Dataset Information

Implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic family health history based risk assessment and impact on clinical disease prevention and surveillance activities.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Systematically assessing disease risk can improve population health by identifying those eligible for enhanced prevention/screening strategies. This study aims to determine the clinical impact of a systematic risk assessment in diverse primary care populations.

Methods

Hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of a family health history-based health risk assessment (HRA) tied to risk-based guideline recommendations enrolling from 2014-2017 with 12 months of post-intervention survey data and 24 months of electronic medical record (EMR) data capture.

Setting

19 primary care clinics at four geographically and culturally diverse U.S. healthcare systems.

Participants

any English or Spanish-speaking adult with an upcoming appointment at an enrolling clinic.

Methods

A personal and family health history based HRA with integrated guideline-based clinical decision support (CDS) was completed by each participant prior to their appointment. Risk reports were provided to patients and providers to discuss at their clinical encounter.

Outcomes

provider and patient discussion and provider uptake (i.e. ordering) and patient uptake (i.e. recommendation completion) of CDS recommendations.

Measures

patient and provider surveys and EMR data.

Results

One thousand eight hundred twenty nine participants (mean age 56.2 [SD13.9], 69.6% female) completed the HRA and had EMR data available for analysis. 762 (41.6%) received a recommendation (29.7% for genetic counseling (GC); 15.2% for enhanced breast/colon cancer screening). Those with recommendations frequently discussed disease risk with their provider (8.7%-38.2% varied by recommendation, p-values ≤ 0.004). In the GC subgroup, provider discussions increased referrals to counseling (44.4% with vs. 5.9% without, P < 0.001). Recommendation uptake was highest for colon cancer screening (provider = 67.9%; patient = 86.8%) and lowest for breast cancer chemoprevention (0%).

Conclusions

Systematic health risk assessment revealed that almost half the population were at increased disease risk based on guidelines. Risk identification resulted in shared discussions between participants and providers but variable clinical action uptake depending upon the recommendation. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to uptake by both patients and providers will be essential for optimizing HRA tools and achieving their promise of improving population health.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01956773 , registered 10/8/2013.

SUBMITTER: Wu RR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9727967 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic family health history based risk assessment and impact on clinical disease prevention and surveillance activities.

Wu R Ryanne RR Myers Rachel A RA Neuner Joan J McCarty Catherine C Haller Irina V IV Harry Melissa M Fulda Kimberly G KG Dimmock David D Rakhra-Burris Tejinder T Buchanan Adam A Ginsburg Geoffrey S GS Orlando Lori A LA

BMC health services research 20221206 1

<h4>Background</h4>Systematically assessing disease risk can improve population health by identifying those eligible for enhanced prevention/screening strategies. This study aims to determine the clinical impact of a systematic risk assessment in diverse primary care populations.<h4>Methods</h4>Hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of a family health history-based health risk assessment (HRA) tied to risk-based guideline recommendations enrolling from 2014-2017 with 12 months of post-interve ...[more]

PMID: 36474257

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe presence of hereditary cancer syndromes in cancer patients can have an impact on current clinical care and post-treatment prevention and surveillance measures. Several barriers inhibit identification of hereditary cancer syndromes in routine practice. This paper describes the impact of using a patient-facing family health history risk assessment platform on the identification and referral of breast cancer patients to genetic counselling services.MethodsThis was a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study completed in breast cancer clinics. English-literate patients not previously referred for genetic counselling and/or gone through genetic testing were offered enrollment. Consented participants were provided educational materials on family health history collection, entered their family health history into the platform and completed a satisfaction survey. Upon completion, participants and their clinicians were given personalized risk reports. Chart abstraction was done to identify actions taken by patients, providers and genetic counsellors.ResultsOf 195 patients approached, 102 consented and completed the study (mean age 55.7, 100 % women). Sixty-six (65 %) met guideline criteria for genetic counseling of which 24 (36 %) were referred for genetic counseling. Of those referred, 13 (54 %) participants attended and eight (33 %) completed genetic testing. On multivariate logistic regression, referral was not associated with age, cancer stage, or race but was associated with clinical provider (p = 0.041). Most providers (71 %) had higher referral rates during the study compared to prior. The majority of participants found the experience useful (84 %), were more aware of their health risks (83 %), and were likely to recommend using a patient-facing platform to others (69 %).Conclusions65 % of patients attending breast cancer clinics in this study are at-risk for hereditary conditions based on current guidelines. Using a patient-facing risk assessment platform enhances the ability to identify these patients systematically and with widespread acceptability and recognized value by patients. As only a third of at-risk participants received referrals for genetic counseling, further understanding barriers to referral is needed to optimize hereditary risk assessment in oncology practices.Trial registrationNIH Clinical Trials registry, NCT04639934 . Registered Nov 23, 2020 -- Retrospectively registered.

Project description:Implementation fidelity describes how well an intervention is implemented in the real-world setting. Assessing implementation fidelity is essential in the understanding of intervention results. In most studies, implementation fidelity is measured insufficiently, though, not taking into account the complexity of the concept nor the intervention. The objective of the present study was to develop an overall quantitative measure of implementation fidelity, to examine the degree of implementation fidelity and the association of implementation and effect of a randomized school-based smoking prevention trial-the X:IT study.A cluster-randomized trial testing is a multi-component intervention to prevent smoking among adolescents in 94 Danish elementary schools (51 intervention, 43 control schools). Participants were grade 7 pupils (mean age 12.5 years). Data was collected by electronic questionnaires among pupils at baseline (n = 4161), the first follow-up (n = 3764), and the second follow-up (n = 3269) and among school coordinators at intervention schools at the first and second follow-up (50 and 39 coordinators).The intervention included three components: (1) smoke-free school grounds, (2) smoke-free curriculum, and (3) parental involvement, contracts, and dialogues. Implementation fidelity was assessed by four domains: adherence, dose, quality of delivery, and participant responsiveness. These were combined into an overall school-wise implementation index. The association of implementation and smoking was examined by logistic regression analyses.One fourth of the schools was characterized as high implementers of the program (all three components) at both first (12 schools, 24.0 %) and second follow-up (11 schools, 28.2 %). Implementation fidelity was strongly associated with smoking at the first and second follow-up, e.g., the odds for smoking at schools with high implementation both years were OR = 0.44 (95 % CI 0.32 to 0.68).Using an overall measure based on several aspects of implementation fidelity, we showed a negative graded association between implementation and smoking. This study suggests that higher degrees of implementation will improve the effect of the X:IT intervention. Studying the association between implementation and effect is extremely important; only by doing so, we can distinguish the quality of the intervention from the success of the implementation.Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77415416.

Project description:BackgroundRisk assessment is a precision medicine technique that can be used to enhance population health when applied to prevention. Several barriers limit the uptake of risk assessment in health care systems; and little is known about the potential impact that adoption of systematic risk assessment for screening and prevention in the primary care population might have. Here we present results of a first of its kind multi-institutional study of a precision medicine tool for systematic risk assessment.MethodsWe undertook an implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic risk assessment of primary care patients in 19 primary care clinics at four geographically and culturally diverse healthcare systems. All adult English or Spanish speaking patients were invited to enter personal and family health history data into MeTree, a patient-facing family health history driven risk assessment program, for 27 medical conditions. Risk assessment recommendations followed evidence-based guidelines for identifying and managing those at increased disease risk.ResultsOne thousand eight hundred eighty-nine participants completed MeTree, entering information on N = 25,967 individuals. Mean relatives entered = 13.7 (SD 7.9), range 7-74. N = 1443 (76.4%) participants received increased risk recommendations: 597 (31.6%) for monogenic hereditary conditions, 508 (26.9%) for familial-level risk, and 1056 (56.1%) for risk of a common chronic disease. There were 6617 recommendations given across the 1443 participants. In multivariate analysis, only the total number of relatives entered was significantly associated with receiving a recommendation.ConclusionsA significant percentage of the general primary care population meet criteria for more intensive risk management. In particular 46% for monogenic hereditary and familial level disease risk. Adopting strategies to facilitate systematic risk assessment in primary care could have a significant impact on populations within the U.S. and even beyond.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov number NCT01956773 , registered 10/8/2013.

Project description:BackgroundChildhood cancer affects and is affected by multiple levels of the social ecology, including social and relational determinants of health (e.g., economic stability, housing, childcare, healthcare access, child and family problems). The 2015 Standards of Psychosocial Care in Pediatric Cancer outline optimal psychosocial care sensitive to these ecological factors, starting with assessment of psychosocial healthcare needs to promote medical and psychosocial outcomes across all children with cancer. To address the first standard of family psychosocial assessment, the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) is a validated screener ready for broad implementation.MethodThe PAT will be implemented across a national sample of 18 pediatric cancer programs ranging in size (annual new patients) in a mixed methods, comparative effectiveness study, guided by the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, comparing two implementation strategies. It is hypothesized that implementation will be more successful at the patient/family, provider, and institutional level when training (strategy I) is combined with implementation expanded resources (strategy II). There are three aims: (1) Refine the two implementation strategies using semi-structured qualitative interviews with 19 stakeholders including parent advocates, providers, pediatric oncology organization representatives, healthcare industry leaders; (2) Compare the two theoretically based and empirically informed strategies to implement the PAT in English and Spanish using a cluster-randomized controlled trial across 18 sites. Stratified by size, sites will be randomized to cohort (3) and strategy (2). Outcomes include adoption and penetration of screening (patient/family), staff job satisfaction/burnout (provider), and cost-effective use of resources consistent with family risk (institution); (3) Based on the results of the trial and feedback from the first and second aim, we will develop and disseminate a web-based PAT Implementation Toolkit.DiscussionUse of the PAT across children's cancer programs nationally can achieve the assessment standard and inform equitable delivery of psychosocial care matched to family need for all patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04446728 , registered 23 June 2020.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity violence is a persistent and challenging public health problem. Community violence not only physically affects individuals, but also its effects reverberate to the well-being of families and entire communities. Being exposed to and experiencing violence are adverse community experiences that affect the well-being and health trajectories of both children and adults. In the United States, community violence has historically been addressed through a lens of law enforcement and policing; the impact of this approach on communities has been detrimental and often ignores the strengths and experiences of community members. As such, community-centered approaches to address violence are needed, yet the process to design, implement, and evaluate these approaches is complex. Alternatives to policing responses are increasingly being implemented. However, evidence and implementation guidance for community-level public health approaches remain limited. This study protocol seeks to address community violence through a resilience framework-Adverse Community Experiences and Resilience (ACE|R)-being implemented in a major US city and leveraging a strategy of community organizing to advance community violence prevention.ObjectiveThe objective of this research is to understand the impact of community-level violence prevention interventions. Furthermore, we aim to describe the strategies of implementation and identify barriers to and facilitators of the approach.MethodsThis study uses a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design. Part 1 of the study will assess the effectiveness of the ACE|R framework plus community organizing by measuring impacts on violence- and health-related outcomes. To do so, we plan to collect quantitative data on homicides, fatal and nonfatal shootings, hospital visits due to nonaccidental injuries, calls for service, and other violence-related data. In Part 2 of the study, to assess the implementation of ACE|R plus community organizing, we will collect process data on community engagement events, deliver community trainings on community leadership and organizing, and conduct focus groups with key partners about violence and violence prevention programs in Milwaukee.ResultsThis project received funding on September 1, 2020. Prospective study data collection began in the fall of 2021 and will continue through the end of 2023. Data analysis is currently underway, and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2024.ConclusionsCommunity violence is a public health problem in need of community-centered solutions. Interventions that center community and leverage community organizing show promise in decreasing violence and increasing the well-being of community members. Methods to identify the impact of community-level interventions continue to evolve. Analysis of outcomes beyond violence-specific outcomes, including norms and community beliefs, may help better inform the short-term and proximal impacts of these community-driven approaches. Furthermore, hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials allow for the inevitable contextualization required to disseminate community interventions where communities drive the adaptations and decision-making.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/50444.

Dataset Information

Implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic family health history based risk assessment and impact on clinical disease prevention and surveillance activities.

Background

Methods

Setting

Participants

Methods

Outcomes

Measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic family health history based risk assessment and impact on clinical disease prevention and surveillance activities.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets