Conducting a randomized trial in rural and urban safety-net health centers: Added value of community-based participatory research

Underreporting contextual factors preclude the applicability appraisal in primary care randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess applicability reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in primary care (PC).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used a random sample of PC RCTs published between 2000 and 2020 to assess applicability. We extracted data related to setting, population, intervention (including implementation), comparator, outcomes, and context. Based on data availability, we assessed whether the five predefined applicability questions were adequately addressed by each PC RCT.

RESULTS

Adequately described elements that were reported frequently (>50%) included the responsible organization for intervention provision (97, 93.3%), study population characteristics (94, 90.4%), intervention implementation including monitoring and evaluation (92, 88.5%), intervention components (89, 85.6%), time frame (82, 78.8%), baseline prevalence (58, 55.8%), and the type of setting and location (53, 51%). Elements that were often underreported included contextual factors, that is, evidence of differential effects across sociodemographic or other groupings (2, 1.9%), intervention components tailored for specific settings (7, 6.7%), health system structure (32, 30.8%), factors affecting implementation (40, 38.5%) and organization structure (50, 48.1%). The proportion of trials that adequately addressed each applicability question ranged between 1% and 20.2%, while none RCT could address all of them.

CONCLUSION

Underreporting contextual factors jeopardize the appraisal of applicability in PC RCTs.

Values and Meaning in Rural Primary Care Practices: Implications for Interventions Within Context

OBJECTIVES

It is important to understand the unique perspectives and values that motivate patients and clinicians in rural primary care settings to participate in clinical care activities. Our objective was to explore perspectives, preferences, and values related to primary care that could influence implementation of evidence-based programs.

METHODS

Qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews and using immersion/crystallization and thematic analysis. Participants were primary care practice members (clinicians, clinical staff, and administrators) and their patients in rural Colorado.

RESULTS

Twenty-six practice members and 23 patients across 9 practices participated. There were 4 emergent themes that were consistent across practice members and some patients. Patient perspectives are located in parenthesis. They included: (1) Focus on quality patient care, patient satisfaction, and continuity of care (patients appreciated quality and compassionate care), (2) Importance of prevention and wellness (patients appreciated help with preventing health problems), (3) Clinician willingness and ability to meet patient preferences for care (patients described comfort with local care), and (4) Passion for serving underserved, uninsured, or vulnerable populations (patients described their vulnerabilities). There were differences in how the perspectives were operationalized by practice member role, illustrating the importance of different ways of addressing these values.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful implementation requires consideration of context, and much of context is understanding what is important to those involved in the primary care experience. This study sheds light on salient values of rural primary care practice members and their patients, which may inform interventions designed with and for this setting.

Geographic differences in community oncology provider and practice location characteristics in the central United States

PURPOSE

How care delivery influences urban-rural disparities in cancer outcomes is unclear. We sought to understand community oncologists' practice settings to inform cancer care delivery interventions.

METHODS

We conducted secondary analysis of a national dataset of providers billing Medicare from June 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020 in 13 states in the central United States. We used Kruskal-Wallis rank and Fisher's exact tests to compare physician characteristics and practice settings among rural and urban community oncologists.

FINDINGS

We identified 1,963 oncologists practicing in 1,492 community locations; 67.5% practiced in exclusively urban locations, 11.3% in exclusively rural locations, and 21.1% in both rural and urban locations. Rural-only, urban-only, and urban-rural spanning oncologists practice in an average of 1.6, 2.4, and 5.1 different locations, respectively. A higher proportion of rural community sites were solo practices (11.7% vs 4.0%, P<.001) or single specialty practices (16.4% vs 9.4%, P<.001); and had less diversity in training environments (86.5% vs 67.8% with <2 medical schools represented, P<.001) than urban community sites. Rural multispecialty group sites were less likely to include other cancer specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 2 potentially distinct styles of care delivery in rural communities, which may require distinct interventions: (1) innovation-isolated rural oncologists, who are more likely to be solo providers, provide care at few locations, and practice with doctors with similar training experiences; and (2) urban-rural spanning oncologists who provide care at a high number of locations and have potential to spread innovation, but may face high complexity and limited opportunity for care standardization.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Rural Setting: A Randomized Study

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer screening has been shown to prevent or detect early colorectal cancer and reduce mortality; yet, adherence to screening recommendations remains low, particularly in rural settings.

STUDY DESIGN

RCT.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Adults (n=7,812) aged 50-75 years and due for colorectal cancer screening in a largely rural health system were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n=3,906) or the control (n=3,906) group in September 2016, with analysis following through 2018.

INTERVENTION

A mailed motivational messaging screening reminder letter with an option to call and request a free at-home fecal immunochemical screening test (intervention) or the standard invitation letter detailing that the individual was due for screening (control). Multifaceted motivational messaging emphasized colorectal cancer preventability and the ease and affordability of screening, and communicated a limited supply of test kits.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Colorectal cancer screening participation within 6 months after mailed invitation was ascertained from the electronic medical record.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer screening participation was significantly improved in the intervention (30.1%) vs the usual care control group (22.5%; p<0.001). Individuals randomized to the intervention group had 49% higher odds of being screened over follow-up than those randomized to the control group (OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.34, 1.65). A total of 13.2 screening invitations were needed to accomplish 1 additional screening over the usual care. Of the 233 fecal immunochemical test kits mailed to participants, 154 (66.1%) were returned, and 18 (11.7%) tested positive.

CONCLUSIONS

A mailed motivational messaging letter with a low-cost screening alternative increased colorectal cancer screening in this largely rural community with generally poor adherence to screening recommendations. Mailed colorectal cancer screening reminders using motivational messaging may be an effective method for increasing screening and reducing rural colorectal cancer disparities.

Precision community: a mixed methods study to identify determinants of adoption and implementation of targeted cancer therapy in community oncology

Background

Precision medicine has enormous potential to improve cancer outcomes. Over one third of the 1.5 million Americans diagnosed with cancer each year have genetic mutations that could be targeted with an FDA-approved drug to treat their disease more effectively. However, the current uptake of targeted cancer therapy in clinical practice is suboptimal. Tumor testing is not widely used, and treatments based on molecular and genomic profiling are often not prescribed when indicated. Challenges with the uptake of precision medicine may disproportionately impact cancer patients in rural communities and other underserved populations. The objective of this study is to identify the determinants of adoption and implementation of precision cancer therapy to design an implementation strategy for community oncology practices, including those in rural areas.

Methods

This study is an explanatory sequential mixed methods study to identify factors associated with the use of targeted cancer therapy. Levels of targeted therapy use will be ascertained by secondary analysis of medical records to identify concordance with 18 national guideline recommendations for use of precision medicine in the treatment of breast, colorectal, lung, and melanoma skin cancer. Concurrently, facilitators and barriers associated with the use of precision cancer therapy will be elicited from interviews with up to a total of 40 oncologists, administrators, pathology, and pharmacy staff across the participating sites. Qualitative analysis will be a template analysis based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Quantitative data aggregated at the practice level will be used to rank oncology practices’ adherence to targeted cancer therapy guidelines. Determinants will be compared among high and low users to isolate factors likely to facilitate targeted therapy use. The study will be conducted in eight community oncology practices, with an estimated 4121 targeted therapy treatment decision-making opportunities over a 3-year period.

Discussion

Despite unprecedented investment in precision medicine, translation into practice is suboptimal. Our study will identify factors associated with the uptake of precision medicine in community settings. These findings will inform future interventions to increase equitable uptake of evidence-based targeted cancer treatment.

Utilizing Community-based Participatory Research Principles in a Safety-Net Hospital to Develop a Research Partnership

Research at safety-net hospitals may require additional planning to ensure the ethical conduct of research with vulnerable populations. This report discusses application of the principles of community-based participatory research and bioethics to establish a research partnership with a safety-net hospital in the southern U.S.

Patients' self-reported barriers to colon cancer screening in federally qualified health center settings

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Despite evidence that screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality, only about 60% of age-eligible adults are up-to-date on CRC screening. This analysis aims to identify self-reported barriers to CRC screening among patients in a safety-net healthcare setting.

Participants were recruited from safety-net primary care sites that were participating in a trial to increase CRC screening. At baseline, patients (n = 483) completed self-report surveys that assessed demographics, healthcare and CRC screening. Barriers to CRC screening were assessed through an open-ended question. Using a basic text analysis, data were coded and organized into key topics.

Overall, 65.2% ever had CRC screening; 46.4% were up-to-date. Of those who described barriers (n = 198), 22.9% said they were not due for screening or their provider had not recommended it. Other common barriers included fear or worry about the procedure or outcome, financial challenges such as lack of insurance or cost of testing, and logistic challenges such as transportation and time. Fewer said that screening was of low importance or mentioned discomfort with the procedure or colonoscopy preparation.

In this safety-net setting, CRC screening rates were lower than national rates. These qualitative results are similar to quantitative findings reported in the literature but the qualitative data add to our understanding of patient-reported concerns and challenges faced by safety-net patients. These results may be applied to developing targeting communication or intervention strategies to improve CRC screening rates within safety-net health centers.