An Innovative Community-based Model for Improving Preventive Care in Rural Counties

Interventions to improve primary healthcare in rural settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Residents of rural areas have poorer health status, less healthy behaviours and higher mortality than urban dwellers, issues which are commonly addressed in primary care. Strengthening primary care may be an important tool to improve the health status of rural populations.

OBJECTIVE

Synthesize and categorize studies that examine interventions to improve rural primary care.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Experimental or observational studies published between January 1, 1996 and December 2022 that include an historical or concurrent control comparison.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

Pubmed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase.

CHARTING METHODS

We extracted and charted data by broad category (quality, access and efficiency), study design, country of origin, publication year, aim, health condition and type of intervention studied. We assigned multiple categories to a study where relevant.

RESULTS

372 papers met our inclusion criteria, divided among quality (82%), access (20%) and efficiency (13%) categories. A majority of papers were completed in the USA (40%), Australia (15%), China (7%) or Canada (6%). 35 (9%) papers came from countries in Africa. The most common study design was an uncontrolled before-and-after comparison (32%) and only 24% of studies used randomized designs. The number of publications each year has increased markedly over the study period from 1-2/year in 1997-99 to a peak of 49 papers in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite substantial inequity in health outcomes associated with rural living, very little attention is paid to rural primary care in the scientific literature. Very few studies of rural primary care use randomized designs.

A Systematic Review of Electronic Community Resource Referral Systems

INTRODUCTION

Community Resource Referral Systems delivered electronically through healthcare information technology systems (e.g., electronic medical records) have become more common in efforts to address patients' unmet health-related social needs. Community Resource Referral System connects patients with social supports such as food assistance, utility support, transportation, and housing. This systematic review identifies barriers and facilitators that influence the Community Resource Referral System's implementation in the U.S. by identifying and synthesizing peer-reviewed literature over a 15-year period.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A search was conducted on five scientific databases to capture the literature published between January 2005 and December 2020. Data analysis was conducted from August 2021 to July 2022.

RESULTS

This review includes 41 articles of the 2,473 initial search results. Included literature revealed that Community Resource Referral Systems functioned to address a variety of health-related social needs and were delivered in different ways. Integrating the Community Resource Referral Systems into clinic workflows, maintenance of community-based organization inventories, and strong partnerships between clinics and community-based organizations facilitated implementation. The sensitivity of health-related social needs, technical challenges, and associated costs presented as barriers. Overall, electronic medical records-integration and automation of the referral process was reported as advantageous for the stakeholders.

DISCUSSION

This review provides information and guidance for healthcare administrators, clinicians, and researchers designing or implementing electronic Community Resource Referral Systems in the U.S. Future studies would benefit from stronger implementation science methodological approaches. Sustainable funding mechanisms for community-based organizations, clear stipulations regarding how healthcare funds can be spent on health-related social needs, and innovative governance structures that facilitate collaboration between clinics and community-based organizations are needed to promote the growth and sustainability of Community Resource Referral Systems in the U.S.

CATCH-UP vaccines: protocol for a randomized controlled trial using the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) framework to evaluate education interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Oklahoma

BACKGROUND

Oklahoma's cumulative COVID-19 incidence is higher in rural than urban counties and higher than the overall US incidence. Furthermore, fewer Oklahomans have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine compared to the US average. Our goal is to conduct a randomized controlled trial using the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) to test multiple educational interventions to improve uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among underserved populations in Oklahoma.

METHODS

Our study uses the preparation and optimization phases of the MOST framework. We conduct focus groups among community partners and community members previously involved in hosting COVID-19 testing events to inform intervention design (preparation). In a randomized clinical trial, we test three interventions to improve vaccination uptake: (1) process improvement (text messages); (2) barrier elicitation and reduction (electronic survey with tailored questions/prompts); and (2) teachable moment messaging (motivational interviewing) in a three-factor fully crossed factorial design (optimization).

DISCUSSION

Because of Oklahoma's higher COVID-19 impact and lower vaccine uptake, identifying community-driven interventions is critical to address vaccine hesitancy. The MOST framework provides an innovative and timely opportunity to efficiently evaluate multiple educational interventions in a single study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05236270, First Posted: February 11, 2022, Last Update Posted: August 31, 2022.

Evidence-Based Quality Improvement: a Scoping Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) initiatives often reflect approaches based on anecdotal evidence, but it is unclear how initiatives can best incorporate scientific literature and methods into the QI process. Review of studies of QI initiatives that aim to systematically incorporate evidence review (termed evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI)) may provide a basis for further methodological development.

METHODS

In this scoping review (registration: https://osf.io/hr5bj ) of EBQI, we searched the databases PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. The review addressed three central questions: How is EBQI defined? How is evidence used to inform evidence-informed QI initiatives? What is the effectiveness of EBQI?

RESULTS

We identified 211 publications meeting inclusion criteria. In total, 170 publications explicitly used the term "EBQI." Published definitions emphasized relying on evidence throughout the QI process. We reviewed a subset of 67 evaluations of QI initiatives in primary care, including both studies that used the term "EBQI" with those that described an evidence-based initiative without using EBQI terminology. The most frequently reported EBQI components included use of evidence to identify previously tested effective QI interventions; engaging stakeholders; iterative intervention development; partnering with frontline clinicians; and data-driven evaluation of the QI intervention. Effectiveness estimates were positive but varied in size in ten studies that provided data on patient health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

EBQI is a promising strategy for integrating relevant prior scientific findings and methods systematically in the QI process, from the initial developmental phase of the IQ initiative through to its evaluation. Future QI researchers and practitioners can use these findings as the basis for further development of QI initiatives.

Oncology and Primary Care Provider Views on Cancer Survivorship Care: Mind the Gap

CONTEXT

Coordination between oncology and primary care practices in cancer survivorship is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To identify cancer care coordination perceptions, knowledge, and practices in a sample of Oklahoma oncology care providers (ONCs) and primary care providers (PCPs) regarding post-treatment care of adult cancer survivors.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, statewide survey by mail/web link in 2014/5.

SETTING

PCPs identified through a primary care research network, primary care organization membership lists; ONCs identified through www.Healthgrades.com.

PARTICIPANTS

Contacts who were clinically active and seeing cancer patients were eligible. The final sample size included 101 ONCs and 58 PCPs who reported actively seeing cancer patients.

MEASURES

Responses to predominately Likert scale or ranked-order questions derived from the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors.

ANALYSES

Chi square and t tests were performed to test bivariate associations between provider type and survey measures.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences (P < .05) between ONC and PCP perceptions were observed for several questions on communication between the 2 provider types, ONC perceptions of PCP ability to address survivorship care, and responsibilities for post-treatment care.

CONCLUSIONS

Highly discrepant perspectives between ONCs and PCPs regarding communications and responsibilities for survivorship care may lead to adverse health outcomes. Interventions aimed at improving care coordination for cancer survivors should define each provider group's responsibilities in survivorship care, and create structures and processes that foster clear channels of communication between ONC and PCP practices.

Digital Health Interventions to Enhance Prevention in Primary Care: Scoping Review

Background

Disease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated.

Objective

This review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings.

Methods

A scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted.

Results

The search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low.

Conclusions

Preventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.