific barriers included insufficiently tailored materials for certain populations and upfront and ongoing program costs. General facilitators included CHWs' interpersonal skills and life experiences. Program-specific facilitators included the model's strong evidence base, supportive implementation team, and program design that enabled relationship building and engagement. Additional themes were cited as both barriers and facilitators, including the COVID-19 pandemic, organizational leadership, IMPaCT training, and program fidelity. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest growing recognition of the importance of CHWs to improving health equity and population health. Barriers identified point to important policy and practice implications for CHW programs more broadly, including the need for continued attention to improving clinical integration and the need for sustainable program financing to preserve the longevity of this workforce.

Community Health Worker Integration with and Effectiveness in Health Care and Public Health in the United States.

Community health workers (CHWs) have worked in a variety of settings in the United States for more than 70 years and are increasingly recognized as an essential health workforce. CHWs share life experience with the people they serve and have firsthand knowledge of the causes and impacts of health inequity. They provide a critical link between marginalized communities and health care and public health services. Several studies have demonstrated that CHWs can improve the management of chronic conditions, increase access to preventive care, improve patients' experience of care, and reduce health care costs. CHWs can also advance health equity by addressing social needs and advocating for systems and policy change. This review provides a history of CHW integration with health care in the United States; describes evidence of the impact of CHW programs on population health, experience, costs of care, and health equity; and identifies considerations for CHW program expansion.

Digital Health and Community Health Worker Support for Diabetes Management: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a digital health intervention plus community health worker (CHW) support on self-monitoring of blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) among adult Medicaid beneficiaries with diabetes. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Urban outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Adult Medicaid beneficiaries living with diabetes and treated with insulin and who had a HbA1c ≥ 9%. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three arms. Participants in the usual-care arm received a wireless glucometer if needed. Those in the digital arm received a lottery incentive for daily glucose monitoring. Those in the hybrid arm received the lottery plus support from a CHW if they had low adherence or high blood glucose levels. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in adherence to daily glucose self-monitoring at 3 months between the hybrid and usual-care arms. The secondary outcome was difference in HbA1c from baseline at 6 months. KEY RESULTS: A total of 150 participants were enrolled in the study. A total of 102 participants (68%) completed the study. At 3 months, glucose self-monitoring rates in the hybrid versus usual-care arms were 0.72 vs 0.65, p = 0.23. At 6 months, change in HbA1c in the hybrid versus usual-care arms was - 0.74% vs - 0.49%, p = 0.69. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences between the hybrid and usual care in glucose self-monitoring adherence or improvements in HbA1C. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03939793.

Design of a randomized controlled trial of digital health and community health worker support for diabetes management among low-income patients.

BACKGROUND: Insulin-dependent diabetes is a challenging disease to manage and involves complex behaviors, such as self-monitoring of blood glucose. This can be especially challenging in the face of socioeconomic barriers and in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital health self-monitoring interventions and community health worker support are promising and complementary best practices for improving diabetes-related health behaviors and outcomes. Yet, these strategies have not been tested in combination. This protocol paper describes the rationale and design of a trial that measures the combined effect of digital health and community health worker support on glucose self-monitoring and glycosylated hemoglobin. METHODS: The study population was uninsured or publicly insured; lived in high-poverty, urban neighborhoods; and had poorly controlled diabetes mellitus with insulin dependence. The study consisted of three arms: usual diabetes care; digital health self-monitoring; or combined digital health and community health worker support. The primary outcome was adherence to blood glucose self-monitoring. The exploratory outcome was change in glycosylated hemoglobin. CONCLUSION: The design of this trial was grounded in social justice and community engagement. The study protocols were designed in collaboration with frontline community health workers, the study aim was explicit about furthering knowledge useful for advancing health equity, and the population was focused on low-income people. This trial will advance knowledge of whether combining digital health and community health worker interventions can improve glucose self-monitoring and diabetes-related outcomes in a high-risk population.

Effects of Neighborhood-level Data on Performance and Algorithmic Equity of a Model That Predicts 30-day Heart Failure Readmissions at an Urban Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic data may improve predictions of clinical events. However, owing to structural racism, algorithms may not perform equitably across racial subgroups. Therefore, we sought to compare the predictive performance overall, and by racial subgroup, of commonly used predictor variables for heart failure readmission with and without the area deprivation index (ADI), a neighborhood-level socioeconomic measure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1316 Philadelphia residents discharged with a primary diagnosis of congestive heart failure from the University of Pennsylvania Health System between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2017. We trained a regression model to predict the probability of a 30-day readmission using clinical and demographic variables. A second model also included the ADI as a predictor variable. We measured predictive performance with the Brier Score (BS) in a held-out test set. The baseline model had moderate performance overall (BS 0.13, 95% CI 0.13-0.14), and among White (BS 0.12, 95% CI 0.12-0.13) and non-White (BS 0.13, 95% CI 0.13-0.14) patients. Neither performance nor algorithmic equity were significantly changed with the addition of the ADI. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of neighborhood-level data may not reliably improve performance or algorithmic equity.

Medicaid member perspectives on innovation in prenatal care delivery: A call to action from pregnant people using unscheduled care.

BACKGROUND: Low-income women using prenatal care have shared concerns as well as unique needs not met by traditional prenatal care. Our objective was to explore user ideas on addressing unmet needs driving unscheduled care utilization and use findings to inform interventions to improve perinatal outcomes. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of qualitative interviews among purposively sampled, Medicaid-insured pregnant women with varied degrees of unscheduled care utilization. Interviews explored barriers and facilitators of health and ideas for improvement in care delivery, with a focus on the potential role of community health workers and social support. We extracted material on participants' perceived gaps and ideas, used modified grounded theory to develop general and subset themes by study group, and then mapped themes to potential intervention features. RESULTS: We identified intervention targets in three thematic domains: social support, care delivery, and access, noting sub-group differences. Participants with four or more unscheduled visits during pregnancy ("Group 1") wanted individualized help navigating resources, coaching, and peer support, while participants with a first unscheduled care visit after 36 weeks of pregnancy ("Group 2) wanted these services to be optional. Group 1 participants wanted flexible appointments, less wait time, discharge education and improved communication with providers, while Group 2 participants sought stable insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest acceptable approaches to improve social support, care delivery, and access via stratified, targeted interventions. IMPLICATIONS: Targeted interventions to improve prenatal care that incorporate user ideas and address unique unmet needs of specific subgroups may improve perinatal outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Effects of a standardized community health worker intervention on hospitalization among disadvantaged patients with multiple chronic conditions: A pooled analysis of three clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effects of a standardized community health worker (CHW) intervention on hospitalization. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Pooled data from three randomized clinical trials (n = 1340) conducted between 2011 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: The trials in this pooled analysis were conducted across diseases and settings, with a common study design, intervention, and outcome measures. Participants were patients living in high-poverty regions of Philadelphia and were predominantly Medicaid insured. They were randomly assigned to receive usual care versus IMPaCT, an intervention in which CHWs provide tailored social support, health behavior coaching, connection with resources, and health system navigation. Trial one (n = 446) tested two weeks of IMPaCT among hospitalized general medical patients. Trial two (n = 302) tested six months of IMPaCT among outpatients at two academic primary care clinics. Trial three (n = 592) tested six months of IMPaCT among outpatients at academic, Veterans Affairs (VA), and Federally Qualified Health Center primary care practices. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The primary outcome for this study was all-cause hospitalization, as measured by total number of hospital days per patient. Hospitalization data were collected from statewide or VA databases at 30 days postenrollment in Trial 1, twelve months postenrollment in Trial 2, and nine months postenrollment in Trial 3. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Over 9398 observed patient months, the total number of hospital days per patient in the intervention group was 66 percent of the total in the control group (849 days for 674 intervention patients vs 1258 days for 660 control patients, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.66, P < .0001). This reduction was driven by fewer hospitalizations per patient (0.27 vs 0.34, P < .0001) and shorter mean length of stay (4.72 vs 5.57 days, P = .03). The intervention also decreased rates of hospitalization outside patients' primary health system (18.8 percent vs 34.8 percent, P = .0023). CONCLUSIONS: Data from three randomized clinical trials across multiple settings show that a standardized CHW intervention reduced total hospital days and hospitalizations outside the primary health system. This is the largest analysis of randomized trials to demonstrate reductions in hospitalization with a health system-based social intervention.

Evidence-Based Community Health Worker Program Addresses Unmet Social Needs And Generates Positive Return On Investment.

Interventions that address socioeconomic determinants of health are receiving considerable attention from policy makers and health care executives. The interest is fueled in part by expected returns on investment. However, many current estimates of returns on investment are likely overestimated, because they are based on pre-post study designs that are susceptible to regression to the mean. We present a return-on-investment analysis that is based on a randomized controlled trial of Individualized Management for Patient-Centered Targets (IMPaCT), a standardized community health worker intervention that addresses unmet social needs for disadvantaged people. We found that every dollar invested in the intervention would return $2.47 to an average Medicaid payer within the fiscal year.

Estimating scaled treatment effects with multiple outcomes.

In classical study designs, the aim is often to learn about the effects of a treatment or intervention on a single outcome; in many modern studies, however, data on multiple outcomes are collected and it is of interest to explore effects on multiple outcomes simultaneously. Such designs can be particularly useful in patient-centered research, where different outcomes might be more or less important to different patients. In this paper, we propose scaled effect measures (via potential outcomes) that translate effects on multiple outcomes to a common scale, using mean-variance and median-interquartile range based standardizations. We present efficient, nonparametric, doubly robust methods for estimating these scaled effects (and weighted average summary measures), and for testing the null hypothesis that treatment affects all outcomes equally. We also discuss methods for exploring how treatment effects depend on covariates (i.e., effect modification). In addition to describing efficiency theory for our estimands and the asymptotic behavior of our estimators, we illustrate the methods in a simulation study and a data analysis. Importantly, and in contrast to much of the literature concerning effects on multiple outcomes, our methods are nonparametric and can be used not only in randomized trials to yield increased efficiency, but also in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates to reduce confounding bias.

Effect of Community Health Worker Support on Clinical Outcomes of Low-Income Patients Across Primary Care Facilities: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Addressing the social determinants of health has been difficult for health systems to operationalize. Objective: To assess a standardized intervention, Individualized Management for Patient-Centered Targets (IMPaCT), delivered by community health workers (CHWs) across 3 health systems. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-armed, single-blind, multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited patients from 3 primary care facilities in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, between January 28, 2015, and March 28, 2016. Patients who resided in a high-poverty zip code, were uninsured or publicly insured, and who had a diagnosis for 2 or more chronic diseases were recruited, and patients were randomized to either the CHW intervention or the control arm (goal setting only). Follow-up assessments were conducted at 6 and 9 months after enrollment. Data were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach from June 2017 to March 2018. Intervention: Participants set a chronic disease management goal with their primary care physician; those randomized to the CHW intervention received 6 months of tailored support. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in self-rated physical health. The secondary outcomes were self-rated mental health, chronic disease control, patient activation, patient-reported quality of primary care, and all-cause hospitalization. Results: Of the 592 participants, 370 (62.5%) were female, with a mean (SD) age of 52.6 (11.1) years. Participants in both arms had similar improvements in self-rated physical health (mean [SD], 1.8 [11.2] vs 1.6 [9.9]; P = .89). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to report the highest quality of care (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4; risk difference [RD], 0.12; P < .001) and spent fewer total days in the hospital at 6 months (155 days vs 345 days; absolute event rate reduction, 69%) and 9 months (300 days vs 471 days; absolute event rate reduction, 65%). This reduction was driven by a shorter average length of stay (difference, -3.1 days; 95% CI, -6.33 to 0.22; P = .06) and a lower mean number of hospitalizations (difference, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.0; P = .07) among patients who were hospitalized. Patients in the intervention group had a lower odds of repeat hospitalizations (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9; RD, -0.24; P = .02), including 30-day readmissions (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9; RD, -0.17; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: A standardized intervention did not improve self-rated health but did improve the patient-perceived quality of care while reducing hospitalizations, suggesting that health systems may use a standardized intervention to address the social determinants of health. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02347787.

Heart Failure Home Management Challenges and Reasons for Readmission: a Qualitative Study to Understand the Patient's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure patients have high 30-day hospital readmission rates. Interventions designed to prevent readmissions have had mixed success. Understanding heart failure home management through the patient's experience may reframe the readmission "problem" and, ultimately, inform alternative strategies. OBJECTIVE: To understand patient and caregiver challenges to heart failure home management and perceived reasons for readmission. DESIGN: Observational qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Heart failure patients were recruited from two hospitals and included those who were hospitalized for heart failure at least twice within 30 days and those who had been recently discharged after their first heart failure admission. APPROACH: Open-ended, semi-structured interviews. Conclusions vetted using focus groups. KEY RESULTS: Semi-structured interviews with 31 patients revealed a combination of physical and socio-emotional influences on patients' home heart failure management. Major themes identified were home management as a struggle between adherence and adaptation, and hospital readmission as a rational choice in response to distressing symptoms. Patients identified uncertainty regarding recommendations, caused by unclear instructions and temporal incongruence between behavior and symptom onset. This uncertainty impaired their competence in making routine management decisions, resulting in a cycle of limit testing and decreasing adherence. Patients reported experiencing hopelessness and frustration in response to perceiving a deteriorating functional status. This led some to a cycle of despair characterized by worsening adherence and negative emotions. As these cycles progressed and distressing symptoms worsened, patients viewed the hospital as the safest place for recovery and not a "negative" outcome. CONCLUSION: Cycles of limit testing and despair represent important patient-centered struggles in managing heart failure. The resulting distress and fear make readmission a rational choice for patients rather than a negative outcome. Interventions (e.g., palliative care) that focus on methods to address these patient-centered factors should be further studied rather than methods to reduce hospital readmissions.

Why Effective Interventions Do Not Work for All Patients: Exploring Variation in Response to a Chronic Disease Management Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Half of all Americans have a chronic disease. Promoting healthy behaviors to decrease this burden is a national priority. A number of behavioral interventions have proven efficacy; yet even the most effective of these has high levels of nonresponse. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we explore variation in response to an evidence-based community health worker (CHW) intervention for chronic disease management. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used a convergent parallel design that combined a randomized controlled trial with a qualitative process evaluation that triangulated chart abstraction, in-depth interviews and participant observation. SUBJECTS: Eligible patients lived in a high-poverty region and were diagnosed with 2 or more of the following chronic diseases: diabetes, obesity, hypertension or tobacco dependence. There were 302 patients in the trial, 150 of whom were randomly assigned to the CHW intervention. Twenty patients and their CHWs were included in the qualitative evaluation. RESULTS: We found minimal differences between responders and nonresponders by sociodemographic or clinical characteristics. A qualitative process evaluation revealed that health behavior change was challenging for all patients and most experienced failure (ie, gaining weight or relapsing with cigarettes) along the way. Responders seemed to increase their resolve after failed attempts at health behavior change, while nonresponders became discouraged and "shut down." CONCLUSIONS: Failure is a common and consequential aspect of health behavior change; a deeper understanding of failure should inform chronic disease interventions.

Incorporating patient-centered factors into heart failure readmission risk prediction: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Capturing and incorporating patient-centered factors into 30-day readmission risk prediction after hospitalized heart failure (HF) could improve the modest performance of current models. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods approach, we developed a patient-centered survey and evaluated the additional predictive utility of the survey compared to a traditional readmission risk model (the Krumholz et al. model). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic quantified the performance of both models. We measured the amount of model improvement with the addition of patient-centered factors to the Krumholz et al. model with the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). In an exploratory analysis, we used hierarchical clustering algorithms to identify groups with similar survey responses and tested for differences between clusters using standard descriptive statistics. RESULTS: From 3/24/2014 to 3/12/2015, 183 patients hospitalized with HF were enrolled from an urban, academic health system and followed for 30days after discharge. The Krumholz et al. plus patient-centered factors model had similar-to-slightly lower performance (AUC [95%CI]:0.62 [0.52, 0.71]; goodness-of-fit P=.10) than the Krumholz et al. model (AUC [95%CI]:0.66 [0.57, 0.76]; goodness-of-fit P=.19). The IDI (95%CI) was 0.003 (-0.014,0.020). We identified three patient clusters based on patient-centered survey responses. The clusters differed with respect to gender, self-rated health, employment status, and prior hospitalization frequency (all P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of patient-centered factors did not improve 30-day readmission model performance. Rather than designing interventions based on predicted readmission risk, tailoring interventions to all patients, based on their characteristics, could inform the design of targeted, readmission reduction strategies.

Understanding Pediatric Caretakers' Views on Obtaining Medical Care for Low-acuity Illness.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of low-acuity emergency department (ED) visits are by patients under 18 years of age. Results from prior interventions designed to reduce low-acuity pediatric ED use have been mixed or poorly sustained, perhaps because they were not informed by patient and caretakers' perspectives. The objective of this study was to explore caretaker decision-making processes, values, and priorities when deciding to seek care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews of caretakers in both emergency and primary care settings, incorporating stimulated recall methodology. We also explored receptiveness to two care delivery innovations: use of community health workers (CHWs) and video teleconferencing. RESULTS: Interviews of 57 caretakers identified multiple barriers to accessing primary care for their children's acute illness, including transportation, work constraints, and childcare. Frequent ED users lacked reliable social supports to overcome barriers. Fear of unforeseen health outcomes and a lack of trust in unfamiliar providers also influenced decision-making, rather than lack of general knowledge about minor illness. Receptiveness to CHWs was mixed, reflecting concerns for privacy and level of expertise. The option of video teleconferencing for low-acuity care was well received by caretakers. CONCLUSIONS: Caretakers who used the ED frequently had limited social support and reported difficulty accessing care when compared to other caretakers. Fear also motivated care seeking and a desire for immediate medical care. Teleconferencing for low-acuity visits may be a useful health care delivery tool to reduce access barriers and provide rapid reassurance without engaging the ED.