Concurrent Validity Between Potential Screening Tests for Early Mobility Decline in Independent Community Dwellers.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Standardized screening tests that detect early mobility decline, regardless of etiology, are needed for healthy aging. The locomotive syndrome (LS) tests are designed to identify stages of mobility decline and inform appropriate levels of intervention. The long-term goal of this research is to develop standardized mobility screening tests that can be used across health care settings and throughout a patient's lifespan to guide appropriate medical care. As the first step in this process, this study examines the concurrent validity between the reference and the LS tests. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined correlations between the LS functional tests and a set of reference tests and the ability to differentiate the 3 stages of mobility decline. The reference tests included the stair-climbing test, the 30-second chair rise test, the 6-minute walk test, the Global Physical Health (GPH) portion of the PROMIS, and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). The LS tests included the Stand-Up Test, the 2-Step Test, and the 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale (25-GLFS). A total of 115 community dwellers of 61.2 years old on average (±10.0 years), with n = 71 (61%) older than 60 years, voluntary participated in this prospective study. Nonparametric analyses of variance and correlations were used to examine the concurrent validity. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Performance-based tests were significantly correlated (| r | = 0.38-0.61, P < .001) with LS tests. The LEFS was correlated with all LS tests, but the GPH was only correlated with the 25-GLFS. Also, significant differences were found in reference test scores between the 3 LS stages ( P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The LS tests and reference tests demonstrated significant correlations, and participants performed significantly worse on reference tests as LS severity increased. Given these results, it is possible that the LS standardized tests may play an important role in mobility screening. Future research should investigate feasibility, sensitivity, and specificity of these tests.

Pilot Study of an Overdose First Aid Program in Juvenile Detention.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and short-term impact of a brief opioid overdose prevention and mitigation training administered to detained youth at risk for witnessing an overdose. METHODS: Adolescents seen in the medical clinic in a youth detention center were screened to determine risk for witnessing an overdose. Eligible adolescents completed a pretraining assessment that included opioid witnessing experiences and knowledge of and attitudes toward opioid overdose prevention. Participants completed a one-on-one overdose first aid training, received a naloxone (Narcan) kit at release, and completed a posttraining assessment of knowledge and attitudes. At 1 month and 3 months postrelease, participants completed telephone interviews to report satisfaction and application of training concepts. RESULTS: A total of 39 adolescent residents participated in this pilot study. Rates of recruitment and retention, as well as high rates of witnessing opioid use and overdose, indicate that opioid overdose prevention interventions are warranted with this population. There were significant changes in knowledge, confidence, and readiness to intervene in an opioid overdose from pre- to posttraining. At follow-up, the majority of participants still possessed their naloxone, and all reported sharing information from the training with others and having a plan if they witnessed an overdose. One participant reported completion of an overdose reversal. IMPLICATIONS: Opioid overdose prevention training with detained youth is feasible and shows promising impacts on knowledge and application, meriting the need for future research.

Promoting community health collaboration between CTSA programs and Cooperative Extension to advance rural health equity: Insights from a national Un-Meeting.

Addressing rural health disparities has unique challenges that require cross-sector collaborations to address social determinants of health and help those in need to get connected to care continuum. We brought the Clinical and Translational Science Award, Institutional Development Award Program Infrastructure for Clinical and Translational Research, and Cooperative Extension System Programs together for a one-day semi-structured meeting to discuss collaborative opportunities to address rural health disparities. Session notes and event materials were analyzed for themes to facilitate collaboration such as defining rural, critical issues, and organizational strengths in support of collaboration. Across 16 sessions, there were 26 broad topics of discussion. The most frequent topics included "barriers and challenges," "strategies and opportunities," and "defining rural." There is a growing understanding of the opportunity that collaboration between these large programs provides in addressing rural health disparities.

A non-randomized pilot study to test the feasibility of treating chronic pain and opioid prescription use in rural areas with acceptance and commitment therapy (T-PACT).

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) involves one-third of the US population, and prescription opioids contribute to the opioid epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention emphasizes maximizing non-opioid treatment, but many rural populations cannot access alternative therapies. Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs across four rural states performed a multi-site, single-arm intervention feasibility study testing methods and procedures of implementing a behavioral intervention, acceptance and commitment therapy, in primary care CNCP patients on chronic opioids. Using the CONSORT extension for feasibility studies, we describe lessons learned in recruiting/retaining participants, intervention implementation, data measurement, and multi-site procedures. Results inform a future definitive trial and potentially others conducting rural trials.

Practice Transformation Support and Patient Engagement to Improve Cardiovascular Care: From EvidenceNOW Southwest (ENSW).

PURPOSE: To improve cardiovascular care through supporting primary care practices' adoption of evidence-based guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: A cluster randomized trial compared two approaches: (1) standard practice support (practice facilitation, practice assessment with feedback, health information technology assistance, and collaborative learning sessions) and (2) standard support plus patient engagement support. METHODS: Primary outcomes were cardiovascular clinical quality measures (CQMs) collected at baseline, 9 months, and 15 months. Implementation of the first 6 "Building Blocks of High-Performing Primary Care" was assessed by practice facilitators at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months. CQMs from practices not involved in the study served as an external comparison. RESULTS: A total of 211 practices completed baseline surveys. There were no differences by study arm (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) for aspirin use (1.03 [0.99, 1.06]), blood pressure (0.98 [0.95, 1.01]), cholesterol (0.96 [0.92, 1.00]), and smoking (1.01 [0.96, 1.07]); however, there were significant improvements over time in aspirin use (1.04 [1.01, 1.07]), cholesterol (1.05 [1.03, 1.08]), and smoking (1.03 [1.01, 1.06]), but not blood pressure (1.01 [0.998, 1.03]). Improvement in enrolled practices was greater than external comparison practices across all 4 measures (all P < .05). Implementation improved in both arms for Team-Based Care, Patient-Team Partnership, and Population Management, and improvement was greater in enhanced intervention practices (all P < .05). Leadership and Data-Driven Improvement (P < .05) improved significantly, with no difference by arm. A greater improvement in Building Block implementation was associated with a greater improvement in blood pressure measures (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Practice transformation support can assist practices with improving quality of care. Patient engagement in practice transformation can further enhance practices' implementation of aspects of new models of care.

Exemplary Practices in Cardiovascular Care: Results on Clinical Quality Measures from the EvidenceNOW Southwest Cooperative.

BACKGROUND: Identifying characteristics of primary care practices that perform well on cardiovascular clinical quality measures (CQMs) may point to important practice improvement strategies. OBJECTIVE: To identify practice characteristics associated with high performance on four cardiovascular disease CQMs. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study among 211 primary care practices in Colorado and New Mexico. Quarterly CQM reports were obtained from 178 (84.4%) practices. There was 100% response rate for baseline practice characteristics and implementation tracking surveys. Follow-up implementation tracking surveys were completed for 80.6% of practices. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients, staff, and clinicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and mixed-specialty practices. INTERVENTION: Practices received 9 months of practice facilitation and health information technology support, plus biannual collaborative learning sessions. MAIN MEASURES: This study identified practice characteristics associated with overall highest performance using area under the curve (AUC) analysis on aspirin therapy, blood pressure management, and smoking cessation CQMs. RESULTS: Among 178 practices, 39 were exemplars. Exemplars were more likely to be a Federally Qualified Health Center (69.2% vs 35.3%, p = 0.0006), have an underserved designation (69.2% vs 45.3%, p = 0.0083), and have higher percentage of patients with Medicaid (p < 0.0001). Exemplars reported greater use of cardiovascular disease registries (61.5% vs 29.5%,), standing orders (38.5 vs 22.3%) or electronic health record prompts (84.6% vs 49.6%) (all p < 0.05), were more likely to have medical home recognition (74.4% vs 43.2%, p = 0.0006), and reported greater implementation of building blocks of high-performing primary care: regular quality improvement team meetings (3.0 vs 2.2), patient experience survey (3.1 vs 2.2), and resources for patients to manage their health (3.0 vs 2.3). High improvers (n = 45) showed greater improvement implementing team-based care (32.8 vs 11.7, p = 0.0004) and population management (37.4 vs 20.5, p = 0.0057). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple strategies-registries, prompts and protocols, patient self-management support, and patient-team partnership activities-were associated with delivering high-quality cardiovascular care over time, measured by CQMs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02515578.

Characterizing health researcher barriers to sharing results with study participants.

INTRODUCTION: Research participants want to receive results from studies in which they participate. However, health researchers rarely share the results of their studies beyond scientific publication. Little is known about the barriers researchers face in returning study results to participants. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods design, health researchers (N = 414) from more than 40 US universities were asked about barriers to providing results to participants. Respondents were recruited from universities with Clinical and Translational Science Award programs and Prevention Research Centers. RESULTS: Respondents reported the percent of their research where they experienced each of the four barriers to disseminating results to participants: logistical/methodological, financial, systems, and regulatory. A fifth barrier, investigator capacity, emerged from data analysis. Training for research faculty and staff, promotion and tenure incentives, and funding agencies supporting dissemination of results to participants were solutions offered to overcoming barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings add to literature on research dissemination by documenting health researchers' perceived barriers to sharing study results with participants. Implications for policy and practice suggest that additional resources and training could help reduce dissemination barriers and increase the return of results to participants.

Primary Care Practices' Ability to Report Electronic Clinical Quality Measures in the EvidenceNOW Southwest Initiative to Improve Heart Health.

Importance: The capability and capacity of primary care practices to report electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) are questionable. Objective: To determine how quickly primary care practices can report eCQMs and the practice characteristics associated with faster reporting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study examined an initiative (EvidenceNOW Southwest) to enhance primary care practices' ability to adopt evidence-based cardiovascular care approaches: aspirin prescribing, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation (ABCS). A total of 211 primary care practices in Colorado and New Mexico participating in EvidenceNOW Southwest between February 2015 and December 2017 were included. Interventions: Practices were instructed on eCQM specifications that could be produced by an electronic health record, a registry, or a third-party platform. Practices received 9 months of support from a practice facilitator, a clinical health information technology advisor, and the research team. Practices were instructed to report their baseline ABCS eCQMs as soon as possible. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was time to report the ABCS eCQMs. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine practice characteristics associated with time to reporting. Results: Practices were predominantly clinician owned (48%) and in urban or suburban areas (71%). Practices required a median (interquartile range) of 8.2 (4.6-11.9) months to report any ABCS eCQM. Time to report differed by eCQM: practices reported blood pressure management the fastest (median [interquartile range], 7.8 [3.5-10.4] months) and cholesterol management the slowest (median [interquartile range], 10.5 [6.6 to >12] months) (log-rank P < .001). In multivariable models, the blood pressure eCQM was reported more quickly by practices that participated in accountable care organizations (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.40-2.53; P < .001) or participated in a quality demonstration program (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.14-2.18; P = .006). The cholesterol eCQM was reported more quickly by practices that used clinical guidelines for cardiovascular disease management (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.18-1.53; P < .001). Compared with Federally Qualified Health Centers, hospital-owned practices had greater ability to report blood pressure eCQMs (HR, 2.66; 95% CI, 95% CI, 1.73-4.09; P < .001), and clinician-owned practices had less ability to report cholesterol eCQMs (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.76; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, time to report eCQMs varied by measure and practice type, with very few practices reporting quickly. Practices took longer to report a new cholesterol measure than other measures. Programs that require eCQM reporting should consider the time and effort practices must exert to produce reports. Practices may benefit from additional support to succeed in new programs that require eCQM reporting.

The Role of Health Extension in Practice Transformation and Community Health Improvement: Lessons From 5 Case Studies.

Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act triggered 2 successive grant initiatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, allowing for the evolution of health extension models among 20 states, not limited to support for in-clinic primary care practice transformation, but also including a broader concept incorporating technical assistance for practices and their communities to address social determinants of health. Five states stand out in stretching the boundaries of health extension: New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington. Their stories reveal lessons learned regarding the successes and challenges, including the importance of building sustained relationships with practices and community coalitions; of documenting success in broad terms as well as achieving diverse outcomes of meaning to different stakeholders; of understanding that health extension is a function that can be carried out by an individual or group depending on resources; and of being prepared for political struggles over "turf" and ownership of extension. All states saw the need for long-term, sustained fundraising beyond grants in an environment expecting a short-term return on investment, and they were challenged operating in a shifting health system landscape where the creativity and personal relationships built with small primary care practices was hindered when these practices were purchased by larger health delivery systems.

Primary Care Practices' Implementation of Patient-Team Partnership: Findings from EvidenceNOW Southwest.

INTRODUCTION: Care teams partnering with patients are integral to quality primary care. Effective patient-team partnership recognizes patients' contributions in decision-making and respecting patients' goals and social context. We report practice characteristics associated with greater patient-team partnership scores. METHODS: EvidenceNOW Southwest was a multistate initiative to improve cardiovascular care in primary care practices through guideline-concordant aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation. EvidenceNOW Southwest provided 9 months of practice facilitation and information technology support through regular meetings and training to 211 Colorado and New Mexico primary care practices from 2015 to 2017. We analyzed surveys from 97% of participating practices regarding patient-team partnership activities of self-management support, social need assessment, resource linkages, and patient input. We used linear and mixed effects regression modeling to examine relationships between patient-team partnership and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Practice characteristics significantly associated with greater patient-team partnership were using patient registries, medically underserved area designation, multispecialty mix, and using clinical cardiovascular disease management guidelines. Our findings suggest that patient-team partnership implementation in small primary care practices is moderate, with mean practice- and member-level scores of 52 of 100 (range, 0-100) and 71 of 100 (range, 10-100), respectively. CONCLUSION: Practices can improve efforts to partner with patients to assess social needs, gather meaningful input on practice improvement and patient experience, and offer resource connections. Our findings supplement recent evidence that patient registries and evidence-based guidelines may effectively prevent and manage cardiovascular disease. These strategies may also promote primary care patient-team partnership.

Health researchers' experiences, perceptions and barriers related to sharing study results with participants.

BACKGROUND: Although research participants are generally interested in receiving results from studies in which they participate, health researchers rarely communicate study findings to participants. The present study was designed to provide opportunity for a broad group of health researchers to describe their experiences and concerns related to sharing results (i.e. aggregate study findings) with research participants. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods concurrent triangulation design, relying on an online survey to capture health researchers' experiences, perceptions and barriers related to sharing study results with participants. Respondents were health researchers who conduct research that includes the consent of human subjects and hold a current appointment at an accredited academic medical institution within the United States. For quantitative data, the analytic strategy focused on item-level descriptive analyses. For the qualitative data, analyses focused on a priori themes and emergent subthemes. RESULTS: Respondents were 414 researchers from 44 academic medical institutions; 64.5% reported that results should always be shared with participants, yet 60.8% of respondents could identify studies in which they had a leadership role where results were not shared. Emergent subthemes from researchers' reasons why results should be shared included participant ownership of findings and benefits of results sharing to science. Reasons for not sharing included concerns related to participants' health literacy and participants' lack of desire for results. Across all respondents who described barriers to results sharing, the majority described logistical barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings contribute to the literature by documenting researchers' perspectives and experiences about sharing results with research participants, which can inform efforts to improve results sharing. Most respondents indicated that health research results should always be shared with participants, although the extent to which many respondents described barriers to results sharing as well as reported reasons not to share results suggests difficulties with a one-size-fits-all approach to improving results sharing.

A Community Engagement Method to Design Patient Engagement Materials for Cardiovascular Health.

PURPOSE: EvidenceNOW Southwest is a cluster-randomized trial evaluating the differential impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) care of engaging patients and communities in practice transformation in addition to standard practice facilitation support. The trial included development of locally tailored CVD patient engagement materials through Boot Camp Translation (BCT), a community engagement process that occurred before practice recruitment but after cluster randomization. METHODS: We introduce a cluster randomization method performed before recruitment of small to medium-size primary care practices in Colorado and New Mexico, which allowed for balanced study arms while minimizing contamination. Engagement materials for the enhanced study arm were developed by means of BCT, which included community members, practice members, and public health professionals from (1) metropolitan Denver, (2) rural northeast Colorado, (3) Albuquerque, and (4) rural southeast New Mexico. Outcome measures were messages and materials from BCTs and population characteristics of study arms after using geographic-based covariate constrained randomization. RESULTS: The 4 BCTs' messages and materials developed by the BCT groups uniquely reflected each community and ranged from family or spiritual values to early prevention or adding relevance to CVD risk. The geographic-based covariate of a cluster randomization method constrained randomization-assigned regions to study arms, allowing BCTs to precede practice recruitment, reduce contamination, and balance populations. CONCLUSIONS: Cluster-randomized trials with community-based interventions present study design and implementation challenges. The BCTs elicited unique contextual messages and materials, suggesting that interventions designed to help primary care practices decrease CVD risk may not be one size fits all.

Effect of Combined Patient Decision Aid and Patient Navigation vs Usual Care for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Vulnerable Patient Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, especially among vulnerable populations. Decision aids and patient navigation are potentially complementary interventions for improving CRC screening rates, but their combined effect on screening completion is unknown. Objective: To determine the combined effect of a CRC screening decision aid and patient navigation compared with usual care on CRC screening completion. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial, data were collected from January 2014 to March 2016 at 2 community health center practices, 1 in North Carolina and 1 in New Mexico, serving vulnerable populations. Patients ages 50 to 75 years who had average CRC risk, spoke English or Spanish, were not current with recommended CRC screening, and were attending primary care visits were recruited and randomized 1:1 to intervention or control arms. Interventions: Intervention participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid in English or Spanish immediately before their clinician encounter. The decision aid promoted screening and presented colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing as screening options. After the clinician encounter, intervention patients received support for screening completion from a bilingual patient navigator. Control participants viewed a food safety video before the encounter and otherwise received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 6 months of the index study visit assessed by blinded medical record review. Results: Characteristics of the 265 participants were as follows: their mean age was 58 years; 173 (65%) were female, 164 (62%) were Latino; 40 (15%) were white non-Latino; 61 (23%) were black or of mixed race; 191 (78%) had a household income of less than $20 000; 101 (38%) had low literacy; 75 (28%) were on Medicaid; and 91 (34%) were uninsured. Intervention participants were more likely to complete CRC screening within 6 months (68% vs 27%); adjusted-difference, 40 percentage points (95% CI, 29-51 percentage points). The intervention was more effective in women than in men (50 vs 21 percentage point increase, interaction P = .02). No effect modification was observed across other subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: A patient decision aid plus patient navigation increased the rate of CRC screening completion in compared with usual care invulnerable primary care patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02054598.

Health Extension and Clinical and Translational Science: An Innovative Strategy for Community Engagement.

Health Extension Regional Officers (HEROs) through the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center (UNMHSC) help to facilitate university-community engagement throughout New Mexico. HEROs, based in communities across the state, link priority community health needs with university resources in education, service, and research. Researchers' studies are usually aligned with federal funding priorities rather than with health priorities expressed by communities. To help overcome this misalignment, the UNM Clinical and Translational Science Center (CTSC) provides partial funding for HEROs to bridge the divide between research priorities of UNMHSC and health priorities of the state's communities. A bidirectional partnership between HEROs and CTSC researchers was established, which led to: 1) increased community engaged studies through the CTSC, 2) the HERO model itself as a subject of research, 3) a HERO-driven increase in local capacity in scholarship and grant writing, and 4) development of training modules for investigators and community stakeholders on community-engaged research. As a result, 5 grants were submitted, 4 of which were funded, totaling $7,409,002.00, and 3 research articles were published. Health extension can serve as a university-funded, community-based bridge between community health needs and Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) research capacity, opening avenues for translational research.

Patient Perspectives on Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening, New Mexico, 2014.

INTRODUCTION: National guidelines call for annual lung cancer screening for high-risk smokers using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). The objective of our study was to characterize patient knowledge and attitudes about lung cancer screening, smoking cessation, and shared decision making by patient and health care provider. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with patients with histories of heavy smoking who received care at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC Clinic) and at a comprehensive cancer center-affiliated chest clinic (Chest Clinic) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The interviews, conducted from February through September 2014, focused on perceptions about health screening, knowledge and attitudes about LDCT screening, and preferences regarding decision aids. We used a systematic iterative analytic process to identify preliminary and emergent themes and to create a coding structure. RESULTS: We reached thematic saturation after 22 interviews (10 at the FQHC Clinic, 12 at the Chest Clinic). Most patients were unaware of LDCT screening for lung cancer but were receptive to the test. Some smokers said they would consider quitting smoking if their screening result were positive. Concerns regarding screening were cost, radiation exposure, and transportation issues. To support decision making, most patients said they preferred one-on-one discussions with a provider. They also valued decision support tools (print materials, videos), but raised concerns about readability and Internet access. CONCLUSION: Implementing lung cancer screening in sociodemographically diverse populations poses significant challenges. The value of tobacco cessation counseling cannot be overemphasized. Effective interventions for shared decision making to undergo lung cancer screening will need the active engagement of health care providers and will require the use of accessible decision aids designed for people with low health literacy.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Low-income, low-literacy, limited English-proficient populations have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and experience poor patient-provider communication and decision-making processes around screening. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a CRC screening decision aid on screening-related communication and decision making in primary care visits. STUDY DESIGN: RCT with data collected from patients at baseline and immediately after the provider encounter. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening, were recruited from two safety net clinics in North Carolina and New Mexico (data collection, January 2014-September 2015; analysis, 2015). INTERVENTION: Participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid or a food safety (control) video immediately before their provider encounter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CRC screening-related knowledge, discussion, intent, test preferences, and test ordering. RESULTS: The study population (N=262) had a mean age of 58.3 years and was 66% female, 61% Latino, 17% non-Latino black, and 16% non-Latino white. Among Latino participants, 71% preferred Spanish. Compared with controls, intervention participants had greater screening-related knowledge (on average 4.6 vs 2.8 of six knowledge items correct, adjusted difference [AD]=1.8, 95% CI=1.5, 2.1) and were more likely to report screening discussion (71.0% vs 45.0%, AD=26.1%, 95% CI=14.3%, 38.0%) and high screening intent (93.1% vs 84.7%, AD=9.0%, 95% CI=2.0%, 16.0%). Intervention participants were more likely to indicate a specific screening test preference (93.1% vs 68.0%, AD=26.5%, 95% CI=17.2%, 35.8%) and to report having a test ordered (56.5% vs 32.1%, AD=25.8%, 95% CI=14.4%, 37.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Viewing a CRC screening decision aid before a primary care encounter improves knowledge and shared decision making around screening in a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse safety net clinic population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054598.

Attitudes and Beliefs of Primary Care Providers in New Mexico About Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

INTRODUCTION: On the basis of results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), national guidelines now recommend using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen high-risk smokers for lung cancer. Our study objective was to characterize the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of primary care providers about implementing LDCT screening. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with primary care providers practicing in New Mexico clinics for underserved minority populations. The interviews, conducted from February through September 2014, focused on providers' tobacco cessation efforts, lung cancer screening practices, perceptions of NLST and screening guidelines, and attitudes about informed decision making for cancer screening. Investigators iteratively reviewed transcripts to create a coding structure. RESULTS: We reached thematic saturation after interviewing 10 providers practicing in 6 urban and 4 rural settings; 8 practiced at federally qualified health centers. All 10 providers promoted smoking cessation, some screened with chest x-rays, and none screened with LDCT. Not all were aware of NLST results or current guideline recommendations. Providers viewed study results skeptically, particularly the 95% false-positive rate, the need to screen 320 patients to prevent 1 lung cancer death, and the small proportion of minority participants. Providers were uncertain whether New Mexico had the necessary infrastructure to support high-quality screening, and worried about access barriers and financial burdens for rural, underinsured populations. Providers noted the complexity of discussing benefits and harms of screening and surveillance with their patient population. CONCLUSION: Providers have several concerns about the feasibility and appropriateness of implementing LDCT screening. Effective lung cancer screening programs will need to educate providers and patients to support informed decision making and to ensure that high-quality screening can be efficiently delivered in community practice.