Team-based home blood pressure monitoring for blood pressure equity a protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Home Blood Pressure Monitoring (HBPM) that includes a team with a clinical pharmacist is an evidence-based intervention that improves blood pressure (BP). Yet, strategies for promoting its adoption in primary care are lacking. We developed potentially feasible and sustainable implementation strategies to improve hypertension control and BP equity. METHODS: We assessed barriers and facilitators to HBPM and iteratively adapted implementation strategies through key informative interviews and guidance from a multistakeholder stakeholder team involving investigators, clinicians, and practice administration. RESULTS: Strategies include: 1) pro-active outreach to patients; 2) provision of BP devices; 3) deployment of automated bidirectional texting to support patients through education messages for patients to transmit their readings to the clinical team; 3) a hypertension visit note template; 4) monthly audit and feedback reports on progress to the team; and 5) training to the patients and teams. We will use a stepped wedge randomized trial to assess RE-AIM outcomes. These are defined as follows Reach: the proportion of eligible patients who agree to participate in the BP texting; Effectiveness: the proportion of eligible patients with their last BP reading <140/90 (six months); Adoption: the proportion of patients invited to the BP texting; Implementation: patients who text their BP reading ≥10 of days per month; and Maintenance: sustained BP control post-intervention (twelve months). We will also examine RE-AIM metrics stratified by race and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Findings will inform the impact of strategies for the adoption of team-based HPBM and the impact of the intervention on hypertension control and equity. REGISTRATION DETAILS: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT05488795.

Training Family Medicine Residents to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey of Program Directors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Public health training became particularly important for family medicine (FM) residency training programs amid the COVID-19 pandemic; the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME IV.C.19) requires a structured curriculum in which residents address population health. Our primary goal was to understand if, and to what extent, public health interventions trainings were incorporated into FM residency training programs amid the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized programs with more resources (eg, university affiliates) would be better able to incorporate the training compared to those without such resources (ie, nonuniversity affiliates). METHODS: In 2021, we incorporated items addressing COVID-19 public health training competencies into the 2021 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance national survey of FM residency program directors. The items addressed the type of training provided, mode of delivery, barriers to providing training, perceived importance of training, and support in delivering training. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 46.4% (n=287/619). All programs offered at least some training to residents. There were no statistically significant differences in training intensity between university and nonuniversity affiliates. The length of time an FM residency director spent in their position was positively associated with training intensity (r=0.1430, P=.0252). The biggest barrier to providing the trainings was the need to devote time to other curriculum requirements. CONCLUSIONS: FM residency programs were able to provide some public health interventions training during the pandemic. With increased support and resources, FM resident training curricula may better prepare FM residents now in anticipation of a future pandemic.

Evidence reversals in primary care research: a study of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-Based Medicine is built on the premise that clinicians can be more confident when their decisions are grounded in high-quality evidence. Furthermore, evidence from studies involving patient-oriented outcomes is preferred when making decisions about tests or treatments. Ideally, the findings of relevant and valid trials should be stable over time, that is, unlikely to be reversed in subsequent research. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the stability of evidence from trials relevant to primary healthcare and to identify study characteristics associated with their reversal. METHODS: We studied synopses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2002 to 2005 as "Daily POEMs" (Patient Oriented Evidence that Matters). The initial evidence (E1) from these POEMs (2002-2005) was compared with the updated evidence (E2) on that same topic in a summary resource (DynaMed 2019). Two physician-raters independently categorized each POEM-RCT as (i) reversed when E1 ≠ E2, or as (ii) not reversed, when E1 = E2. For all "Evidence Reversals" (E1 ≠ E2), we assessed the direction of change in the evidence. RESULTS: We evaluated 408 POEMs on RCTs. Of those, 35 (9%; 95% confidence interval [6-12]) were identified as reversed, 359 (88%) were identified as not reversed, and 14 (3%) were indeterminate. On average, this represents about 2 evidence reversals per annum for POEMs about RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Over 12-17 years, 9% of RCTs summarized as POEMs are reversed. Information alerting services that apply strict criteria for relevance and validity of clinical information are likely to identify RCTs whose findings are stable over time.

We studied the extent to which evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relevant to primary care is contradicted in subsequent research. When it was, we identified this event as an evidence reversal. In addition, we sought to identify characteristics of RCTs associated with their reversal. From 408 RCTs published during the period 2002­2005, study characteristics such as sample size were identified and extracted. Subsequently, we compared the evidence reported in each of these RCTs with the evidence on that same topic in an online summary resource in 2019. This allowed us to classify each RCT in one of the following 3 categories: evidence confirmed, reversed, or uncertain if this evidence is confirmed or reversed. Over 12­17 years of follow-up time, the findings of about 9 in 10 RCTs summarized as POEMs are stable. We found no statistically significant associations between trial characteristics and their subsequent reversal. This low rate of evidence reversal is good news for the RCTs that are used to inform decision-making.

In pursuit of a valid Information Assessment Method for continuing education: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The Information Assessment Method (IAM) is a popular tool for continuing education and knowledge translation. After a search for information, the IAM allows the health professional to report what was the search objective, its cognitive impact, as well as any use and patient health benefit associated with the retrieved health information. In continuing education programs, professionals read health information, rate it using the IAM, and earn continuing education credit for this brief individual reflective learning activity. IAM items have been iteratively developed using literature reviews and qualitative studies. Thus, our research question was: what is the content validity of IAM items from the users' perspective? METHODS: A two-step content validation study was conducted. In Step 1, we followed a mixed methods research design, and assessed the relevance and representativeness of IAM items. In this step, data from a longitudinal quantitative study and a qualitative multiple case study involving 40 family physicians were analyzed. In Step 2, IAM items were analyzed and modified based on a set of guiding principles by a multi-disciplinary expert panel. RESULTS: The content validity of 16 IAM items was supported, and these items were not changed. Nine other items were modified. Three new items were added, including two that were extensions of an existing item. CONCLUSION: A content validated version of the IAM (IAM 2011) is available for the continuing education of health professionals.

Feasibility of a knowledge translation CME program: Courriels Cochrane.

INTRODUCTION: Systematic literature reviews provide best evidence, but are underused by clinicians. Thus, integrating Cochrane reviews into continuing medical education (CME) is challenging. We designed a pilot CME program where summaries of Cochrane reviews (Courriels Cochrane) were disseminated by e-mail. Program participants automatically received CME credit for each Courriel Cochrane they rated. The feasibility of this program is reported (delivery, participation, and participant evaluation). METHOD: We recruited French-speaking physicians through the Canadian Medical Association. Program delivery and participation were documented. Participants rated the informational value of Courriels Cochrane using the Information Assessment Method (IAM), which documented their reflective learning (relevance, cognitive impact, use for a patient, expected health benefits). IAM responses were aggregated and analyzed. RESULTS: The program was delivered as planned. Thirty Courriels Cochrane were delivered to 985 physicians, and 127 (12.9%) completed at least one IAM questionnaire. Out of 1109 Courriels Cochrane ratings, 973 (87.7%) conta-ined 1 or more types of positive cognitive impact, while 835 (75.3%) were clinically relevant. Participants reported the use of information for a patient and expected health benefits in 595 (53.7%) and 569 (51.3%) ratings, respectively. DISCUSSION: Program delivery required partnering with 5 organizations. Participants valued Courriels Cochrane. IAM ratings documented their reflective learning. The aggregation of IAM ratings documented 3 levels of CME outcomes: participation, learning, and performance. This evaluation study demonstrates the feasibility of the Courriels Cochrane as an approach to further disseminate Cochrane systematic literature reviews to clinicians and document self-reported knowledge translation associated with Cochrane reviews.