Parents' adherence to pediatric health and safety guidelines: Importance of patient-provider relationships.

OBJECTIVE: To examine 1) parent-provider communication about pediatric health/safety guidelines, 2) trust in child's provider, 3) comfort discussing guidelines, 4) agreement with guideline advice, 5) self-efficacy following guidelines, and their impact on guideline adherence. METHOD: 256 parents of children ages 0-6 completed an online survey about sunscreen use, newborn Vitamin K injections, influenza vaccination, routine vaccination, car seats, infant safe sleep, furniture anchoring, large trampoline use, and firearm safety. Multivariable models regressed: 1) communication about each guideline on parents' corresponding guideline adherence; 2) trust, comfort discussing guidelines, agreement with guideline advice, self-efficacy, on parents' total guideline adherence. RESULTS: Communication about furniture anchoring (OR = 2.26), sunscreen (OR = 5.28), Vitamin K injections (OR = 3.20), influenza vaccination (OR = 13.71), routine vaccination (OR = 6.43), car seats (OR = 6.15), and infant safe sleep (OR = 3.40) related to corresponding guideline adherence (ps < 0.05). Firearm safety communication was not related to adherence (OR = 1.11, n.s.). Trampoline communication related to lower likelihood of trampoline guideline adherence (OR = 0.24, p = 0.001). Agreement with guideline advice (ß = 0.35), trust (ß = 0.34), self-efficacy (ß = 0.45), comfort discussing guidelines (ß = 0.35) positively related to total guideline adherence (ps < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Findings underscore the importance of provider communication about health/safety guidelines. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Providers should respectfully engage and build relationships with parents to support health/safety guideline adherence.

Smokers' unprompted comments on cigarette additives during conversations about the genetic basis for nicotine addiction: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Research designed to elicit smokers' cognitive and affective reactions to information about chemicals that tobacco companies add to cigarettes ("additives") found that knowledge is limited. However, little is known about smokers' unprompted thoughts and feelings about additives. Such information could be used to shape future communication efforts. We explored the content and possible functions of spontaneous statements about cigarette additives made by smokers during a study examining reactions to learning about the genetic link to nicotine addiction. METHODS: Adult smokers (N = 84) were recruited from a medium-sized Midwestern city. Focus groups (N = 13) were conducted between April-September 2012. Data were analyzed by 2 coders using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Comments about cigarette additives arose without prompting by the focus group moderator. Three main themes were identified: (1) discussing additives helped participants navigate the conceptual link between smoking and genetics, (2) additives were discussed as an alternative mechanism for addiction to cigarettes, and (3) additives provided an alternative mechanism by which cigarette smoking exacerbates physical harm. Notably, discussion of additives contained a pervasive tone of mistrust illustrated by words like "they" and "them," by statements of uncertainty such as "you don't know what they're putting into cigarettes," and by negative affective verbalizations such as "nasty" and "disgusting". CONCLUSIONS: Participants had distinct beliefs about cigarette additives, each of which seemed to serve a purpose. Although mistrust may complicate communication about the health risks of tobacco use, health communication experts could use smokers' existing beliefs and feelings to better design more effective anti-smoking messages.

Stakeholders' Perspectives on Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Recognizing Ways to Improve Shared Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) is an elective, preference-sensitive decision made during a stressful, time-pressured period after a cancer diagnosis. Shared decision making (SDM) can improve decision quality about preference-sensitive choices. Stakeholders' perspectives on ways to support PMBR decision-making were explored. METHODS: Forty semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (20 postmastectomy patients, 10 PMBR surgeons, 10 PMBR nurses) were conducted. Clinicians were recruited from diverse practices across the United States. Patients were recruited using purposive sampling with varying PMBR experiences, including no reconstruction. The interview guide was based on an implementation research framework. Themes were identified using grounded theory approach, based on frequency and emotive force conveyed. RESULTS: Engagement in SDM was variable. Some patients wanted more information about PMBR from clinicians, particularly about risks. Some clinicians acknowledged highlighting benefits and downplaying risks. Many patients felt pressured to make a choice by their clinicians. Clinicians who successfully engaged patients through decisions often used outside resources to supplement conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-clinician trust was critical to high-quality decisions, and many patients expressed decision regret when they were not engaged in PMBR discussions. Patients often perceived a race- or age-related bias in clinician information sharing. Interventions to support SDM may enhance decision quality and reduce decision regret about PMBR, ultimately improving patient-centered care for women with breast cancer.

Clinical trainees' responses to parents who question evidence-based recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: We examined clinicians' attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral intentions about discussing evidence and eliciting values when patients question recommendations. METHODS: We randomized trainees to read one of three scenarios about a parent of a one-year-old: 1) overuse (parent requests antibiotics for presumed viral infection); 2) equipoise (tubes for recurrent ear infections); 3) underuse (parent hesitates about vaccination). Participants then answered survey questions. Outcomes included time spent clarifying values (primary), attitudes and beliefs about the parent (secondary). RESULTS: 132 medical students and pediatric residents enrolled; 119 (90%) completed the study. There were no differences in time participants would spend clarifying values (antibiotics 26±12%; equipoise 28±11%; vaccine-hesitancy 22±11%; p=0.058). Participants in the vaccine-hesitancy group (vs. other groups) would spend less time answering questions (p=0.006). Participants in the antibiotics (vs. equipoise) group perceived the parent as difficult (p=0.0002). Those in the vaccine-hesitancy group (vs. other groups) perceived the parent as difficult, saw less value in the conversation, and had lower respect for the parent's views (all ps<0.0001). Most (76%) wanted additional training navigating these discussions. CONCLUSION: Clinicians' attitudes may impact conversations when patients question evidence-based recommendations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should consider ways to discuss evidence and clarify patients' values to optimize health without damaging patient-clinician relationships.

The Impact of the Nurses' Health Study on Population Health: Prevention, Translation, and Control.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the overall impact of the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) over the past 40 years on the health of populations through its contributions on prevention, translation, and control. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of the findings of the NHS, NHS II, and NHS3 between 1976 and 2016. RESULTS: The NHS has generated significant findings about the associations between (1) smoking and type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, colorectal and pancreatic cancer, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and eye diseases; (2) physical activity and cardiovascular diseases, breast cancer, psoriasis, and neurodegeneration; (3) obesity and cardiovascular diseases, numerous cancer sites, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, kidney stones, and eye diseases; (4) oral contraceptives and cardiovascular disease, melanoma, and breast, colorectal, and ovarian cancer; (5) hormone therapy and cardiovascular diseases, breast and endometrial cancer, and neurodegeneration; (6) endogenous hormones and breast cancer; (7) dietary factors and type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, breast and pancreatic cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, neurodegeneration, multiple sclerosis, kidney stones, and eye diseases; and (8) sleep and shift work and chronic diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The NHS findings have influenced public health policy and practice both locally and globally to improve women's health.

Show Me My Health Plans: Using a Decision Aid to Improve Decisions in the Federal Health Insurance Marketplace.

INTRODUCTION: Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, more than 12 million individuals have enrolled in the health insurance marketplace. Without support, many struggle to make an informed plan choice that meets their health and financial needs. METHODS: We designed and evaluated a decision aid, Show Me My Health Plans (SMHP), that provides education, preference assessment, and an annual out-of-pocket cost calculator with plan recommendations produced by a tailored, risk-adjusted algorithm incorporating age, gender, and health status. We evaluated whether SMHP compared to HealthCare.gov improved health insurance decision quality and the match between plan choice, needs, and preferences among 328 Missourians enrolling in the marketplace. RESULTS: Participants who used SMHP had higher health insurance knowledge (LS-Mean = 78 vs. 62; P < 0.001), decision self-efficacy (LS-Mean = 83 vs. 75; P < 0.002), confidence in their choice (LS-Mean = 3.5 vs. 2.9; P < 0.001), and improved health insurance literacy (odds ratio = 2.52, P <0.001) compared to participants using HealthCare.gov. Those using SMHP were 10.3 times more likely to select a silver- or gold-tier plan (P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: SMHP can improve health insurance decision quality and the odds that consumers select an insurance plan with coverage likely needed to meet their health needs. This study represents a unique context through which to apply principles of decision support to improve health insurance choices.