1
|
Raja S, Rabinowitz EP, Sayer MA, da Fonseca M. Patient comfort discussing sensitive behavioral health topics. JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION IN HEALTHCARE 2023; 16:239-244. [PMID: 37859460 DOI: 10.1080/17538068.2022.2152228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND : Following implementation of routine screening for depression in primary care, screening for other behavioral health issues is expanding. However, prior to implementing additional screening it is important to consider patient comfort answering sensitive questions related to behavioral health topics to determine screening acceptability and effectiveness. METHODS : A self-report survey was completed by U.S. adults over the age of 18 (n = 378) using Amazon Mechanical Turk. The survey assessed comfort discussing demographics, physical health, behavioral health, oral health, and living conditions with medical providers. Comfort levels of behavioral health topics were compared to comfort discussing depression symptoms and reasons for discomfort discussing topics were also surveyed. RESULTS : There were significant differences in comfort level discussing various behavioral health issues (F(8) = 51.70, P < .001). Participants reported being more comfortable discussing cigarette smoking and less comfortable discussing trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV) and gun ownership compared to depression. Privacy and perceived irrelevance were the most common reasons for discomfort. CONCLUSIONS : Accurate indices of patient behavioral health are essential for patient care. However, patients may be uncomfortable discussing some topics such as trauma, IPV, and gun ownership that patients view as private and/or unrelated to their treatment. Patient comfort may increase through provider trainings that focus on communication skills training, clear administrative procedures that allow for privacy and adequate time for discussions, and community education that underscores how these issues impact physical health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheela Raja
- Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Emily P Rabinowitz
- Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
| | - MacKenzie A Sayer
- Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
| | - Marcio da Fonseca
- Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Berkowitz RL, Bui L, Shen Z, Pressman A, Moreno M, Brown S, Nilon A, Miller-Rosales C, Azar KMJ. Evaluation of a social determinants of health screening questionnaire and workflow pilot within an adult ambulatory clinic. BMC FAMILY PRACTICE 2021; 22:256. [PMID: 34952582 PMCID: PMC8708511 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-021-01598-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2021] [Accepted: 11/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is increased recognition in clinical settings of the importance of documenting, understanding, and addressing patients' social determinants of health (SDOH) to improve health and address health inequities. This study evaluated a pilot of a standardized SDOH screening questionnaire and workflow in an ambulatory clinic within a large integrated health network in Northern California. METHODS The pilot screened for SDOH needs using an 11-question Epic-compatible paper questionnaire assessing eight SDOH and health behavior domains: financial resource, transportation, stress, depression, intimate partner violence, social connections, physical activity, and alcohol consumption. Eligible patients for the pilot receiving a Medicare wellness, adult annual, or new patient visits during a five-week period (February-March, 2020), and a comparison group from the same time period in 2019 were identified. Sociodemographic data (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and payment type), visit type, length of visit, and responses to SDOH questions were extracted from electronic health records, and a staff experience survey was administered. The evaluation was guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. RESULTS Two-hundred eighty-nine patients were eligible for SDOH screening. Responsiveness by domain ranged from 55 to 67%, except for depression. Half of patients had at least one identified social need, the most common being stress (33%), physical activity (22%), alcohol (12%), and social connections (6%). Physical activity needs were identified more in females (81% vs. 19% in males, p < .01) and at new patient/transfer visits (48% vs. 13% at Medicare wellness and 38% at adult wellness visits, p < .05). Average length of visit was 39.8 min, which was 1.7 min longer than that in 2019. Visit lengths were longer among patients 65+ (43.4 min) and patients having public insurance (43.6 min). Most staff agreed that collecting SDOH data was relevant and accepted the SDOH questionnaire and workflow but highlighted opportunities for improvement in training and connecting patients to resources. CONCLUSION Use of evidence-based SDOH screening questions and associated workflow was effective in gathering patient SDOH information and identifying social needs in an ambulatory setting. Future studies should use qualitative data to understand patient and staff experiences with collecting SDOH information in healthcare settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel L Berkowitz
- Department of Public Health and Recreation, College of Health and Human Sciences, San José State University, One Washington Square, San José, CA, 95192, USA
- Sutter Health Institute for Advancing Health Equity, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA
| | - Linh Bui
- Sutter Health Institute for Advancing Health Equity, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA
- Department of Nursing, School of Natural Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering, California State University, Bakersfield, 9001 Stockdale Highway, Bakersfield, CA, 93311, USA
| | - Zijun Shen
- Sutter Health Institute for Advancing Health Equity, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA
- Sutter Health Center for Health Systems Research, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA
| | - Alice Pressman
- Sutter Health Institute for Advancing Health Equity, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA
- Sutter Health Center for Health Systems Research, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA
| | - Maria Moreno
- Sutter Health Institute for Advancing Health Equity, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA
- Sutter Health Center for Health Systems Research, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA
| | - Stephanie Brown
- Sutter Health Institute for Advancing Health Equity, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA
- Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, Sutter Health, 350 Hawthorne Ave., Oakland, CA, 94609, USA
- Berkeley Emergency Medical Group, 2450 Ashby Ave., Berkeley, CA, 94705, USA
| | - Anne Nilon
- Sutter Health Population Health Services, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA
| | - Chris Miller-Rosales
- Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, 180 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
| | - Kristen M J Azar
- Sutter Health Institute for Advancing Health Equity, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA.
- Sutter Health Center for Health Systems Research, 2121 N. California Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA, 94596, USA.
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th St., Second Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Last BS, Buttenheim AM, Futterer AC, Livesey C, Jaeger J, Stewart RE, Reilly M, Press MJ, Peifer M, Wolk CB, Beidas RS. A pilot study of participatory and rapid implementation approaches to increase depression screening in primary care. BMC FAMILY PRACTICE 2021; 22:228. [PMID: 34784899 PMCID: PMC8593851 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-021-01550-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2021] [Accepted: 09/24/2021] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most individuals with depression go unidentified and untreated. In 2016 the US Preventive Services Task Force released guidelines recommending universal screening in primary care to identify patients with depression and to link them to treatment. Feasible, acceptable, and effective strategies to implement these guidelines are needed. METHODS This three-phased study employed rapid participatory methods to design and test strategies to increase depression screening at Penn Medicine, a large health system with 90 primary care practices. First, researchers solicited ideas and barriers from stakeholders to increase screening using an innovation tournament-a crowdsourcing method that invites stakeholders to submit ideas to address a workplace challenge. Second, a panel of stakeholders and scientists deliberated over and ranked the tournament ideas. An instant runoff election was held to select the winning idea. Third, the research team piloted the winning idea in a primary care practice using rapid prototyping, an approach that quickly refines and iterates strategy designs. RESULTS The innovation tournament yielded 31 ideas and 32 barriers from diverse stakeholders (12 primary care physicians, 10 medical assistants, 4 nurse practitioners, 2 practice managers, and 4 patient support assistants). A panel of 6 stakeholders and scientists deliberated on the ideas and voted for patient self-report (i.e., through tablet computers, text message, or an online patient portal) as the winning idea. The research team rapid prototyped tablets in one primary care practice with one physician over 5 five-hour shifts to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of the strategy. Most patients, the physician, and medical assistants found the tablets acceptable and feasible. However, patient support assistants struggled to incorporate them in their workflow and expressed concerns about scaling up the process. Depression screening rates were higher using tablets compared to usual care; follow-up was comparable between tablets and usual care. CONCLUSIONS Rapid participatory methods engaged and amplified the voices of diverse stakeholders in primary care. These methods helped design an acceptable and feasible implementation strategy that showed promise for increasing depression screening in a primary care setting. The next step is to evaluate the strategy in a randomized controlled trial across primary care practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Briana S Last
- Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Alison M Buttenheim
- Department of Family and Community Health, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics (CHIBE), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Anne C Futterer
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Cecilia Livesey
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jeffrey Jaeger
- Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Rebecca E Stewart
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Megan Reilly
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Matthew J Press
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Primary Care Service Line, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Maryanne Peifer
- Primary Care Service Line, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Courtney Benjamin Wolk
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Implementation Science Center at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (PISCE@LDI), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Rinad S Beidas
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics (CHIBE), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Implementation Science Center at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (PISCE@LDI), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Medicine Nudge Unit, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|