Dataset Information

Provider Perceptions of Hepatitis C Treatment Adherence and Initiation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Significant disparities in hepatitis C (HCV) treatment existed in the interferon treatment era, such that patients with mental health and substance use disorders were less likely to be treated. We aimed to evaluate whether these perceptions continue to influence HCV treatment decisions.

Methods

We e-mailed HCV providers a survey to assess their perceptions of barriers to HCV treatment adherence and initiation. We assessed the frequency of perceived barriers and willingness to initiate HCV treatment in patients with these barriers. We identified a group of providers more willing to treat patients with perceived barriers to adherence and determined the associated provider characteristics using Spearman's rho and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

Results

A total of 103 providers (29%) responded to the survey. The most commonly endorsed perceived barriers to adherence were homelessness (65%), ongoing drug (58%), and ongoing alcohol use (33%). However, 90%, 68%, and 90% of providers were still willing to treat patients with these comorbidities, respectively. Ongoing drug use was the most common reason providers were never or rarely willing to initiate HCV treatment. Providers who were less willing to initiate treatment more frequently endorsed patient-related determinants of adherence, while providers who were more willing to initiate treatment more frequently endorsed provider-based barriers to adherence (e.g., communication).

Conclusions

Most responding providers were willing to initiate HCV treatment in all patients, despite the presence of perceived barriers to adherence or previous contraindications to interferon-based treatments. Ongoing substance use remains the most prominent influencer in the decision not to treat.

SUBMITTER: Zhang G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8108400 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Insomnia is a widespread issue among United States adults and rates of insomnia among veterans are even higher than the general population. Prior research examining primary care provider (PCP) perspectives on insomnia treatment found that: sleep hygiene and pharmacotherapy are the primary treatments offered; PCPs tend to focus on perceived causes of insomnia rather than the insomnia itself; and neither patients nor providers are satisfied with insomnia treatment options. Although insomnia complaints are typically first reported to primary care providers, little research has focused on perspectives regarding insomnia treatment among PCPs working in the largest integrated health care system in the United States-the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. This study was conducted to examine VA PCP perceptions of the availability of insomnia treatments, identify specific strategies offered by PCPs, and examine perceptions regarding the importance of treating insomnia and the role of comorbid conditions.A survey was conducted within the VA health care system. Primary care providers completed surveys electronically.A high percentage of veterans (modal response = 20% to 39%) seen in VA primary care settings report an insomnia complaint to their provider. Almost half of respondents do not consistently document insomnia in the medical record (46% endorsed "sometimes," "rarely," or "never"). PCPs routinely advise sleep hygiene recommendations for insomnia (ie, avoid stimulants before bedtime [84.3%], and keep the bedroom environment quiet and dark and comfortable [68.6%]) and many are uncertain if cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia is available at their facility (43.1%).Findings point to the need for systems-level changes within health care systems, including the adoption of evidence-based clinical practice standards for insomnia and PCP education about the processes that maintain insomnia.A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 937.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopted a screening test policy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) in all "Baby Boomers" - those born between 1945 and 1965. About 1 in 12 Veterans were estimated to be infected with HCV yet approximately 34% of the birth cohort remained untested. Early HCV diagnosis and successful antiviral treatment decrease the risk of onward transmission, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplant, and death. Implementing evidence-based HCV screening in primary care has great potential to reduce morbidity and mortality. To inform design and implementation of a quality improvement intervention, we studied primary care provider (PCP) perceptions of and experiences with HCV birth cohort testing. METHODS:We conducted a formative evaluation using qualitative semi-structured interviews guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework. Twenty-two PCPs in six states across a large integrated US healthcare system were interviewed. Content analysis with a priori and emergent codes was performed on verbatim interview transcripts. RESULTS:We identified three themes related to primary care provider HCV testing and linkage practices, as mapped to i-PARIHS constructs: 1) evaluating cues to HCV testing (innovation/evidence), 2) framing HCV testing decisions (recipients), and 3) HCV testing and linkage to care in the new treatment era (context). The most frequently reported HCV testing cue was an electronic clinical reminder alert, followed by clinical markers and the presence of behavioral risk factors. Most PCPs saw testing as routine, but less urgent, leading to some reluctance. Providers largely saw themselves as performing guideline-concordant testing, yet no performance data were available to assess performance. Given the recent availability of new HCV medications, many PCPs were highly motivated to test and link patients to specialty care for treatment. CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest a multi-component intervention around awareness and education, feedback of performance data, clinical reminder updates, and leadership support, would address both a significant need, and be deemed acceptable and feasible to primary care providers.

Project description:SignificancePatients with glaucoma and providers recognized perceived treatment efficacy, patient-provider relationship, psychological stress, instillation skill, good quality of life, and forgetfulness as key determinants of glaucoma adherence. This shared insight could help shape the development of clinical and behavioral interventions for addressing treatment barriers and improving adherence.PurposeDespite their impact on adherence in glaucoma, sociobehavioral factors may not be adequately explored during clinical consultations. We aimed to elicit consensus between patients and providers around key determinants of adherence and hypothesized that patients would place greater emphasis on sociobehavioral factors compared with providers.MethodsA two-round Delphi survey was used to assess treatment beliefs, barriers, facilitators, motivators, and needs among 18 patients with glaucoma and providers. In round 1, agreement with 46 statements was scored on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Statements with which 80% or more of panelists agreed reached consensus and advanced to round 2, where participants were asked to prioritize them based on their importance to treatment.ResultsThere was consensus regarding the influence of perceived treatment efficacy, good provider relationship, good quality of life, psychological stress, glaucoma knowledge, instillation skill, and forgetfulness on glaucoma adherence. For statements that failed to reach consensus, the Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney U test revealed that the greatest differences between patients and providers pertained to regimen complexity (provider median, 4 [interquartile range {IQR}, 1]; patient median, 1.5 [IQR, 1]; P = .002), instillation skill (providers, 4 [IQR, 0.5]; patients, 2 [IQR, 1]; P = .001), and low motivation (providers, 3 [IQR, 2.25]; patients, 1 [IQR, 0]; P = .003).ConclusionsAlthough patients and providers prioritized sociobehavioral factors as key determinants of adherence, disagreement between these groups was observed in other areas. Continued juxtaposition of patient and provider perspectives could spotlight underexplored areas and guide the development of successful interventions for improving adherence.

Project description:BackgroundDepression is a common mental health disorder for which clinical practice guidelines have been developed. Prior systematic reviews have identified complex organizational interventions, such as collaborative care, as effective for guideline implementation; yet, many healthcare delivery organizations are interested in less resource-intensive methods to increase provider adherence to guidelines and guideline-concordant practices. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of healthcare provider interventions that aim to increase adherence to evidence-based treatment of depression in routine clinical practice.MethodsWe searched five databases through August 2017 using a comprehensive search strategy to identify English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the quality improvement, implementation science, and behavior change literature that evaluated outpatient provider interventions, in the absence of practice redesign efforts, to increase adherence to treatment guidelines or guideline-concordant practices for depression. We used meta-analysis to summarize odds ratios, standardized mean differences, and incidence rate ratios, and assessed quality of evidence (QoE) using the GRADE approach.ResultsTwenty-two RCTs promoting adherence to clinical practice guidelines or guideline-concordant practices met inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated diverse provider interventions, including distributing guidelines to providers, education/training such as academic detailing, and combinations of education with other components such as targeting implementation barriers. Results were heterogeneous and analyses comparing provider interventions with usual clinical practice did not indicate a statistically significant difference in guideline adherence across studies. There was some evidence that provider interventions improved individual outcomes such as medication prescribing and indirect comparisons indicated more complex provider interventions may be associated with more favorable outcomes. We did not identify types of provider interventions that were consistently associated with improvements across indicators of adherence and across studies. Effects on patients' health in these RCTs were inconsistent across studies and outcomes.ConclusionsExisting RCTs describe a range of provider interventions to increase adherence to depression guidelines. Low QoE and lack of replication of specific intervention strategies across studies limited conclusions that can be drawn from the existing research. Continued efforts are needed to identify successful strategies to maximize the impact of provider interventions on increasing adherence to evidence-based treatment for depression.Trial registrationPROSPERO record CRD42017060460 on 3/29/17.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Many strategies to alleviate racial/ethnic disparities in surgical care target healthcare providers. Yet limited data exists about the perception of disparities among the range of clinical staff who work in perioperative settings. Such information could help initiate conversations about disparities in perioperative care and, if necessary, implement interventions to alleviate them. Our aim was to evaluate the association between sociodemographic characteristics, clinical position (physicians and non-physicians) and perception of perioperative disparities at a large tertiary care center. METHODS:We surveyed perioperative staff at the institution using an anonymous online survey. Primary outcome was respondents' perception of disparities in perioperative care at the institution due to patients' insurance status/type, ability to speak English, education, and racial/ethnic minority status. The association between clinical position (physician vs. non-physician) and perception of disparities was assessed in bivariate and then multivariable analysis, adjusting for respondents' race, sex, age, and years at the institution. Secondary outcomes included perception of disparities in perioperative care in the United States due to patients' insurance status/type, ability to speak English, education, and racial/ethnic minority status. RESULTS:217 completed questions that could be analyzed. Among these responders, 101 were physicians (46.5%), 165 (76.0%) were white, and 144 (66.4.%) were female. Bivariate and multivariate analysis revealed that physicians had higher perception of disparities in perioperative care at the institution based on patients' ability to speak English, education, and racial/ethnic minority status. Physicians also had higher perceptions of disparities in perioperative care in the United States than non-physicians. CONCLUSIONS:Physicians reported higher perceptions of disparities in perioperative care than non-physicians, potentially explained by differences in training or contact with patients. Such findings serve as a first step at examining and discussing disparities in perioperative care and warrant further study.

Project description:IntroductionInjectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) with diacetylmorphine is an effective option for individuals previously considered non-responsive to opioid substitution treatment. Despite implementation in Canada and several European countries, relatively few eligible people choose to initiate iOAT. To better understand what encourages or deters prospective patients from initiating iOAT, the current study explores patients' perceptions on iOAT and how these influence therapy initiation in practice.MethodsWe conducted 34 semi-structured interviews with individuals currently in or eligible for iOAT in two German outpatient iOAT clinics. Transcripts were analysed following qualitative content analysis, with development of inductive categories and use of consensual coding. For member checking, we consulted individuals with lived experiences prior to data collection and publication.ResultsParticipants based their choice to initiate iOAT on the perceived implications of the treatment on one's daily life and individual recovery. Participants were encouraged to initiate iOAT due to the therapy's perceived potential in reducing cravings and substance use, its positive health consequences, and due to the image of iOAT as a path towards abstinence. Regarding deterring perceptions, participants feared a profound impairment of daily life due to factors such as the daily visits to the clinic, were concerned about whether iOAT would sufficiently promote or even impede one's recovery, and described negative health effects.ConclusionPerceptions found in this study profoundly influenced participants' decisions on iOAT enrolment and contextualize the previous literature. The study reveals the dynamic coexistence of different perceptions about iOAT and sheds light on the inner-group stigmatization of iOAT. Practitioners and future research should acknowledge the complexities found in the current study in order to exploit the full potential of effective treatment modalities such as iOAT.

Project description:People with a psychiatric diagnosis smoke at high rates, yet are rarely treated for tobacco use. Health care systems often use a 'no treatment' default for tobacco, such that providers must actively choose (opt-in) to treat their patients who express interest in quitting. Default bias theory suggests that opt-in systems may reinforce the status quo to not treat tobacco use in psychiatry. We aim to conduct a pilot study testing an opt-out system for implementing a 3A's (ask, advise, assist) tobacco treatment model in outpatient psychiatry. We will use a mixed-methods, cluster-randomized study design. We will implement a tobacco use clinical reminder for outpatient psychiatrists at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. Psychiatrists (N = 20) will be randomized 1:1 to one of two groups: (1) Opt-In Treatment Approach: Psychiatrists will receive a reminder that encourages them to offer cessation medications and referral to cessation counseling; or (2) Opt-Out Treatment Approach: Psychiatrists will receive a clinical reminder that includes a standing cessation medication order and a referral to cessation counseling that will automatically generate unless the provider cancels. Prior to implementation of the reminders, we will hold a 1-hour training on tobacco treatment for psychiatrists in both arms. We will use VA administrative data to calculate the study's primary outcomes: 1) the percent of smokers prescribed a cessation medication and 2) the percent of smokers referred to counseling. During the intervention period, we will also conduct post-visit surveys with a cluster sample of 400 patients (20 per psychiatrist) to assess psychiatrist fidelity to the 3 A's approach and patient perceptions of the opt-out system. At six months, we will survey the clustered patient sample again to evaluate the study's secondary outcomes: 1) patient use of cessation treatment in the prior 6 months and 2) self-reported 7-day abstinence at 6 months. At the end of the intervention period, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with 12-14 psychiatrists asking about their perceptions of the opt-out approach. This study will produce important data on the potential of opt-out systems to overcome barriers in implementing tobacco use treatment in outpatient psychiatry. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT04071795 (registered August 28, 2019). https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04071795.