Dataset Information

Examining the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cervical cancer screening practices among clinicians practicing in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A mixed methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic led to reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy. Therefore, in this mixed methods study we explored perceived pandemic-related practice changes to cervical cancer screenings in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).

Methods

Between October 2021 and June 2022, we conducted a national web survey of clinicians (physicians and advanced practice providers) who performed cervical cancer screening in FQHCs in the United States during the post-acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with a sub-set of qualitative interviews via video conference, to examine perceived changes in cervical cancer screening practices during the pandemic.

Results

A total of 148 clinicians completed surveys; a subset (n=13) completed qualitative interviews. Most (86%) reported reduced cervical cancer screening early in the pandemic, and 28% reported continued reduction in services at the time of survey completion (October 2021- July 2022). Nearly half (45%) reported staff shortages impacting their ability to screen or track patients. Compared to clinicians in Obstetrics/Gynecology/Women's health, those in family medicine and other specialties more often reported reduced screening compared to pre-pandemic. Most (92%) felt that screening using HPV self-sampling would be very or somewhat helpful to address screening backlogs. Qualitative interviews highlighted the impacts of staff shortages and strategies for improvement.

Conclusions

Findings highlight that in late 2021 and early 2022, many clinicians in FQHCs reported reduced cervical cancer screening and of pandemic-related staffing shortages impacting screening and follow-up. If not addressed, reduced screenings among underserved populations could worsen cervical cancer disparities in the future.

Funding

This study was funded by the American Cancer Society, who had no role in the study's design, conduct, or reporting.

SUBMITTER: Fuzzell L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10476963 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Examining the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cervical cancer screening practices among clinicians practicing in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A mixed methods study.

Fuzzell Lindsay L Lake Paige P Brownstein Naomi C NC Fontenot Holly B HB Whitmer Ashley A Michel Alexandra A McIntyre McKenzie M Rossi Sarah L SL Kajtezovic Sidika S Vadaparampil Susan T ST Perkins Rebecca R

eLife 20230904

<h4>Background</h4>The COVID-19 pandemic led to reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy. Therefore, in this mixed methods study we explored perceived pandemic-related practice changes to cervical cancer screenings in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).<h4>Methods</h4>Between October 2021 and June 2022, we conducted a national web survey of clinicians (physicians and advanced practice providers) who performed cervical cancer screening in FQHCs in the United States during th ...[more]

PMID: 37664989

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere is a need for early and equitable detection of cognitive impairment among older adults.ObjectiveTo examine the prevalence of unrecognized cognitive impairment among older adults receiving primary care from federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at 5 FQHCs providing primary care in Indianapolis, Indiana, between 2021 and 2023. Participants were adults aged 65 years and older, without a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), dementia, or severe mental illness. Data analysis was performed from September 2023 to April 2024.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a diagnosis of dementia or MCI, as determined by an interdisciplinary clinical team using data from structured patient and study partner interviews, medical record reviews, and a detailed cognitive assessment, including neuropsychological testing. Differences between participants determined to have normal cognition, MCI, and dementia were assessed statistically using analysis of variance for continuous variables, χ2 or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables, or Fisher exact test alone when expected cell counts were 5 or less.ResultsA total of 844 eligible individuals were consecutively approached, 294 consented to participate, and 204 completed the study (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [5.1] years; 127 women [62.3%]). One hundred eight participants (52.9%) were African American, 5 (2.5%) were Hispanic, 199 (97.5%) were not Hispanic, and 90 (44.1%) were White. The mean (SD) duration of education was 13.1 (2.6) years, and the mean (SD) Area Deprivation Index score was 78.3 (19.9), indicating a high level of neighborhood disadvantage. In total, 127 patients (62.3%) met the diagnostic criteria for MCI, 25 (12.3%) had dementia, and 52 (25.5%) had no cognitive impairment. Compared with non-Hispanic White individuals and after adjusting for age, sex, and education level, African American individuals were more than twice as likely to have MCI or dementia (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.38-5.53; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that unrecognized cognitive impairment is ubiquitous among older adults from underrepresented, minoritized racial and ethnic groups and those who are socially vulnerable receiving primary care from FQHCs. To overcome the disparity in early detection of cognitive impairment, timely, equitable, scalable, and sustainable detection approaches need to be developed.

Project description:ImportanceThe impact of Medicaid telehealth reimbursement policies on staffing and patient-centered care in the safety net are largely unknown but critical to successful and equitable access to telehealth.ObjectiveTo identify and characterize federally qualified health center (FQHC) staff and leadership's perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of Medicaid telehealth reimbursement policies.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used semistructured interviews conducted from April 2022 to January 2024 with snowballed sampled participants consisting of FQHC leadership, clinicians, and administrative staff in 6 FQHCs representing the 5 boroughs in New York, New York.Main outcomes and measuresParticipants described telehealth experiences, including factors impending or contributing to staff turnover, patient satisfaction, and financial sustainability within FQHCs. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data.ResultsOf 56 interviews, 26 participants (46.4%) were part of the leadership team, 18 (32.1%) were clinical staff, 8 (14.3%) were program support staff, 7 (12.5%) were enabling services staff, 3 (5.4%) were site directors, and 3 (5.4%) were another staff category. Three overarching themes characterized staff and leadership understanding of the impact of Medicaid telehealth reimbursement policies on FQHCs: (1) Medicaid telehealth policy design was perceived to exacerbate a workforce shortage, particularly among mental health care practitioners; (2) patients ranged in preferences and ability to access telehealth while FQHCs struggled to attain resources for telehealth; and (3) FQHC leadership envisioned a productive hybrid model where telehealth complements on-site care. FQHC staff and leadership reported opportunities to improve compliance, no-shows, and workflows through telehealth, but improvements in funding policy, such as payment parity and more grants that can be used to address telehealth infrastructure (eg, Internet access, equipment, and literacy), are urgently needed.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study, staff at FQHCs perceived the current telehealth Medicaid reimbursement policies in New York State as a factor that exacerbated inequities to accessing care, particularly for mental health needs. These findings indicate that although telehealth brings new opportunities to advance patient-centered care, there are serious challenges on the path toward equitable care because telehealth is not yet integrated into payment in a sustainable way.

Project description:ImportanceFederally qualified health centers (FQHCs) have increasingly participated in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs), one of the most widespread value-based programs. Although FQHCs may strengthen ACOs' ability to provide affordable care to diverse Medicare beneficiaries, evidence on ACOs' performance by FQHC participation is limited.ObjectivesTo compare beneficiary characteristics, utilization, expenditure, and quality between ACOs with and without FQHC participation and assess changes in ACO performance after including first FQHCs.Design, setting, and participantsUsing MSSP public use files, this cross-sectional study compared performance of ACOs that always had FQHC participation with ACOs that never had FQHC participation from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2022, supplemented with staggered difference-in-differences analyses of ACOs' first-time inclusion of FQHCs on performance measures. Data analysis was performed from December 1, 2023, to February 29, 2024.ExposureParticipation of FQHCs in the MSSP.Main outcomes and measuresMeasures of ACO-assigned beneficiaries, utilization, expenditure, and quality per ACO-year.ResultsAmong 752 ACOs in the descriptive analysis, 140 ACOs always had at least 1 FQHC participant, whereas 612 ACOs never had FQHC participants. Compared with ACOs that never had FQHC participation, those that always had FQHC participation provided care to more socioeconomically disadvantaged beneficiaries (mean [SD] with dual eligibility, 2035.8 [2110.6] vs 1040.9 [1084.2] person-years; with disability, 3341.1 [3474.9] vs 1705.1 [1664.9] person-years; in racial and ethnic minoritized groups, 3690.6 [4118.4] vs 2515.1 [2762.9] person-years), with fewer primary care visits (mean [SD], 9956.6 [1926.3] vs 10 858.8 [2383.4] per 1000 person-years), more emergency department visits (mean [SD], 771.6 [190.9] vs 657.2 [160.0] per 1000 person-years), and lower levels of several quality measures. In the difference-in-differences analysis, 43 ACOs included FQHCs for the first time. Including first FQHCs was associated with increases of 872.9 dual-eligible (95% CI, 345.9-1399.8), 1137.6 disability (95% CI, 390.1-1885.1), and 1350.8 racial and ethnic minority (95% CI, 447.4-2254.1) person-years, with increases in rates of influenza immunization (5.9 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, 1.4-10.4 pp), tobacco screening and cessation intervention (11.8 pp; 95% CI, 3.7-20.0 pp), and depression screening and follow-up (8.9 pp; 95% CI, 0.5-17.4 pp). No associations were observed between FQHC inclusion and utilization or expenditure.Conclusions and relevanceIn this repeated cross-sectional study, MSSP ACOs with FQHC participation served more socioeconomically disadvantaged Medicare beneficiaries than those without FQHC participation. The inclusion of first FQHCs was associated with increased rates of several preventive services without increasing costs. Participation of safety net practices appeared to improve access to ACOs among beneficiaries from underserved communities.

Project description:BackgroundEngaging frontline clinicians and staff in quality improvement is a promising bottom-up approach to transforming primary care practices. This may be especially true in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and similar safety-net settings where large-scale, top-down transformation efforts are often associated with declining worker morale and increasing burnout. Innovation contests, which decentralize problem-solving, can be used to involve frontline workers in idea generation and selection.ObjectiveWe aimed to describe the ideas that frontline clinicians and staff suggested via organizational innovation contests in a national sample of 54 FQHCs.InterventionsInnovation contests solicited ideas for improving care from all frontline workers-regardless of professional expertise, job title, and organizational tenure and excluding those in senior management-and offered opportunities to vote on ideas.ParticipantsA total of 1,417 frontline workers across all participating FQHCs generated 2,271 improvement opportunities.ApproachesWe performed a content analysis and organized the ideas into codes (e.g., standardization, workplace perks, new service, staff relationships, community development) and categories (e.g., operations, employees, patients).Key resultsIdeas from frontline workers in participating FQHCs called attention to standardization (n = 386, 17%), staffing (n = 244, 11%), patient experience (n = 223, 10%), staff training (n = 145, 6%), workplace perks (n = 142, 6%), compensation (n = 101, 5%), new service (n = 92, 4%), management-staff relationships (n = 82, 4%), and others. Voting results suggested that staffing resources, standardization, and patient communication were key issues among workers.ConclusionsInnovation contests generated numerous ideas for improvement from the frontline. It is likely that the issues described in this study have become even more salient today, as the COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating impacts on work environments and health/social needs of patients living in low-resourced communities. Continued work is needed to promote learning and information exchange about opportunities to improve and transform practices between policymakers, managers, and providers and staff at the frontlines.

Project description:ImportanceThe 340B program provides discounts on outpatient drugs to certain hospitals and federally supported clinics (covered entities) that can be used to generate revenue to fund safety net care. While numerous studies have found no association between 340B and safety net care provision for most hospital covered entities, less is known about whether federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), the largest group of covered entities after hospitals, use the program to enhance safety net care.ObjectiveTo assess whether a proxy for 340B revenue was associated with increased safety net care provision among FQHCs.Design and settingThis descriptive, retrospective cohort study examined care provided from 2005 to 2022 by 1468 FQHCs that submitted to the Health Resources and Services Administration Uniform Data System. FQHC and year-level fixed effects were included, as well as a control for differential Medicaid expansion over time. The data were analyzed between March and December 2023.ExposureOne-year lagged number of locations registered to dispense or administer 340B-discounted drugs (registered locations), which included child sites, in-house pharmacies, and contract pharmacies in the 340B Outpatient Pharmacy Affairs Database.Main outcomesNatural logarithm of patient volume by payer, low-income status, and use of enabling services. Natural logarithm of visits in which low-profit preventive services were provided.ResultsAn additional registered location was associated with increased patient volume, especially for uninsured (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%) and privately insured (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.2%-0.5%) patients and low-income (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%), unhoused (0.3%; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.5%), and non-English-speaking (0.3%; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.5%) patients. An additional registered location was associated with increased visits with an HIV test (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.9%), serum lead test (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.6%-1.1%), seasonal influenza shot (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%), Papanicolaou smear (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.7%), and tobacco cessation counseling (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.4%). Across the study period, the average annual increase in locations was 1.5.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cohort study suggest that there are statistically significant increases in the provision of low-profit but high-value preventive services and care to safety net populations (those who lack insurance, have a low income, or require enabling services) and that, like public hospitals, FQHCs might use 340B revenues to enhance safety net care. This finding may inform debates on the 340B program by supporting differential 340B reforms across hospital and nonhospital covered entities.

Dataset Information

Examining the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cervical cancer screening practices among clinicians practicing in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A mixed methods study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Funding

Publications

Examining the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cervical cancer screening practices among clinicians practicing in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A mixed methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets