Evaluation of a Remote Patient Monitoring Program During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Case Study With a Mixed Methods Explanatory Sequential Design.

BACKGROUND: Community health center (CHC) patients experience a disproportionately high prevalence of chronic conditions and barriers to accessing technologies that might support the management of these conditions. One such technology includes tools used for remote patient monitoring (RPM), the use of which surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess how a CHC implemented an RPM program during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective case study used a mixed methods explanatory sequential design to evaluate a CHC's implementation of a suite of RPM tools during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses used electronic health record-extracted health outcomes data and semistructured interviews with the CHC's staff and patients participating in the RPM program. RESULTS: The CHC enrolled 147 patients in a hypertension RPM program. After 6 months of RPM use, mean systolic blood pressure (BP) was 13.4 mm Hg lower and mean diastolic BP 6.4 mm Hg lower, corresponding with an increase in hypertension control (BP<140/90 mm Hg) from 33.3% of patients to 81.5%. Considerable effort was dedicated to standing up the program, reinforced by organizational prioritization of chronic disease management, and by a clinician who championed program implementation. Noted barriers to implementation of the RPM program were limited initial training, lack of sustained support, and complexities related to the RPM device technology. CONCLUSIONS: While RPM technology holds promise for addressing chronic disease management, successful RPM program requires substantial investment in implementation support and technical assistance.

Implementation of Health IT for Cancer Screening in US Primary Care: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: A substantial percentage of the US population is not up to date on guideline-recommended cancer screenings. Identifying interventions that effectively improve screening rates would enhance the delivery of such screening. Interventions involving health IT (HIT) show promise, but much remains unknown about how HIT is optimized to support cancer screening in primary care. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify (1) HIT-based interventions that effectively support guideline concordance in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening provision and follow-up in the primary care setting and (2) barriers or facilitators to the implementation of effective HIT in this setting. METHODS: Following scoping review guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases for US-based studies from 2015 to 2021 that featured HIT targeting breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening in primary care. Studies were dual screened using a review criteria checklist. Data extraction was guided by the following implementation science frameworks: the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework; the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy; and implementation strategy reporting domains. It was also guided by the Integrated Technology Implementation Model that incorporates theories of both implementation science and technology adoption. Reporting was guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). RESULTS: A total of 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (85/101, 84.2%) involved electronic health record-based HIT interventions. The most common HIT function was clinical decision support, primarily used for panel management or at the point of care. Most studies related to HIT targeting colorectal cancer screening (83/101, 82.2%), followed by studies related to breast cancer screening (28/101, 27.7%), and cervical cancer screening (19/101, 18.8%). Improvements in cancer screening were associated with HIT-based interventions in most studies (36/54, 67% of colorectal cancer-relevant studies; 9/14, 64% of breast cancer-relevant studies; and 7/10, 70% of cervical cancer-relevant studies). Most studies (79/101, 78.2%) reported on the reach of certain interventions, while 17.8% (18/101) of the included studies reported on the adoption or maintenance. Reported barriers and facilitators to HIT adoption primarily related to inner context factors of primary care settings (eg, staffing and organizational policies that support or hinder HIT adoption). Implementation strategies for HIT adoption were reported in 23.8% (24/101) of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial evidence gaps regarding the effectiveness of HIT-based interventions, especially those targeting guideline-concordant breast and colorectal cancer screening in primary care. Even less is known about how to enhance the adoption of technologies that have been proven effective in supporting breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening. Research is needed to ensure that the potential benefits of effective HIT-based interventions equitably reach diverse primary care populations.

Cardiovascular disease risk management during COVID-19: in-person vs virtual visits.

OBJECTIVES: Limited research has assessed how virtual care (VC) affects cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management, especially in community clinic settings. This study assessed change in community clinic patients' CVD risk management during the COVID-19 pandemic and CVD risk factor control among patients who had primarily in-person or primarily VC visits. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective interrupted time-series analysis. METHODS: Data came from an electronic health record shared by 52 community clinics for index (March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020) and follow-up (July 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022) periods. Analyses compared follow-up period changes in slope and level of population monthly means of 10-year reversible CVD risk score, blood pressure (BP), and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) among patients whose completed follow-up period visits were primarily in person vs primarily VC. Propensity score weighting minimized confounding. RESULTS: There were 10,028 in-person and 6593 VC patients in CVD risk analyses, 9874 in-person and 5390 VC patients in BP analyses, and 8221 in-person and 4937 VC patients in HbA1c analyses. The VC group was more commonly younger, female, White, and urban. Mean reversible CVD risk, mean systolic BP, and percentage of BP measurements that were 140/90 mm Hg or higher increased significantly from index to follow-up periods in both groups. Rate of change between these periods was the same for all outcomes in both groups, regardless of care modality. CONCLUSIONS: Among community clinic patients with CVD risk, receiving a majority of care in person vs a majority of care via VC was not significantly associated with longitudinal trends in reversible CVD risk score or key CVD risk factors.

Pandemic-related practice changes and CVD risk management in community clinics.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding how the COVID-19 pandemic affected cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk monitoring in primary care may inform new approaches for addressing modifiable CVD risks. This study examined how pandemic-driven changes in primary care delivery affected CVD risk management processes. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective study used electronic health record data from patients at 70 primary care community clinics with scheduled appointments from September 1, 2018, to September 30, 2021. METHODS: Analyses examined associations between appointment type and select care process measures: appointment completion rates, time to appointment, and up-to-date documentation for blood pressure (BP) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). RESULTS: Of 1,179,542 eligible scheduled primary care appointments, completion rates were higher for virtual care (VC) vs in-person appointments (10.7 percentage points [PP]; 95% CI, 10.5-11.0; P < .001). Time to appointment was shorter for VC vs in-person appointments (-3.9 days; 95% CI, -4.1 to -3.7; P < .001). BP documentation was higher for appointments completed pre- vs post pandemic onset (16.2 PP; 95% CI, 16.0-16.5; P < .001) and for appointments completed in person vs VC (54.9 PP; 95% CI, 54.6-55.2; P < .001). HbA1c documentation was higher for completed appointments after pandemic onset vs before (5.9 PP; 95% CI, 5.1-6.7; P < .001) and for completed VC appointments vs in-person appointments (3.9 PP; 95% CI, 3.0-4.7; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: After pandemic onset, appointment completion rates were higher, time to appointment was shorter, HbA1c documentation increased, and BP documentation decreased. Future research should explore the advantages of using VC for CVD risk management while continuing to monitor for unintended consequences.

Finding meaning: a realist-informed perspective on social risk screening and relationships as mechanisms of change.

Background: Social risk screening rates in many US primary care settings remain low. This realist-informed evaluation explored the mechanisms through which a tailored coaching and technical training intervention impacted social risk screening uptake in 26 community clinics across the United States. Methods: Evaluation data sources included the documented content of interactions between the clinics and implementation support team and electronic health record (EHR) data. Following the realist approach, analysis was composed of iterative cycles of developing, testing and refining program theories about how the intervention did-or didn't-work, for whom, under what circumstances. Normalization Process Theory was applied to the realist program theories to enhance the explanatory power and transferability of the results. Results: Analysis identified three overarching realist program theories. First, clinic staff perceptions about the role of standardized social risk screening in person-centered care-considered "good" care and highly valued-strongly impacted receptivity to the intervention. Second, the physicality of the intervention materials facilitated collaboration and impacted clinic leaders' perception of the legitimacy of the social risk screening implementation work. Third, positive relationships between the implementation support team members, between the support team and clinic champions, and between clinic champions and staff motivated and inspired clinic staff to engage with the intervention and to tailor workflows to their settings' needs. Study clinics did not always exhibit the social risk screening patterns anticipated by the program theories due to discrepant definitions of success between clinic staff (improved ability to provide contextualized, person-centered care) and the trial (increased rates of EHR-documented social risk screening). Aligning the realist program theories with Normalization Process Theory constructs clarified that the intervention as implemented emphasized preparation over operationalization and appraisal, providing insight into why the intervention did not successfully embed sustained systematic social risk screening in participating clinics. Conclusion: The realist program theories highlighted the effectiveness and importance of intervention components and implementation strategies that support trusting relationships as mechanisms of change. This may be particularly important in social determinants of health work, which requires commitment and humility from health care providers and vulnerability on the part of patients.

Does Clinical Decision Support Increase Appropriate Medication Prescribing for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction?

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of a clinical decision support (CDS) system's recommendations on prescribing patterns targeting cardiovascular disease (CVD) when the recommendations are prioritized in order from greatest to least benefit toward overall CVD risk reduction. METHODS: Secondary analysis of trial data from September 20, 2018, to March 15, 2020, where 70 community health center clinics were cluster-randomized to the CDS intervention (42 clinics; 8 organizations) or control group (28 clinics; 7 organizations). Included patients were medication-naïve and aged 40 to 75 years with ≥1 uncontrolled cardiovascular disease risk factor, with known diabetes or cardiovascular disease, or ≥10% 10-year reversible CVD risk. RESULTS: Among eligible encounters with 29,771 patients, the probability of prescribing a medication targeting hypertension was greater at intervention clinic encounters when CDS was used (34.9% [95% CI, 31.5 to 38.3]) versus dismissed (29.6% [95% CI, 26.7 to 32.6]; P < .001), but not when compared with control clinic encounters (34.9% [95% CI, 31.1 to 38.7]; P = .998). Prescribing for dyslipidemia was significantly higher at intervention encounters where the CDS system was used (11.3% [95% CI, 9.3 to 13.3]) compared with dismissed (7.7% [95% CI, 6.1 to 9.3]; P = .003) and to control encounters (8.7% [95% CI, 7.0 to 10.4]; P = .044); smoking cessation medication showed a similar pattern. Except for dyslipidemia, prescribing rates increased according to their prioritization. CONCLUSIONS: Use of this CDS system was associated with significantly higher prescribing targeting most cardiovascular risk factors. These results highlight how displaying prioritized actions to reduce reversible CVD risk could improve risk management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03001713, https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Uptake of a Cervical Cancer Clinical Decision Support Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools that provide point-of-care reminders of patients' care needs may improve rates of guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening. However, uptake of such electronic health record (EHR)-based tools in primary care practices is often low. This study describes the frequency of factors associated with, and barriers and facilitators to adoption of a cervical cancer screening CDS tool (CC-tool) implemented in a network of community health centers. METHODS: This mixed-methods sequential explanatory study reports on CC-tool use among 480 community-based clinics, located across 18 states. Adoption of the CC-tool was measured as any instance of tool use (i.e., entry of cervical cancer screening results or follow-up plan) and as monthly tool use rates from November 1, 2018 (tool release date) to December 31, 2020. Adjusted odds and rates of tool use were evaluated using logistic and negative-binomial regression. Feedback from nine clinic staff representing six clinics during user-centered design sessions and semi-structured interviews with eight clinic staff from two additional clinics were conducted to assess barriers and facilitators to tool adoption. RESULTS: The CC-tool was used ≥1 time in 41% of study clinics during the analysis period. Clinics that ever used the tool and those with greater monthly tool use had, on average, more encounters, more patients from households at >138% federal poverty level, fewer pediatric encounters, higher up-to-date cervical cancer screening rates, and higher rates of abnormal cervical cancer screening results. Qualitative data indicated barriers to tool adoption, including lack of knowledge of the tool's existence, understanding of its functionalities, and training on its use. CONCLUSION: Without effective systems for informing users about new EHR functions, new or updated EHR tools are unlikely to be widely adopted, reducing their potential to improve health care quality and outcomes.

Implementation of Social Isolation Screening and an Integrated Community Resource Referral Platform.

BACKGROUND: Screening and referral programs for social isolation and loneliness in older patients increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in primary care settings to mitigate associated adverse health outcomes. This study explores community health centers' experiences implementing a social isolation and loneliness screening program involving a community resource referral platform integrated into the electronic health record to support referrals. METHODS: A formative mixed methods evaluation in 4 community health centers. Semistructured interviews, observation of implementation meetings, facilitated group discussions, surveys, and utilization data extracted from the electronic health record and community resource referral platform were collected and analyzed concurrently. RESULTS: Screening for social isolation and loneliness can heighten health center staff knowledge and prioritization of socially isolated older patients. Participants indicate using an integrated community resource referral platform may only be useful in certain circumstances, particularly for those located outside urban areas. The experiences of these health centers indicate that when implementing interventions to mitigate patients' social isolation and loneliness, it is necessary to consider other resource directories, needed adjustments to referral and documentation workflows, and potential impacts on patients and care teams. CONCLUSION: Screening older patients for social isolation could increase care team awareness of social risk; assistance related referral options should be considered carefully.

Implementation Support for a Social Risk Screening and Referral Process in Community Health Centers.

Evidence is needed about how to effectively support health care providers in implementing screening for social risks (adverse social determinants of health) and providing related referrals meant to address identified social risks. This need is greatest in underresourced care settings. The authors tested whether an implementation support intervention (6 months of technical assistance and coaching study clinics through a five-step implementation process) improved adoption of social risk activities in community health centers (CHCs). Thirty-one CHC clinics were block-randomized to six wedges that occurred sequentially. Over the 45-month study period from March 2018 to December 2021, data were collected for 6 or more months preintervention, the 6-month intervention period, and 6 or more months postintervention. The authors calculated clinic-level monthly rates of social risk screening results that were entered at in-person encounters and rates of social risk-related referrals. Secondary analyses measured impacts on diabetes-related outcomes. Intervention impact was assessed by comparing clinic performance based on whether they had versus had not yet received the intervention in the preintervention period compared with the intervention and postintervention periods. In assessing the results, the authors note that five clinics withdrew from the study for various bandwidth-related reasons. Of the remaining 26, a total of 19 fully or partially completed all 5 implementation steps, and 7 fully or partially completed at least the first 3 steps. Social risk screening was 2.45 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-4.39) higher during the intervention period compared with the preintervention period; this impact was not sustained postintervention (rate ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.64-7.27). No significant difference was seen in social risk referral rates during the intervention or postintervention periods. The intervention was associated with greater blood pressure control among patients with diabetes and lower rates of diabetes biomarker screening postintervention. All results must be interpreted considering that the Covid-19 pandemic began midway through the trial, which affected care delivery generally and patients at CHCs particularly. Finally, the study results show that adaptive implementation support was effective at temporarily increasing social risk screening. It is possible that the intervention did not adequately address barriers to sustained implementation or that 6 months was not long enough to cement this change. Underresourced clinics may struggle to participate in support activities over longer periods without adequate resources, even if lengthier support is needed. As policies start requiring documentation of social risk activities, safety-net clinics may be unable to meet these requirements without adequate financial and coaching/technical support.

Precision Ecologic Medicine: Tailoring Care to Mitigate Impacts of Climate Change.

As recent extreme weather events demonstrate, climate change presents unprecedented and increasing health risks, disproportionately so for disadvantaged communities in the U.S. already experiencing health disparities. As patients in these frontline communities live through extreme weather events, socioeconomic and health stressors are compounded; thus, their healthcare teams will need tools to provide precision ecologic medicine approaches to their care. Many primary care teams are taking actionable steps to bring community-level socioeconomic data ("community vital signs") into electronic medical records, to facilitate tailoring care based on a given patient's circumstances. This work can be extended to include environmental risk data, thus equipping healthcare teams with an awareness of clinical and community vital signs and making them better positioned to mitigate climate impacts on health. For example, if healthcare teams can easily identify patients who have multiple chronic conditions and live in an urban heat island, they can proactively arrange to "prescribe" an air conditioner, heat pump, and/or air purifier. Or, when a severe storm/heat event/poor air quality event is predicted, they can take preemptive steps to get help to patients at high medical and socioeconomic risk, rather than waiting for them to arrive in the emergency department. Advances in health information technologies now make it technically feasible to integrate a wealth of publicly-available community-level data into EMRs. Efforts to bring this contextual data into clinical settings must be accelerated to equip healthcare teams to provide precision ecologic medicine interventions to their patients.

Adoption of shared decision-making and clinical decision support for reducing cardiovascular disease risk in community health centers.

Objective: Electronic health record (EHR)-based shared decision-making (SDM) and clinical decision support (CDS) systems can improve cardiovascular disease (CVD) care quality and risk factor management. Use of the CV Wizard system showed a beneficial effect on high-risk community health center (CHC) patients' CVD risk within an effectiveness trial, but system adoption was low overall. We assessed which multi-level characteristics were associated with system use. Materials and Methods: Analyses included 80 195 encounters with 17 931 patients with high CVD risk and/or uncontrolled risk factors at 42 clinics in September 2018-March 2020. Data came from the CV Wizard repository and EHR data, and a survey of 44 clinic providers. Adjusted, mixed-effects multivariate Poisson regression analyses assessed factors associated with system use. We included clinic- and provider-level clustering as random effects to account for nested data. Results: Likelihood of system use was significantly higher in encounters with patients with higher CVD risk and at longer encounters, and lower when providers were >10 minutes behind schedule, among other factors. Survey participants reported generally high satisfaction with the system but were less likely to use it when there were time constraints or when rooming staff did not print the system output for the provider. Discussion: CHC providers prioritize using this system for patients with the greatest CVD risk, when time permits, and when rooming staff make the information readily available. CHCs' financial constraints create substantial challenges to addressing barriers to improved system use, with health equity implications. Conclusion: Research is needed on improving SDM and CDS adoption in CHCs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03001713, https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Social Risk Screening and Response Equity: Assessment by Race, Ethnicity, and Language in Community Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Little has previously been reported about the implementation of social risk screening across racial/ethnic/language groups. To address this knowledge gap, the associations between race/ethnicity/language, social risk screening, and patient-reported social risks were examined among adult patients at community health centers. METHODS: Patient- and encounter-level data from 2016 to 2020 from 651 community health centers in 21 U.S. states were used; data were extracted from a shared Epic electronic health record and analyzed between December 2020 and February 2022. In adjusted logistic regression analyses stratified by language, robust sandwich variance SE estimators were applied with clustering on patient's primary care facility. RESULTS: Social risk screening occurred at 30% of health centers; 11% of eligible adult patients were screened. Screening and reported needs varied significantly by race/ethnicity/language. Black Hispanic and Black non-Hispanic patients were approximately twice as likely to be screened, and Hispanic White patients were 28% less likely to be screened than non-Hispanic White patients. Hispanic Black patients were 87% less likely to report social risks than non-Hispanic White patients. Among patients who preferred a language other than English or Spanish, Black Hispanic patients were 90% less likely to report social needs than non-Hispanic White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Social risk screening documentation and patient reports of social risks differed by race/ethnicity/language in community health centers. Although social care initiatives are intended to promote health equity, inequitable screening practices could inadvertently undermine this goal. Future implementation research should explore strategies for equitable screening and related interventions.

Food Insecurity Screening in Primary Care: Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Encounter Modality.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for food insecurity in clinical settings is recommended, but implementation varies widely. This study evaluated the prevalence of screening for food insecurity and other social risks in telehealth versus in-person encounters during the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in screening before versus after widespread COVID-19 vaccine availability. METHODS: These cross-sectional analyses used electronic health record and ancillary clinic data from a national network of 400+ community health centers with a shared electronic health record. Food insecurity screening was characterized in 2022 in a sample of 275,465 first encounters for routine primary care at any network clinic during March 11, 2020-December 31, 2021. An adjusted multivariate multilevel probit model estimated screening prevalence on the basis of encounter mode (in-person versus telehealth) and time period (initial pandemic versus after vaccine availability) in a random subsample of 11,000 encounters. RESULTS: Encounter mode was related to food insecurity screening (p<0.0001), with an estimated 9.2% screening rate during in-person encounters, compared with 5.1% at telehealth encounters. There was an interaction between time period and encounter mode (p<0.0001), with higher screening prevalence at in-person versus telehealth encounters after COVID-19 vaccines were available (11.7% vs 4.9%) than before vaccines were available (7.8% vs 5.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Food insecurity screening in first primary care encounters is low overall, with lower rates during telehealth visits and the earlier phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research should explore the methods for enhancing social risk screening in telehealth encounters.

Patient-Reported Social Risks and Clinician Decision Making: Results of a Clinician Survey in Primary Care Community Health Centers.

PURPOSE: To assess the extent that patients' social determinants of health (SDOH) influence safety-net primary care clinicians' decisions at the point of care; examine how that information comes to the clinician's attention; and analyze clinician, patient, and encounter characteristics associated with the use of SDOH data in clinical decision making. METHODS: Thirty-eight clinicians working in 21 clinics were prompted to complete 2 short card surveys embedded in the electronic health record (EHR) daily for 3 weeks. Survey data were matched with clinician-, encounter-, and patient-level variables from the EHR. Descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equation models were used to assess relationships between the variables and the clinician reported use of SDOH data to inform care. RESULTS: Social determinants of health were reported to influence care in 35% of surveyed encounters. The most common sources of information on patients' SDOH were conversations with patients (76%), prior knowledge (64%), and the EHR (46%). Social determinants of health were significantly more likely to influence care among male and non-English-speaking patients, and those with discrete SDOH screening data documented in the EHR. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic health records present an opportunity to support clinicians integrating information about patients' social and economic circumstances into care planning. Study findings suggest that SDOH information from standardized screening documented in the EHR, combined with patient-clinician conversations, may enable social risk-adjusted care. Electronic health record tools and clinic workflows could be used to support both documentation and conversations. Study results also identified factors that may cue clinicians to include SDOH information in point-of-care decision-making. Future research should explore this topic further.

Partner-developed electronic health record tools to facilitate social risk-informed care planning.

OBJECTIVE: Increased social risk data collection in health care settings presents new opportunities to apply this information to improve patient outcomes. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools can support these applications. We conducted a participatory engagement process to develop electronic health record (EHR)-based CDS tools to facilitate social risk-informed care plan adjustments in community health centers (CHCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified potential care plan adaptations through systematic reviews of hypertension and diabetes clinical guidelines. The results were used to inform an engagement process in which CHC staff and patients provided feedback on potential adjustments identified in the guideline reviews and on tool form and functions that could help CHC teams implement these suggested adjustments for patients with social risks. RESULTS: Partners universally prioritized tools for social risk screening and documentation. Additional high-priority content included adjusting medication costs and changing follow-up plans based on reported social risks. Most content recommendations reflected partners' interests in encouraging provider-patient dialogue about care plan adaptations specific to patients' social needs. Partners recommended CDS tool functions such as alerts and shortcuts to facilitate and efficiently document social risk-informed care plan adjustments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: CDS tools were designed to support CHC providers and staff to more consistently tailor care based on information about patients' social context and thereby enhance patients' ability to adhere to care plans. While such adjustments occur on an ad hoc basis in many care settings, these are among the first tools designed both to systematize and document these activities.

Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control.

BACKGROUND: In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. METHODS: In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. RESULTS: Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.

Area-level social determinants of health and individual-level social risks: Assessing predictive ability and biases in social risk screening.

Introduction: Area-level social determinants of health (SDoH) and individual-level social risks are different, yet area-level measures are frequently used as proxies for individual-level social risks. This study assessed whether demographic factors were associated with patients being screened for individual-level social risks, the percentage who screened positive for social risks, and the association between SDoH and patient-reported social risks in a nationwide network of community-based health centers. Methods: Electronic health record data from 1,330,201 patients with health center visits in 2021 were analyzed using multilevel logistic regression. Associations between patient characteristics, screening receipt, and screening positive for social risks (e.g., food insecurity, housing instability, transportation insecurity) were assessed. The predictive ability of three commonly used SDoH measures (Area Deprivation Index, Social Deprivation Index, Material Community Deprivation Index) in identifying individual-level social risks was also evaluated. Results: Of 244,155 (18%) patients screened for social risks, 61,414 (25.2%) screened positive. Sex, race/ethnicity, language preference, and payer were associated with both social risk screening and positivity. Significant health system-level variation in both screening and positivity was observed, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.55 for social risk screening and 0.38 for positivity. The three area-level SDoH measures had low accuracy, sensitivity, and area under the curve when used to predict individual social needs. Conclusion: Area-level SDoH measures may provide valuable information about the communities where patients live. However, policymakers, healthcare administrators, and researchers should exercise caution when using area-level adverse SDoH measures to identify individual-level social risks.

Social Care Recommendations in National Diabetes Treatment Guidelines.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: An expanding body of research documents associations between socioeconomic circumstances and health outcomes, which has led health care institutions to invest in new activities to identify and address patients' social circumstances in the context of care delivery. Despite growing national investment in these "social care" initiatives, the extent to which social care activities are routinely incorporated into care for patients with type II diabetes mellitus (T2D), specifically, is unknown. We conducted a scoping review of existing T2D treatment and management guidelines to explore whether and how these guidelines incorporate recommendations that reflect social care practice categories. RECENT FINDINGS: We applied search terms to locate all T2D treatment and management guidelines for adults published in the US from 1977 to 2021. The search captured 158 national guidelines. We subsequently applied the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine framework to search each guideline for recommendations related to five social care activities: Awareness, Adjustment, Assistance, Advocacy, and Alignment. The majority of guidelines (122; 77%) did not recommend any social care activities. The remainder (36; 23%) referred to one or more social care activities. In the guidelines that referred to at least one type of social care activity, adjustments to medical treatment based on social risk were most common [34/36 (94%)]. Recommended adjustments included decreasing medication costs to accommodate financial strain, changing literacy level or language of handouts, and providing virtual visits to accommodate transportation insecurity. Ensuring that practice guidelines more consistently reflect social care best practices may improve outcomes for patients living with T2D.

Designing and Implementing an Electronic Health Record-Embedded Card Study in Primary Care: Methods and Considerations.

Card studies-short surveys about the circumstances within which patients receive care-are traditionally completed on physical cards. We report on the development of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded card study intended to decrease logistical challenges inherent to paper-based approaches, including distributing, tracking, and transferring the physical cards, as well as data entry and respondent prompts, while simultaneously decreasing the complexity for participants and facilitating rich analyses by linking to clinical and demographic data found in the EHR. Developing the EHR-based programming and data extraction was time consuming, required specialized expertise, and necessitated iteration to rectify issues encountered during implementation. Nonetheless, future EHR-embedded card studies will be able to replicate many of the same processes as informed by these results. Once built, the EHR-embedded card study simplified survey implementation for both the research team and clinic staff, resulting in research-quality data, the ability to link survey responses to relevant EHR data, and a 79% response rate. This detailed accounting of the development and implementation process, including issues encountered and addressed, might guide others in conducting EHR-embedded card studies.