Dataset Information

The ASCENT Intervention to Improve Access and Reduce Racial Inequalities in Kidney Waitlisting: A Randomized, Effectiveness-Implementation Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The US kidney allocation system (KAS) changed in 2014, but dialysis facility staff (including nephrologists, social workers, nurse managers, and facility administrators) had low awareness of how this policy change could affect their patients' access to transplant. We assessed the effectiveness of a multicomponent and multilevel educational and outreach intervention targeting US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting, with a goal of increasing waitlisting and reducing Black versus White racial disparities in waitlisting.

Methods

The Allocation System Changes for Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) study was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic, multilevel, effectiveness-implementation trial including 655 US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting, randomized to receive either the ASCENT intervention (a performance feedback report, a webinar, and staff and patient educational videos) or an educational brochure. Absolute and relative differences in coprimary outcomes (1-year waitlisting and racial differences in waitlisting) were reported among incident and prevalent patients.

Results

Among 56,332 prevalent patients, 1-year waitlisting decreased for patients in control facilities (2.72%-2.56%) and remained the same for patients in intervention facilities (2.68%-2.75%). However, the proportion of prevalent Black patients waitlisted in the ASCENT interventions increased from baseline to 1 year (2.52%-2.78%), whereas it remained the same for White patients in the ASCENT intervention facilities (2.66%-2.69%). Among incident patients in ASCENT facilities, 1-year waitlisting increased among Black patients (from 0.87% to 1.07%) but declined among White patients (from 1.54% to 1.27%). Significant racial disparities in waitlisting were observed at baseline, with incident Black patients in ASCENT facilities less likely to waitlist compared with White patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.92), but 1 year after the intervention, this racial disparity was attenuated (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.42).

Conclusions

The ASCENT intervention may have a small effect on extending the reach of the new KAS policy by attenuating racial disparities in waitlisting among a population of US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting.

Clinical trial registry name and registration number

National Institutes of Health ( NCT02879812 ).

Podcast

This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_03_08_CJN09760822.mp3.

SUBMITTER: Patzer RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10103253 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The ASCENT Intervention to Improve Access and Reduce Racial Inequalities in Kidney Waitlisting: A Randomized, Effectiveness-Implementation Trial.

Patzer Rachel E RE Zhang Rebecca R Buford Jade J McPherson Laura L Lee Yi-Ting Hana YH Urbanski Megan M Li Dong D Wilk Adam A Paul Sudeshna S Plantinga Laura L Escoffery Cam C Pastan Stephen O SO

Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN 20230208 3

<h4>Background</h4>The US kidney allocation system (KAS) changed in 2014, but dialysis facility staff (including nephrologists, social workers, nurse managers, and facility administrators) had low awareness of how this policy change could affect their patients' access to transplant. We assessed the effectiveness of a multicomponent and multilevel educational and outreach intervention targeting US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting, with a goal of increasing waitlisting and reducing Black v ...[more]

PMID: 36764664

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLocally delivered, place-based public health interventions are receiving increasing attention as a way of improving health and reducing inequalities. However, there is limited evidence on their effectiveness. This umbrella review synthesises systematic review evidence of the health and health inequalities impacts of locally delivered place-based interventions across three elements of place and health: the physical, social, and economic environments.MethodsSystematic review methodology was used to identify recent published systematic reviews of the effectiveness of place-based interventions on health and health inequalities (PROGRESS+) in high-income countries. Nine databases were searched from 1st January 2008 to 1st March 2020. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (R-AMSTAR).ResultsThirteen systematic reviews were identified - reporting 51 unique primary studies. Fifty of these studies reported on interventions that changed the physical environment and one reported on changes to the economic environment. Only one primary study reported cost-effectiveness data. No reviews were identified that assessed the impact of social interventions. Given heterogeneity and quality issues, we found tentative evidence that the provision of housing/home modifications, improving the public realm, parks and playgrounds, supermarkets, transport, cycle lanes, walking routes, and outdoor gyms - can all have positive impacts on health outcomes - particularly physical activity. However, as no studies reported an assessment of variation in PROGRESS+ factors, the effect of these interventions on health inequalities remains unclear.ConclusionsPlace-based interventions can be effective at improving physical health, health behaviours and social determinants of health outcomes. High agentic interventions indicate greater improvements for those living in greater proximity to the intervention, which may suggest that in order for interventions to reduce inequalities, they should be implemented at a scale commensurate with the level of disadvantage. Future research needs to ensure equity data is collected, as this is severely lacking and impeding progress on identifying interventions that are effective in reducing health inequalities.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42019158309.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In low-income countries such as Zambia, where maternal mortality rates are persistently high, maternity waiting homes (MWHs) represent one potential strategy to improve access to safe delivery, especially for women living in remote areas. The Maternity Homes Access in Zambia project (MAHMAZ) is evaluating the impact of a MWH model on women's access to safe delivery in rural Zambia. There is a growing need to understand not only the effectiveness of interventions but also the effectiveness of their implementation in order to appropriately interpret outcomes. There is little evidence to guide effective implementation of MWH for both immediate uptake and to promote sustainability in this context. This protocol describes a study that aims to investigate the effectiveness of the implementation of MAHMAZ by not only documenting fidelity but also identifying factors that influence implementation success and affect longer-term sustainability. METHODS:This study will use mixed methods to evaluate the implementation effectiveness and sustainability of the MAHMAZ intervention. In our study, "implementation effectiveness" means to expand beyond measuring fidelity to the MWH model and includes assessing both the adoption and uptake of the model and identifying those factors that facilitate or inhibit uptake. Sustainability is defined as the routine implementation of an intervention after external support has ended. Quantitative methods include extracting data from existing records at the MWHs and health facilities to analyze patterns of utilization, and conducting a routine health facility assessment to determine facility-level factors that may influence MWH implementation and woman-level outcomes. We will also conduct an experience survey with MWH users and apply a checklist to assess fidelity to the MWH model. Qualitative methods include in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with MWH users, community members and other stakeholders. Qualitative data will be analyzed using an integrated framework drawing constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Conceptual Framework for Sustainability. DISCUSSION:The findings from this evaluation will be shared with policymakers formulating policy affecting the implementation of MWH and may be used as evidence for programmatic decisions by the government and supporting agencies in deciding to take this model to scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02620436, Registered 3 December 2015, Prospectively registered (clinicaltrials.gov; for the overarching quasi-experimental impact study).

Project description:ImportanceThe American Academy of Pediatrics recommends referring children at elevated risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) for Part C early intervention (EI) services, but notes that EI services often fail to provide ASD screening.ObjectiveTo evaluate the hypothesis that a multistage screening protocol for ASD implemented in 3 EI settings will increase autism detection, especially among Spanish-speaking families.Design, setting, and participantsDifference-in-differences analyses with propensity score weighting of a quasi-experimental design using administrative data on 3 implementation EI agencies and 9 comparison EI agencies from 2012 to 2018 provided by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Eligible children were aged 14 to 36 months, enrolled in EI, had no prior ASD diagnosis or medical condition precluding participation, and had parents who spoke English or Spanish. The final analytic sample included 33 326 unique patients assessed across 150 200 person-quarters.ExposuresMultistage ASD assessment protocol including ASD screening questionnaires, observational screener, and diagnostic evaluation.Main outcomes and measuresIncreased incidence of ASD diagnoses as documented in Department of Public Health records and reductions in language-associated health care disparities.ResultsImplementation of screening at 3 EI sites was associated with a significant increase in the rate of ASD diagnoses (incidence rate ratios [IRR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-2.1; P < .001), representing an additional 8.1 diagnoses per 1000 children per quarter. Among Spanish-speaking families, screening was also associated with a significant increase in the rate of ASD diagnoses (IRR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.3; P < .001), representing 15.4 additional diagnoses per 1000 children per quarter-a larger increase than for non-Spanish-speaking families (interaction IRR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.1; P = .005). Exploratory analyses revealed that screening was associated with a larger increase in the rate of ASD diagnoses among boys (IRR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3; P < .001) than among girls (IRR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.7; P = .84).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, associations between increased rates of ASD diagnoses and reductions in disparities for Spanish-speaking households support the effectiveness of multistage screening in EI. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of ASD screening in EI settings as well as a rigorous evaluation of ASD screening in any setting with a no-screening comparison condition. Given that the intervention included multiple components, mechanisms of action warrant further research, as do disparities by child sex.

Project description:IntroductionIn Canada, as in most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, healthcare systems face significant challenges in ensuring better access to primary care. A regional healthcare organisation in Quebec (Canada) serving a population of approximately 755 459 citizens has implemented a standardised access approach to primary care services for this population. The objective of this new clinical and organisational practice is to ensure that users benefit from the same referral process, regardless of the entry point, in order to be directed to the right services. This new practice integrates a shared decision-making process between the user and the professional, and a collaborative process between different health professionals within and between services. The objective of our research is to identify and characterise the conditions of implementation of this practice.MethodsThis effectiveness-implementation hybrid investigation will use an embedded single-case study, defined in this case as the process of implementing a clinical and organisational practice within a healthcare organisation. Further to an evaluation conducted during a preliminary phase of the project, this study consists of evaluating the implementation of this new practice in four medical clinics (family medicine groups). A qualitative analysis of the data and a quantitative preimplementation and postimplementation analysis based on performance indicators will be conducted. This study is ultimately situated within a participatory organisational approach that involves various stakeholders and users at each step of the implementation and evaluation process.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Sectoral Research in Population Health and Primary Care of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale (#2020-1800). The results of the investigation will be presented to the stakeholders involved in the advisory committees and at several scientific conferences. Manuscripts will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

Dataset Information

The ASCENT Intervention to Improve Access and Reduce Racial Inequalities in Kidney Waitlisting: A Randomized, Effectiveness-Implementation Trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical trial registry name and registration number

Podcast

Publications

The ASCENT Intervention to Improve Access and Reduce Racial Inequalities in Kidney Waitlisting: A Randomized, Effectiveness-Implementation Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets