Awareness, Knowledge, and Attitudes Toward Screening and Treatment of Masked Hypertension in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Hypertension guidelines recommend screening and treatment for masked hypertension (MHT). Yet, few primary care providers (PCPs) screen for MHT, and little is known about PCP awareness, knowledge, and attitudes toward MHT.

METHODS

Three focus groups involving 30 PCPs from 3 medical centers in New York were conducted. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Awareness of MHT varied, and only 2 providers had diagnosed MHT. There was also low knowledge about the prevalence and impact of MHT. While some PCPs were receptive to MHT screening after learning about its significance, others viewed the current evidence as insufficient to change practice. Providers were discomforted by labeling patients with nonelevated office blood pressure (BP) as hypertensive and reluctant to add another screening test to their workload without stronger evidence. There was distrust in the accuracy of home BP monitoring to screen for MHT. There was more confidence in ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) for MHT screening, but ABPM was viewed as largely inaccessible. There was broad agreement with lifestyle changes for MHT. There were concerns that antihypertensive medication lacked evidence from randomized trials and could induce harmful side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited PCP knowledge about MHT, concerns about the accuracy and accessibility of screening tests, overloaded PCPs, and insufficient evidence were major barriers to screening and treatment for MHT. Prior to broad uptake by PCPs, randomized trials demonstrating the net benefits of MHT screening and treatment may be needed, along with increased dissemination of knowledge about MHT and improved access to ABPM.

Application of an antiracism lens in the field of implementation science (IS): Recommendations for reframing implementation research with a focus on justice and racial equity

Background

Despite the promise of implementation science (IS) to reduce health inequities, critical gaps and opportunities remain in the field to promote health equity. Prioritizing racial equity and antiracism approaches is critical in these efforts, so that IS does not inadvertently exacerbate disparities based on the selection of frameworks, methods, interventions, and strategies that do not reflect consideration of structural racism and its impacts.

Methods

Grounded in extant research on structural racism and antiracism, we discuss the importance of advancing understanding of how structural racism as a system shapes racial health inequities and inequitable implementation of evidence-based interventions among racially and ethnically diverse communities. We outline recommendations for explicitly applying an antiracism lens to address structural racism and its manifests through IS. An anti-racism lens provides a framework to guide efforts to confront, address, and eradicate racism and racial privilege by helping people identify racism as a root cause of health inequities and critically examine how it is embedded in policies, structures, and systems that differentially affect racially and ethnically diverse populations.

Results

We provide guidance for the application of an antiracism lens in the field of IS, focusing on select core elements in implementation research, including: (1) stakeholder engagement; (2) conceptual frameworks and models; (3) development, selection, adaptation of EBIs; (4) evaluation approaches; and (5) implementation strategies. We highlight the need for foundational grounding in antiracism frameworks among implementation scientists to facilitate ongoing self-reflection, accountability, and attention to racial equity, and provide questions to guide such reflection and consideration.

Conclusion

We conclude with a reflection on how this is a critical time for IS to prioritize focus on justice, racial equity, and real-world equitable impact. Moving IS towards making consideration of health equity and an antiracism lens foundational is central to strengthening the field and enhancing its impact.

Plain language abstract

There are important gaps and opportunities that exist in promoting health equity through implementation science. Historically, the commonly used frameworks, measures, interventions, strategies, and approaches in the field have not been explicitly focused on equity, nor do they consider the role of structural racism in shaping health and inequitable delivery of evidence-based practices/programs. This work seeks to build off of the long history of research on structural racism and health, and seeks to provide guidance on how to apply an antiracism lens to select core elements of implementation research. We highlight important opportunities for the field to reflect and consider applying an antiracism approach in: 1) stakeholder/community engagement; 2) use of conceptual frameworks; 3) development, selection and adaptation of evidence-based interventions; 4) evaluation approaches; 5) implementation strategies (e.g., how to deliver evidence-based practices, programs, policies); and 6) how researchers conduct their research, with a focus on racial equity. This is an important time for the field of implementation science to prioritize a foundational focus on justice, equity, and real-world impact through the application of an anti-racism lens in their work.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Blood Pressure Among US Adults, 1999-2018

[Figure: see text].

A mixed-methods study of multi-level factors influencing mammography overuse among an older ethnically diverse screening population: implications for de-implementation

BACKGROUND

There is growing concern that routine mammography screening is overused among older women. Successful and equitable de-implementation of mammography will require a multi-level understanding of the factors contributing to mammography overuse.

METHODS

This explanatory, sequential, mixed-methods study collected survey data (n= 52, 73.1% Hispanic, 73.1% Spanish-speaking) from women ≥70 years of age at the time of screening mammography, followed by semi-structured interviews with a subset of older women completing the survey (n=19, 63.2% Hispanic, 63.2% Spanish-speaking) and providers (n=5, 4 primary care, 1 obstetrics and gynecology) to better understand multi-level factors influencing mammography overuse and inform potential de-implementation strategies. We conducted a descriptive analysis of survey data and content analysis of qualitative interview data. Survey and interview data were examined separately, compared, integrated, and organized according to Norton and Chambers Continuum of Factors Influencing De-Implementation Process.

RESULTS

Survey findings show that 87.2% of older women believe it is important to plan for an annual mammogram, 80.8% received a provider recommendation, and 78.9% received a reminder in the last 12 months to schedule a mammogram. Per interviews with older women, the majority were unaware of or did not perceive to have experienced overuse and intended to continue mammography screening. Findings from interviews with older women and providers suggest that there are multiple opportunities for older women to obtain a mammogram. Per provider interviews, almost all reported that reducing overuse was not viewed as a priority by the system or other providers. Providers also discussed that variation in mammography screening practices across providers, fear of malpractice, and monetary incentives may contribute to overscreening. Providers identified potential strategies to reduce overscreening including patient and provider education around harms of screening, leveraging the electronic health record to identify women who may receive less health benefit from screening, customizing system-generated reminder letters, and organizing workgroups to develop standard processes of care around mammography screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-level factors contributing to mammography overuse are dynamic, interconnected, and reinforced. To ensure equitable de-implementation, there is a need for more refined and empirical testing of theories, models, and frameworks for de-implementation with a strong patient-level component that considers the interplay between multilevel factors and the larger care delivery process.

Primary care and mental health: Where do we go from here?

Primary care has been dubbed the “de facto” mental health system of the United States since the 1970s. Since then, various forms of mental health delivery models for primary care have proven effective in improving patient outcomes and satisfaction and reducing costs. Despite increases in collaborative care implementation and reimbursement, prevalence rates of major depression in the United States remain unchanged while anxiety and suicide rates continue to climb. Meanwhile, primary care task forces in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada are recommending against depression screening in primary care altogether, citing lack of trials demonstrating improved outcomes in screened vs unscreened patients when the same treatment is available, high false-positive results, and small treatment effects. In this perspective, a primary care physician and two psychiatrists address the question of why we are not making headway in treating common mental health conditions in primary care. In addition, we propose systemic changes to improve the dissemination of mental health treatment in primary care.

Economic outcomes of depression screening after acute coronary syndromes: The CODIACS-QoL randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening for depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and no history of depression.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized trial enrolling 1500 patients with ACS between 2013 and 2017. Patients were randomized to no screening, screening and notifying the primary care provider (PCP), and screening, notifying the PCP, and providing enhanced depression treatment. Outcomes measured were Healthcare utilization, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

7.1% of patients screened positive for depressive symptoms. There was no significant difference in usage of mental health services, cardiovascular tests and procedures, and medications. Mean total costs in No Screen group ($7440), in Screen, Notify, and Treat group ($6745), and in Screen and Notify group ($6204). The difference was only significant in the Screen and Notify group versus the No Screen group (-$1236, 95% confidence interval -$2388 to -$96). Because mean QALYs were higher (+0.003 QALY in Screen and Notify; +0.004 QALYs in Screen, Notify, and Treat) and mean total costs were lower in both intervention groups, these interventions were cost-effective. There was substantial uncertainty because confidence intervals around cost differences were wide and QALY effects were small.

CONCLUSION

Depression screening strategies for patients with ACS may be modestly cost-effective.

Using a multistakeholder collaboratory and patient surveys to inform the conduct of personalized (N-of-1) trials

OBJECTIVE

Personalized trials have the potential to improve the precision of treatment selection and foster patient involvement in clinical decision making. Little is known about the attitudes of patients with multimorbidities. To address this, stakeholders designed and conducted a national survey that determined general attitudes and features of personalized trials that may increase their use among patients with multimorbidities in clinical and research practice.

METHOD

A multistakeholder collaboratory of patients, clinicians, scientists, methodologists, statisticians, and research disseminators designed a survey to determine the conditions, symptoms, and design attributes most applicable to personalized trials according to patients. A sample of U.S. patients with two or more prespecified personalized-trial-amenable chronic conditions completed the online survey.

RESULTS

Multimorbid participants (N = 501; M age = 56.1 years) showed that some conditions, symptoms or use cases for personalized trials include pain (57.6%), hypertension (38.8%), diabetes (28.8%), sleep problems (27.4%), and depression (23.0%). Overall, 82.0% of the participants with multimorbidities were interested in participating in personalized trials. The percentage that were interested varied by trial attributes, including physician involvement (86.4%), patient-driven treatment selection (88.0%), clinician blinding (59.2%), placebo treatment options (57.5%), and out-of-pocket costs (41.8%).

CONCLUSION

Participants with multimorbidities identified prevalent use cases that are suited to personalized trials. Participants also identified design features of such trials, including patient-driven treatment selection, active comparators, and nonblinding. This study demonstrates that eliciting input from a collaboratory and patients with multimorbidities can inform research priorities for this rapidly growing patient population and increase adoption by researchers and clinicians alike. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Hospital Readmissions After Implementation of a Discharge Care Program for Patients with COVID-19 Illness

BACKGROUND

The surge of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations in New York City required rapid discharges to maintain hospital capacity.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether lenient provisional discharge guidelines with remote monitoring after discharge resulted in safe discharges home for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 illness.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series SETTING: Tertiary care medical center PATIENTS: Consecutive adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 illness between March 26, 2020, and April 8, 2020, with a subset discharged home INTERVENTIONS: COVID-19 Discharge Care Program consisting of lenient provisional inpatient discharge criteria and option for daily telephone monitoring for up to 14 days after discharge MEASUREMENTS: Fourteen-day emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions RESULTS: Among 812 patients with COVID-19 illness hospitalized during the study time period, 15.5% died prior to discharge, 24.1% remained hospitalized, 10.0% were discharged to another facility, and 50.4% were discharged home. Characteristics of the 409 patients discharged home were mean (SD) age 57.3 (16.6) years; 245 (59.9%) male; 27 (6.6%) with temperature ≥ 100.4 °F; and 154 (37.7%) with oxygen saturation < 95% on day of discharge. Over 14 days of follow-up, 45 patients (11.0%) returned to the ED, of whom 31 patients (7.6%) were readmitted. Compared to patients not referred, patients referred for remote monitoring had fewer ED visits (8.3% vs 14.1%; OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.31-1.15, p = 0.12) and readmissions (6.9% vs 8.3%; OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.52-2.52, p = 0.73).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study; assignment to remote monitoring was not randomized.

CONCLUSIONS

During the COVID-19 surge in New York City, lenient discharge criteria in conjunction with remote monitoring after discharge were associated with a rate of early readmissions after COVID-related hospitalizations that was comparable to the rate of readmissions after other reasons for hospitalization before the COVID pandemic.

Elucidating the Relationship Between Insomnia, Sex, and Cardiovascular Disease

Sex differences in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality have been attributed to differences in pathophysiology between men and women and to disparities in CVD management that disproportionately affect women compared to men. Similarly, there has been investigation of differences in the prevalence and presentation of insomnia attributable to sex. Few studies have examined how sex and insomnia interact to influence CVD outcomes, however. In this review, we summarize the literature on sex-specific differences in the prevalence and presentation of insomnia as well as existing research regarding the relationship between insomnia and CVD outcomes as it pertains to sex. Research to date indicate that women are more likely to have insomnia than men, and there appear to be differential associations in the relation between insomnia and CVD by sex. We posit potential mechanisms of the relationship between sex, insomnia and CVD, discuss gaps in the existing literature, and provide commentary on future research needed in this area. Unraveling the complex relations between sex, insomnia, and CVD may help to explain sex-specific differences in CVD, and identify sex-specific strategies for promotion of cardiovascular health. Throughout this review, terms “men” and “women” are used as they are in the source literature, which does not differentiate between sex and gender. The implications of this are also discussed.

Medications as Traumatic Reminders in Patients With Stroke/Transient Ischemic Attack-Induced Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are common after stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) and have been associated with medication nonadherence, potentially because medications serve as traumatic reminders of the prior stroke/TIA. This study examined associations between stroke/TIA-induced PTSD and aversive cognitions toward preventive medications.

METHODS

We enrolled a cohort of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected stroke/TIA. One month posthospitalization, we assessed PTSD symptoms specific to the index stroke/TIA using the PTSD checklist specific and asked patients how often (1) did thinking about your stroke medication make you feel nervous or anxious?; (2) did thinking about your stroke medication make you think about your risk for future strokes?; and (3) did you skip or avoid taking your stroke medication so you would not have to think about your stroke? Logistic regression models tested the association between PTSD symptoms and each aversive cognition, adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and depression.

RESULTS

Among 408 included patients, 11.0% had elevated PTSD symptoms. These patients were more likely to report that thinking about their stroke medication made them feel nervous or anxious (37.8% versus 9.9%, P<0.001) that thinking about their stroke medication made them think about their risk for future stroke/TIA (60.0% versus 24.0%, P<0.001), and that they skipped or avoided their stroke medication to not think about their prior stroke/TIA (11.1% versus 2.2%, P=0.009). In adjusted analyses, higher PTSD checklist specific scores were associated with increased nervousness/anxiety (odds ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.18-1.50], P<0.001) and thoughts of future stroke (odds ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.14-1.41], P<0.001), with a trend toward significance for skipping medications to avoid reminders of stroke (odds ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.99-1.44], P=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Medications may serve as traumatic reminders after stroke/TIA-induced PTSD, potentially leading to medication nonadherence.

Trends in Poor Health Indicators Among Black and Hispanic Middle-aged and Older Adults in the United States, 1999-2018

Importance

Adults who belong to racial/ethnic minority groups are more likely than White adults to receive a diagnosis of chronic disease in the United States.

Objective

To evaluate which health indicators have improved or become worse among Black and Hispanic middle-aged and older adults since the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this repeated cross-sectional study, a total of 4 856 326 records were extracted from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from January 1999 through December 2018 of persons who self-identified as Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic (non-White), or White and who were 45 years or older.

Exposure

The 1999 legislation to reduce racial/ethnic health disparities.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Poor health indicators and disparities including major chronic diseases, physical inactivity, uninsured status, and overall poor health.

Results

Among the 4 856 326 participants (2 958 041 [60.9%] women; mean [SD] age, 60.4 [11.8] years), Black adults showed an overall decrease indicating improvement in uninsured status (β = -0.40%; P < .001) and physical inactivity (β = -0.29%; P < .001), while they showed an overall increase indicating deterioration in hypertension (β = 0.88%; P < .001), diabetes (β = 0.52%; P < .001), asthma (β = 0.25%; P < .001), and stroke (β = 0.15%; P < .001) during the last 20 years. The Black-White gap (ie, the change in β between groups) showed improvement (2 trend lines converging) in uninsured status (-0.20%; P < .001) and physical inactivity (-0.29%; P < .001), while the Black-White gap worsened (2 trend lines diverging) in diabetes (0.14%; P < .001), hypertension (0.15%; P < .001), coronary heart disease (0.07%; P < .001), stroke (0.07%; P < .001), and asthma (0.11%; P < .001). Hispanic adults showed improvement in physical inactivity (β = -0.28%; P = .02) and perceived poor health (β = -0.22%; P = .001), while they showed overall deterioration in hypertension (β = 0.79%; P < .001) and diabetes (β = 0.50%; P < .001). The Hispanic-White gap showed improvement in coronary heart disease (-0.15%; P < .001), stroke (-0.04%; P < .001), kidney disease (-0.06%; P < .001), asthma (-0.06%; P = .02), arthritis (-0.26%; P < .001), depression (-0.23%; P < .001), and physical inactivity (-0.10%; P = .001), while the Hispanic-White gap worsened in diabetes (0.15%; P < .001), hypertension (0.05%; P = .03), and uninsured status (0.09%; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that Black-White disparities increased in diabetes, hypertension, and asthma, while Hispanic-White disparities remained in diabetes, hypertension, and uninsured status.

Time-Varying Depressive Symptoms and Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality: Does the Risk Vary by Age or Sex?

Background

Depressive symptoms are associated with mortality. Data regarding moderation of this effect by age and sex are inconsistent, however. We aimed to identify whether age and sex modify the association between depressive symptoms and all‐cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality.

Methods and Results

The REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) study is a prospective cohort of Black and White individuals recruited between 2003 and 2007. Associations between time‐varying depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale score ≥4 versus <4) and all‐cause and CVD mortality were measured using Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for demographic and clinical risk factors. All results were stratified by age or sex and by self‐reported health status. Of 29 491 participants, 3253 (11%) had baseline elevated depressive symptoms. Mean age was 65 (9.4) years, with 55.1% of participants female, 41.1% Black, and 46.4% had excellent/very good health. Depressive symptoms were measured at baseline, on average 4.9 (SD, 1.5), then 2.1 (SD, 0.4) years later. Neither age nor sex moderated the association between elevated time‐varying depressive symptoms and all‐cause or CVD mortality (all‐cause: age 45–64 years adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18–1.61 versus age ≥65 years aHR,1.36; 95% CI, 1.23–1.50; P=0.05; CVD: age 45–64 years aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90–1.53 versus age ≥65 years aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06–1.50; P=0.54; all‐cause: males aHR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.29–1.64 versus female aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.19–1.50; P=0.35; CVD: male aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.08–1.62 versus female aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.00–1.47; P=0.64). Similar results were observed when stratified by self‐reported health status.

Conclusions

Depressive symptoms confer mortality risk regardless of age and sex, including individuals who report excellent/very good health.

Abstract P156: Improvement In Blood Pressure Using Remote Patient Monitoring During COVID19

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic required strict social distancing to curb transmission. Unfortunately, these measures severely limited healthcare access and chronic disease management. In response, many health organizations rapidly developed or expanded telemedicine to provide care directly to patients at home. Little has been reported about the impact of such interventions on clinical outcomes during COVID19. We examined whether enrollment in a remote patient monitoring (RPM) program for hypertension (HTN) prior to COVID19 was associated with improved blood pressure during the pandemic.

Methods: We developed an RPM program that tracked vital signs, medication side effects, and treatment adherence patterns outside of the clinic. Patients were referred by their primary care doctor for uncontrolled HTN or suspected white coat HTN. Patients received a two-way tablet, blood pressure cuff, and virtual nursing support via scheduled video visits. Those referred for uncontrolled HTN who had at least two weeks of data both before and after the onset of COVID19 (defined as the first two weeks of March 2020) were included in the study. A mixed-models analysis that adjusted for serial autocorrelation was used to compare mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) and mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in the pre-/post-COVID19 periods.

Results: Of 94 patients enrolled in the RPM program to date, 46 had at least two weeks of data both pre-COVID19 and post-COVID19. Mean age was 69.0 ± 10.9 years, 69.6% (32 of 46) were women, 78.3% (36 of 46) were Hispanic, and 63.0% (29 of 46) were Spanish-speaking. Pre-COVID, mean SBP was 132.31 ± 13.99 mmHg, mean DBP was 77.10 ± 9.87 mmHg, and 70% (32 of 46) of patients had uncontrolled BP (>130/80 mmHg per AHA guidelines). Post-COVID, mean SBP was 129.57 ± 13.29 mmHg, mean DBP was 76.00 ± 9.16 mmHg, and 57% (26 of 46) of patients had uncontrolled BP. There was a significant reduction in both mean SBP (β = –2.74, 95% CI –5.21, –0.26, p = 0.03) and mean DBP (β = –1.10, 95% CI –2.22, 0.02, p = 0.05) post-COVID vs. pre-COVID.

Discussion: Despite the stress and social isolation associated with COVID19, participation in an RPM program that combines home BP monitoring with virtual nursing support can help maintain and even mildly decrease BP.

Design and study protocol for a cluster randomized trial of a multi-faceted implementation strategy to increase the uptake of the USPSTF hypertension screening recommendations: the EMBRACE study

Background

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends out-of-office blood pressure (BP) testing to exclude white coat hypertension prior to hypertension diagnosis. Despite improved availability and coverage of home and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (HBPM, ABPM), both are infrequently used to confirm diagnoses. We used the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) framework, a multi-step process for mapping barriers to theory-informed behavior change techniques, to develop a multi-component implementation strategy for increasing out-of-office BP testing for hypertension diagnosis. Informed by geographically diverse provider focus groups (n = 63) exploring barriers to out-of-office testing and key informant interviews (n = 12), a multi-disciplinary team (medicine, psychology, nursing) used rigorous mixed methods to develop, refine, locally adapt, and finalize intervention components.

The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol of the Effects of a Multi-faceted intervention on Blood pRessure Actions in the primary Care Environment (EMBRACE) trial, a cluster randomized control trial evaluating whether a theory-informed multi-component strategy increased out-of-office testing for hypertension diagnosis.

Methods/design

The EMBRACE Trial patient sample will include all adults ≥ 18 years of age with a newly elevated office BP (≥ 140/90 mmHg) at a scheduled visit with a primary care provider from a study clinic. All providers with scheduled visits with adult primary care patients at enrolled ACN primary care clinics were included. We determined that the most feasible, effective implementation strategy would include delivering education about out-of-office testing, demonstration/instruction on how to perform out-of-office HBPM and ABPM testing, feedback on completion rates of out-of-office testing, environmental prompts/cues via computerized clinical decision support (CDS) tool, and a culturally tailored, locally accessible ABPM testing service. We are currently comparing the effect of this locally adapted multi-component strategy with usual care on the change in the proportion of eligible patients who complete out-of-office BP testing in a 1:1 cluster randomized trial across 8 socioeconomically diverse clinics.

Conclusions

The EMBRACE trial is the first trial to test an implementation strategy for improving out-of-office testing for hypertension diagnosis. It will elucidate the degree to which targeting provider behavior via education, reminders, and decision support in addition to providing an ABPM testing service will improve referral to and completion of ABPM and HBPMs.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03480217, Registered on 29 March 2018

Personal preferences for Personalised Trials among patients with chronic diseases: an empirical Bayesian analysis of a conjoint survey

OBJECTIVE

To describe individual patient preferences for Personalised Trials and to identify factors and conditions associated with patient preferences.

DESIGN

Each participant was presented with 18 conjoint questions via an online survey. Each question provided two choices of Personalised Trials that were defined by up to eight attributes, including treatment types, clinician involvement, study logistics and trial burden on a patient.

SETTING

Online survey of adults with at least two common chronic conditions in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

A nationally representative sample of 501 individuals were recruited from the Chronic Illness Panel by Harris Poll Online. Participants were recruited from several sources, including emails, social media and telephone recruitment of the target population.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The choice of Personalised Trial design that the participant preferred with each conjoint question.

RESULTS

There was large variability in participants' preferences for the design of Personalised Trials. On average, they preferred certain attributes, such as a short time commitment and no cost. Notably, a population-level analysis correctly predicted 62% of the conjoint responses. An empirical Bayesian analysis of the conjoint data, which supported the estimation of individual-level preferences, improved the accuracy to 86%. Based on estimates of individual-level preferences, patients with chronic pain preferred a long study duration (p≤0.001). Asthma patients were less averse to participation burden in terms of data-collection frequency than patients with other conditions (p=0.002). Patients with hypertension were more cost-sensitive (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

These analyses provide a framework for elucidating individual-level preferences when implementing novel patient-centred interventions. The data showed that patient preference in Personalised Trials is highly variable, suggesting that individual differences must be accounted for when marketing Personalised Trials. These results have implications for advancing precise interventions in Personalised Trials by indicating when rigorous scientific principles, such as frequent monitoring, is feasible in a substantial subset of patients.

Depressive symptoms do not discriminate: racial and economic influences between time-varying depressive symptoms and mortality among REGARDS participants

PURPOSE

Depressive symptoms relapse and remit over time, perhaps differentially by race and income. Few studies have examined whether time-varying depressive symptoms (TVDS) differentially predict mortality. We sought to determine whether race (white/black) and income (</≥$35,000) moderate the association between TVDS and mortality in a large cohort.

METHODS

The REGARDS study is a prospective cohort study among community-dwelling U.S. adults aged 45 years or older. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to separately analyze the association between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, and cancer death) and TVDS in race and income stratified models.

RESULTS

Point estimates were similar and statistically significant for white (aHR = 1.24 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.41]), black (aHR = 1.26 [95% CI: 1.11, 1.42]), and low-income participants (aHR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.16, 1.43]) for the association between TVDS and mortality. High-income participants had a lower hazard (aHR = 1.19 [95% CI: 1.02, 1.38]). Baseline depressive symptoms predicted mortality in blacks only (aHR = 1.17, 95% CI: [1.00, 1.35]).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that TVDS significantly increased the immediate hazard of mortality similarly across race and income strata. TVDS may provide more robust evaluations of depression impact compared with the baseline measures, making apparent racial disparities cited in the extant literature a reflection of the imperfection of using baseline measures.

Effect of Depression Screening After Acute Coronary Syndromes on Quality of Life: The CODIACS-QoL Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and elevated depressive symptoms are at increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality, worse quality of life, and higher health care costs. These observational findings prompted multiple scientific panels to advise universal depression screening in survivors of ACS prior to evidence from randomized screening trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether systematically screening for depression in survivors of ACS improves quality of life and depression compared with usual care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 3-group multisite randomized trial enrolled 1500 patients with ACS from 4 health care systems between November 1, 2013, and March 31, 2017, with follow-up ending July 31, 2018. Patients were eligible if they had been hospitalized for ACS in the previous 2 to 12 months and had no prior history of depression. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients with ACS were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive (1) systematic depression screening using the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire, with notification of primary care clinicians and provision of centralized, patient-preference, stepped depression care for those with positive screening results (8-item Patient Health Questionnaire score ≥10; screen, notify, and treat, n = 499); (2) systematic depression screening, with notification of primary care clinicians for those with positive screening results (screen and notify, n = 501); and (3) usual care (no screening, n = 500).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was change in quality-adjusted life-years. The secondary outcome was depression-free days. Adverse effects and mortality were assessed by patient interview and hospital records.

RESULTS

A total of 1500 patients (424 women and 1076 men; mean [SD] age, 65.9 [11.5] years) were randomized in the 18-month trial. Only 71 of 1000 eligible survivors of ACS (7.1%) had elevated 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire scores indicating depressive symptoms at screening. There were no differences in mean (SD) change in quality-adjusted life-years (screen, notify and treat, -0.06 [0.20]; screen and notify, -0.06 [0.20]; no screen, -0.06 [0.18]; P = .98) or cumulative mean (SD) depression-free days (screen, notify and treat, 343.1 [179.0] days; screen and notify, 351.3 [175.0] days; no screen, 339.0 [176.6] days; P = .63). Harms including death, bleeding, or sleep difficulties did not differ among groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In patients with ACS without a history of depression, systematic depression screening with or without providing depression treatment did not alter quality-adjusted life-years, depression-free days, or harms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01993017.

Psychological distress, coping behaviors, and preferences for support among New York healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

The mental health toll of COVID-19 on healthcare workers (HCW) is not yet fully described. We characterized distress, coping, and preferences for support among NYC HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional web survey of physicians, advanced practice providers, residents/fellows, and nurses, conducted during a peak of inpatient admissions for COVID-19 in NYC (April 9th-April 24th 2020) at a large medical center in NYC (n = 657).

RESULTS

Positive screens for psychological symptoms were common; 57% for acute stress, 48% for depressive, and 33% for anxiety symptoms. For each, a higher percent of nurses/advanced practice providers screened positive vs. attending physicians, though housestaff's rates for acute stress and depression did not differ from either. Sixty-one percent of participants reported increased sense of meaning/purpose since the COVID-19 outbreak. Physical activity/exercise was the most common coping behavior (59%), and access to an individual therapist with online self-guided counseling (33%) garnered the most interest.

CONCLUSIONS

NYC HCWs, especially nurses and advanced practice providers, are experiencing COVID-19-related psychological distress. Participants reported using empirically-supported coping behaviors, and endorsed indicators of resilience, but they also reported interest in additional wellness resources. Programs developed to mitigate stress among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic should integrate HCW preferences.

Rationale, design, and baseline data for a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing depression screening strategies after acute coronary syndrome: The comparison of depression identification after acute Coronary Syndromes-Quality of Life and Cost Outcomes (CODIACS-QOL) trial

BACKGROUND

Elevated depressive symptoms among survivors of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) confer recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality, worse quality of life, and higher healthcare costs. While multiple scientific groups advise routine depression screening for ACS survivors, no randomized trials exist to inform this screening recommendation. We aimed to assess the effect of screening for depression on change in quality of life over 18 months among ACS patients.

METHODS

The Comparison of Depression Identification after Acute Coronary Syndrome on Quality of Life and Cost Outcomes (CODIACS-QoL) trial is a pragmatic, 3-arm trial that randomized ACS patients to 1) systematic depression screening using the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) and if positive screen (PHQ-8 ≥ 10), notification of primary care providers (PCPs) and invitation to participate in centralized, patient-preference, stepped depression care (Screen, Notify, and Treat, N = 499); 2) systematic depression screening and PCP notification only (Screen and Notify, N = 501); and 3) usual care (No Screen, N = 500). Adults hospitalized for ACS in the previous 2-12 months without prior history of depression were eligible for participation. Key outcomes will be quality-adjusted life years (primary), cost of health care utilization, and depression-free days across 18 months.

RESULTS

A total of 1500 patients were randomized in the CODIACS-QOL trial (28.3% women; 16.3% Hispanic; mean age 65.9 (11.5) years). Only 7% of ACS survivors had elevated depressive symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a novel randomization schema and pragmatic design principles, the CODIACS-QoL trial achieved its enrollment target. Eventual results of this trial will inform future depression screening recommendations in cardiac patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01993017).

Adapting and Evaluating a Health System Intervention From Kaiser Permanente to Improve Hypertension Management and Control in a Large Network of Safety-Net Clinics

BACKGROUND

Nearly half of Americans with diagnosed hypertension have uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) while some integrated healthcare systems, such as Kaiser Permanente Northern California, have achieved control rates upwards 90%.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We adapted Kaiser Permanente's evidence-based treatment protocols in a racially and ethnically diverse population at 12 safety-net clinics in the San Francisco Health Network. The intervention consisted of 4 elements: a hypertension registry, a simplified treatment intensification protocol that included fixed-dose combination medications containing diuretics, standardized BP measurement protocol, and BP check visits led by registered nurse and pharmacist staff. The study population comprised patients with hypertension who made ≥1 primary care visits within the past 24 months (n=15 917) and had a recorded BP measurement within the past 12 months. We conducted a postintervention time series analysis from August 2014 to August 2016 to assess the effect of the intervention on BP control for 24 months for the pilot site and for 15 months for 11 other San Francisco Health Network clinics combined. Secondary outcomes were changes in use of guideline-recommended medication prescribing. Rates of BP control increased at the pilot site (68%-74%; P<0.01) and the 11 other San Francisco Health Network clinic sites (69%-74%; P<0.01). Statistically significant improvements in BP control rates (P<0.01) at the 11 San Francisco Health Network clinic sites occurred in all racial and ethnic groups (blacks, 60%-66%; whites, 69%-75%; Latinos, 67%-72%; Asians, 78%-82%). Use of fixed-dose combination medications increased from 10% to 13% (P<0.01), and the percentage of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescriptions dispensed in combination with a thiazide diuretic increased from 36% to 40% (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based system approaches to improving BP control can be implemented in safety-net settings and could play a pivotal role in achieving improved population BP control and reducing hypertension disparities.