Search

Background/objective: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods., Design: This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50-89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010-2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients., Main Measures: Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing., Key Results: A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35-0.40). Older age (65-75 vs. 50-64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33-1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67-1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results., Conclusions: Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: In real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence., Methods: The Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50-78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9-15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders., Discussion: Results will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings., Registration: Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. In this article, we use case studies from six completed Demonstration Projects to summarize the Collaboratory's experience with post-trial interpretation of results, and implications for sustainment (or de-implementation) of tested interventions. We highlight three key lessons learned. First, ineffective interventions (i.e., ePCT is null for the primary outcome) may be sustained if they have other measured benefits (e.g., secondary outcome or subgroup) or even perceived benefits (e.g., staff like the intervention). Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Importance: Practical health promotion strategies for improving cardiometabolic health in older adults are needed., Objective: To examine the efficacy of a sedentary behavior reduction intervention for reducing sitting time and improving blood pressure in older adults., Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted in adults aged 60 to 89 years with high sitting time and body mass index of 30 to 50 from January 1, 2019, to November 31, 2022, at a health care system in Washington State., Intervention: Participants were randomized 1:1 to the sitting reduction intervention or a healthy living attention control condition for 6 months. Intervention participants received 10 health coaching contacts, sitting reduction goals, and a standing desk and fitness tracker to prompt sitting breaks. The attention control group received 10 health coaching contacts to set general healthy living goals, excluding physical activity or sedentary behavior., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome, measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, was sitting time assessed using accelerometers worn for 7 days at each time point. Coprimary outcomes were systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured at baseline and 6 months., Results: A total of 283 participants (140 intervention and 143 control) were randomized (baseline mean [SD] age, 68.8 [6.2] years; 186 [65.7%] female; mean [SD] body mass index, 34.9 [4.7]). At baseline, 147 (51.9%) had a hypertension diagnosis and 97 (69.3%) took at least 1 antihypertensive medication. Sitting time was reduced, favoring the intervention arm, with a difference in the mean change of -31.44 min/d at 3 months (95% CI, -48.69 to -14.19 min/d; P < .001) and -31.85 min/d at 6 months (95% CI, -52.91 to -10.79 min/d; P = .003). Systolic blood pressure change was lower by 3.48 mm Hg, favoring the intervention arm at 6 months (95% CI, -6.68 to -0.28 mm Hg; P = .03). There were 6 serious adverse events in each arm and none were study related., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of a 6-month sitting reduction intervention, older adults in the intervention reduced sedentary time by more than 30 min/d and reduced systolic blood pressure. Sitting reduction could be a promising approach to improve health in older adults., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03739762.

Background: Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an effective colorectal cancer screening modality. Little is known about prevalence, reasons, and testing after unsatisfactory FIT, or a FIT that cannot be processed by the laboratory due to inadequate stool specimen or incomplete labeling., Methods: Our retrospective cohort study examined unsatisfactory FIT among average-risk individuals aged 50-74 years in a large, integrated, safety-net health system who completed an index FIT from 2010 to 2019. We determined prevalence of unsatisfactory FIT and categorized reasons hierarchically. We used multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with: (i) unsatisfactory FIT; and (ii) subsequent testing within 15 months of the unsatisfactory FIT., Results: Of 56,980 individuals completing an index FIT, 10.2% had an unsatisfactory FIT. Reasons included inadequate specimen (51%), incomplete labeling (27%), old specimen (13%), and broken/leaking container (8%). Unsatisfactory FIT was associated with being male [OR, 1.10; confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.16], Black (OR, 1.46; CI, 1.33-1.61), Spanish speaking (OR, 1.12; CI, 1.01-1.24), on Medicaid (OR, 1.42; CI, 1.28-1.58), and received FIT by mail (OR, 2.66; CI, 2.35-3.01). Among those with an unsatisfactory FIT, fewer than half (41%) completed a subsequent test within 15 months (median, 4.4 months). Adults aged 50-54 years (OR, 1.16; CI, 1.01-1.39) and those who received FIT by mail (OR, 1.92; CI, 1.49-2.09) were more likely to complete a subsequent test., Conclusions: One in ten returned a FIT that could not be processed, mostly due to patient-related reasons. Fewer than half completed a subsequent test after unsatisfactory FIT., Impact: Screening programs should address these breakdowns such as specimen collection and labeling to improve real-world effectiveness. See related In the Spotlight, p. 183., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Undiagnosed hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) are common and contribute to excess cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We examined whether BP control, changes in BP, and patient behaviors and attitudes were associated with a new hypertension diagnosis., Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of 323 participants from BP-CHECK (Blood Pressure Checks for Diagnosing Hypertension), a randomized diagnostic study of BP measuring methods in adults without diagnosed hypertension with elevated BP recruited from 12 primary care clinics of an integrated health care system in Washington State during 2017 to 2019. All 323 participants returned a positive diagnostic test for hypertension based on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and were followed for 6 months. We used linear regression to examine the relationships between a new hypertension diagnosis (primary independent variable) and differences in the change in study outcomes from baseline to 6-month., Results: Mean age of study participants was 58.3 years (SD, 13.1), 147 (45%) were women, and 253 (80%) were of non-Hispanic White race. At 6 months, 154 of 323 (48%) participants had a new hypertension diagnosis of whom 88 achieved target BP control. Participants with a new hypertension diagnosis experienced significantly larger declines from baseline in BP (adjusted mean difference: systolic BP, -7.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -10.3 to -4.8]; diastolic BP, -3.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.6 to -2.0]) compared with undiagnosed peers. They were also significantly more likely to achieve BP control by 6 months compared with undiagnosed participants (adjusted relative risk, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.1 to 2.0]). At 6 months, 101 of 323 participants (31%) with a positive ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic test remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications., Conclusions: Approximately one-third of participants with high BP on screening and ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic testing remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications after 6 months. New strategies are needed to enhance integration of BP diagnostic testing into clinical practice., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03130257., Competing Interests: Disclosures Drs Margolis and Green received funding from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr Green is also a member of the US Blood Pressure Validated Device Listing Independent Review Committee and the American Heart Association Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Primary Care Council. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: COVID-19 vaccination rates among long-term care center (LTCC) workers are among the lowest of all frontline health care workers. Current efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake generally focus on strategies that have proven effective for increasing influenza vaccine uptake among health care workers including educational and communication strategies. Experimental evidence is lacking on the comparative advantage of educational strategies to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake, especially in the context of COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence, education and communication strategies are recommended to improve COVID-19 vaccination rates and decrease vaccine hesitancy (VH), especially strategies using tailored messaging for disproportionately affected populations., Methods: We describe a cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial with 40 LTCCs and approximately 4000 LTCC workers in 2 geographically, culturally, and ethnically distinct states. We compare the effectiveness of two strategies for increasing COVID-19 booster vaccination rates and willingness to promote COVID-19 booster vaccination: co-design processes for tailoring educational messages vs. an enhanced usual care comparator. Our study focuses on the language and/or cultural groups that are most disproportionately affected by VH and low COVID-19 vaccine uptake in these LTCCs., Conclusion: Finding effective methods to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and decrease VH among LTCC staff is critical. Beyond COVID-19, better approaches are needed to improve vaccine uptake and decrease VH for a variety of existing vaccines as well as vaccines created to address novel viruses as they emerge., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Optimal strategies for increasing cervical cancer screening may differ by patient screening history and health care setting. Mailing human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to individuals who are overdue for screening increases adherence; however, offering self-sampling kits to screening-adherent individuals has not been evaluated in the US., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of direct-mail and opt-in approaches for offering HPV self-sampling kits to individuals by cervical cancer screening history (screening-adherent and currently due, overdue, or unknown)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted in Kaiser Permanente Washington, a US integrated health care delivery system. Individuals aged 30 to 64 years with female sex, a primary care clinician, and no hysterectomy were identified through electronic health records (EHRs) and enrolled between November 20, 2020, and January 28, 2022, with follow-up through July 29, 2022., Interventions: Individuals stratified as due (eg, at the time of randomization, these individuals have been previously screened and are due for their next screening in ≤3 months) were randomized to receive usual care (patient reminders and clinician EHR alerts [n = 3671]), education (usual care plus educational materials about screening [n = 3960]), direct mail (usual care plus educational materials and a mailed self-sampling kit [n = 1482]), or to opt in (usual care plus educational materials and the option to request a kit [n = 3956]). Individuals who were overdue for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 5488), education (n = 1408), or direct mail (n = 1415). Individuals with unknown history for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 2983), education (n = 3486), or to opt in (n = 3506)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was screening completion within 6 months. Primary analyses compared direct-mail or opt-in participants with individuals randomized to the education group., Results: The intention-to-treat analyses included 31 355 randomized individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.9 [10.4] years). Among those who were due for screening, compared with receiving education alone (1885 [47.6%]), screening completion was 14.1% (95% CI, 11.2%-16.9%) higher in the direct-mail group (914 [61.7%]) and 3.5% (95% CI, 1.2%-5.7%) higher in the opt-in group (2020 [51.1%]). Among individuals who were overdue, screening completion was 16.9% (95% CI, 13.8%-20.0%) higher in the direct-mail group (505 [35.7%]) compared with education alone (264 [18.8%]). Among those with unknown history, screening was 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.9%) higher in the opt-in group (634 [18.1%]) compared with education alone (555 [15.9%])., Conclusions and Relevance: Within a US health care system, direct-mail self-sampling increased cervical cancer screening by more than 14% in individuals who were due or overdue for cervical cancer screening. The opt-in approach minimally increased screening. To increase screening adherence, systems implementing HPV self-sampling should prioritize direct-mail outreach for individuals who are due or overdue for screening. For individuals with unknown screening history, testing alternative outreach approaches and additional efforts to document screening history are warranted., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04679675.

Background: Colorectal cancer screening is universally recommended for adults ages 45 to 75 years. Noninvasive fecal occult blood tests are effective screening tests recommended by guidelines. However, empirical evidence to inform older adults' decisions about whether to continue screening is sparse, especially for individuals with prior screening., Methods: This study used a retrospective cohort of older adults at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, Washington) and Parkland Health. Beginning 1 year following a negative stool-based screening test, cumulative risks of colorectal cancer incidence, colorectal cancer mortality (accounting for deaths from other causes), and non-colorectal cancer mortality were estimated., Results: Cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer in screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 with a negative fecal occult blood test 1 year ago (N = 118,269) was 0.23% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20%-0.26%] after 2 years and 1.21% (95% CI, 1.13%-1.30%) after 8 years. Cumulative colorectal cancer mortality was 0.03% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%) after 2 years and 0.33% (95% CI, 0.28%-0.39%) after 8 years. Cumulative risk of death from non-colorectal cancer causes was 4.81% (95% CI, 4.68%-4.96%) after 2 years and 28.40% (95% CI, 27.95%-28.85%) after 8 years., Conclusions: Among 76- to 85-year-olds with a recent negative stool-based test, cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality estimates were low, especially within 2 years; death from other causes was over 100 times more likely than death from colorectal cancer., Impact: These findings of low absolute colorectal cancer risk, and comparatively higher risk of death from other causes, can inform decision-making regarding whether and when to continue colorectal cancer screening beyond age 75 among screen-eligible adults., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Imaging tests are one of the most frequently used diagnostic modalities in healthcare, but the benefits of their direct impacts on clinical decision-making have been countered by concerns that they can be overused. Assessing the relative value of imaging tests has largely focused on measures of test accuracy, which overlooks more comprehensive benefits and risks of imaging tests, particularly their impact on patient-centred outcomes (PCOs). We present the findings of the Patient Reported Outcomes of Diagnostics (PROD) research study in response to a methodological gap in the area of diagnostic test comparative effectiveness research., Methods: Over a 3-year period, the PROD Study engaged with multiple stakeholders to identify existing conceptual models related to PCOs for imaging testing, conducted primary research and evidence synthesis, and developed consensus recommendations to describe and categorise PCOs related to imaging testing., Results: The PROD framework categorises PCOs from imaging studies within four main domains: information or knowledge yielded, physical impact, emotional outcomes and test burden. PCOs interact with each other and influence effects across domains, and can be modified by factors related to the patient, clinical situation, healthcare team and the testing environment., Conclusions: Using PCOs to inform healthcare decision-making will require ways of collating and presenting information on PCOs in ways that can inform patient-provider decision-making, and developing methods to determine the relative importance of outcomes (including test accuracy) to one another., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JGJ reports grants from NIH/NIAMS, during the conduct of the study, in particular he was supported by the UW Clinical Learning, Evidence And Research (CLEAR) Center for Musculoskeletal Disorders, NIH/NIAMS P30AR072572 and the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. JGJ also resports grants from Springer Publishing: royalties as a book co-editor; GE-Association of University Radiologists Radiology Research Academic Fellowship (GERRAF): travel reimbursement for Faculty Board of Review; Wolters Kluwer/UpToDate: royalties as a chapter author., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation., Objective: To compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement., Design: Comparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants., Participants: Adults (18-85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit., Measures: Patient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1-7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed., Key Results: Five hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM., Conclusions: Participants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Introduction: Understanding the multilevel factors associated with controlled blood pressure is important to determine modifiable factors for future interventions, especially among populations living in poverty. This study identified clinically important factors associated with blood pressure control among patients receiving care in community health centers., Methods: This study includes 31,089 patients with diagnosed hypertension by 2015 receiving care from 103 community health centers; aged 19-64 years; and with ≥1 yearly visit with ≥1 recorded blood pressure in 2015, 2016, and 2017. Blood pressure control was operationalized as an average of all blood pressure measurements during all the 3 years and categorized as controlled (blood pressure <140/90), partially controlled (mixture of controlled and uncontrolled blood pressure), or never controlled. Multinomial mixed-effects logistic regression models, conducted in 2022, were used to calculate unadjusted ORs and AORs of being in the never- or partially controlled blood pressure groups versus in the always-controlled group., Results: A total of 50.5% had always controlled, 39.7% had partially controlled, and 9.9% never had controlled blood pressure during the study period. The odds of being partially or never in blood pressure control were higher for patients without continuous insurance (AOR=1.09; 95% CI=1.03, 1.16; AOR=1.18; 95% CI=1.07, 1.30, respectively), with low provider continuity (AOR=1.24; 95% CI=1.15, 1.34; AOR=1.28; 95% CI=1.13, 1.45, respectively), with a recent diagnosis of hypertension (AOR=1.34; 95% CI=1.20, 1.49; AOR=1.19; 95% CI=1.00, 1.42), with inconsistent antihypertensive medications (AOR=1.19; 95% CI=1.11, 1.27; AOR=1.26; 95% CI=1.13, 1.41, respectively), and with fewer blood pressure checks (AOR=2.14; 95% CI=1.97, 2.33; AOR=2.17; 95% CI=1.90, 2.48, respectively) than for their counterparts., Conclusions: Efforts targeting continuous and consistent access to care, antihypertensive medications, and regular blood pressure monitoring may improve blood pressure control among populations living in poverty., (Copyright © 2022 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types., Methods: We performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics' definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety., Results: We identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening., Conclusions: Considerably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics., Registration: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Importance: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling addresses barriers to cervical cancer screening, and mailed self-sampling kits have been reported to increase screening uptake. International research suggests mailed kits are cost-effective in certain settings. However, the cost-effectiveness of mailing HPV self-sampling kits for increasing screening uptake has not been evaluated in the US., Objective: To conduct an economic evaluation of a mailed HPV self-sampling intervention among underscreened women enrolled in an integrated US health care system., Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation involved a cost-effectiveness analysis of results from a randomized clinical trial of 19 851 women aged 30 to 64 years enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), a US-based integrated health care system. Women were identified through electronic medical records, and eligible participants were enrolled in a health plan for at least 3 years and 5 months, had a primary care clinician, had not received a Papanicolaou test for at least 3 years and 5 months, and had not received a hysterectomy. Enrollment occurred from February 25, 2014, to August 29, 2016, with follow-up through February 25, 2018. The current economic evaluation was conducted between August 2, 2021, and July 30, 2022. Intervention delivery costs were calculated from both the KPWA and Medicare perspectives and were based on either wellness visit or Papanicolaou test-only visit costs., Intervention: Participants in the control group received usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc outreach for screening. Participants in the intervention group received usual care plus a mailed HPV self-sampling kit., Main Outcome and Measures: The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost (intervention group minus control group) divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening (intervention group minus control group) within 6 months of randomization., Results: Among 19 851 women (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [9.5] years; 76.7% White), 9960 were randomized to the intervention group, and 9891 were randomized to the control group. Baseline ICERs ranged from $85.84 (95% CI, $85.68-$85.99) using KPWA wellness visits as the cost basis to $146.29 (95% CI, $146.20-$146.38) using Medicare Papanicolaou test-only visits as the cost source. Subgroups of participants aged 50 to 64 years and participants most recently overdue for screening achieved cost-effectiveness at lower levels of willingness to pay for an additional completed screening than other subgroups., Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, mailing HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening was cost-effective for increased screening uptake relative to usual care. These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates among eligible women in US health care systems.

Background: Self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) is essential to effective management of hypertension. This study aims to evaluate effectiveness and implementation of SMBP that leverages: cellular-enabled home BP monitors without a need for Wi-Fi or Bluetooth; simple communication modalities such as text messaging to support patient engagement; and integration into existing team-based workflows in safety-net clinics., Methods: This study will be conducted with patients in San Francisco who are treated within a network of safety-net clinics. English and Spanish-speaking patients with diagnosed hypertension will be eligible for the trial if they have recent BP readings ≥140/90 mmHg and do not have co-morbid conditions that make home BP monitoring more complex to manage. This study will implement a three-arm randomized controlled trial to compare varying levels of implementation support: 1) cellular-enabled BP monitors (with minimal implementation support), 2) cellular-enabled BP monitors with protocol-based implementation support (text reminders for patients; aggregated BP summaries sent to primary care providers), and 3) cellular-enabled BP monitors and pharmacist-led support (pharmacist coaching and independent medication adjustments)., Results: For the main analysis, we will use mixed effects linear regression to compare the change in primary outcome of systolic BP. Secondary outcomes include BP control (<140/90 mmHg), medication intensification, patient-reported outcomes, and implementation processes (i.e., engagement with the intervention)., Discussion: This study will design and test a digital health intervention for use in marginalized populations treated within safety net settings, evaluating both effectiveness and implementation to advance more equitable health outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early identification and control of hypertension is critical to reducing cardiovascular disease events and death. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommend health care professionals screen all adults for hypertension, yet 1 in 4 adults with hypertension are unaware of their condition. This gap between guidelines and clinical practices highlights an important opportunity to improve blood pressure (BP) screening and hypertension diagnosis, including measurement outside of clinic settings. To identify targets for future diagnostic interventions, we sought to understand primary care physicians' (PCPs) beliefs and practices regarding use of common forms of BP measurement., Methods: Study participants were PCPs (N = 27) who had patients enrolled in the BP-CHECK trial. The trial compared the accuracy of 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to: 1) clinic-based monitoring, 2) home BP monitoring (HBPM), or 3) use of a BP kiosk in clinics or pharmacies. Physicians were interviewed by phone and compensated for their participation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a template analysis approach., Results: Overall, PCPs preferred and trusted clinic BP measurement for diagnosing hypertension, particularly when measured with a manual sphygmomanometer. Concerns with HBPM included the belief that patients did not follow protocols for rest and body positioning at home, that home machines were not accurate, that home BPs could not be entered into the medical record, and that HBPM would make some patients anxious. Issues regarding kiosk measurement included beliefs that the public setting created stress for patients, that patients did not follow resting protocols when using kiosks, and concerns about the maintenance of these machines. ABPM was recognized as highly accurate but was not perceived as accessible. Additionally, some PCPs found it challenging to interpret the multiple readings generated by ABPM and HBPM, especially when these readings differed from clinic BPs., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that both additional physician education and training and investments in equipment and system-level processes are needed to increase the acceptance and utilization of out of office BP measurement for identification and treatment of hypertension. These changes are needed to improve ensure everyone in the U.S receive optimal care for hypertension., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 . Initial registration date: 4/21/2017., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Few empirical data are available to inform older adults' decisions about whether to screen or continue screening for colorectal cancer based on their prior history of screening, particularly among individuals with a prior negative exam., Methods: Using a retrospective cohort of older adults receiving healthcare at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems in Northern California (KPNC), Southern California (KPSC), and Washington (KPWA), we estimated the cumulative risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality among older adults who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier, accounting for death from other causes., Results: Screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 years who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier were found to be at a low risk of colorectal cancer diagnosis, with a cumulative incidence of 0.39% [95% CI, 0.31%-0.48%) at 2 years that increased to 1.29% (95% CI, 1.02%-1.61%) at 8 years. Cumulative mortality from colorectal cancer was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.08%) at 2 years and 0.46% (95% CI, 0.30%-0.70%) at 8 years., Conclusions: These low estimates of cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality occurred in the context of much higher risk of death from other causes., Impact: Knowledge of these results could bear on older adults' decision to undergo or not undergo further colorectal cancer screening, including choice of modality, should they decide to continue screening. See related commentary by Lieberman, p. 6., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Access to care significantly improved following the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Since its implementation, the number of uninsured Americans has significantly decreased. Medicaid expansion played an important role in community health centers, who serve historically marginalized populations, leading to increased clinic revenue, and improved access to care. As the continuous Medicaid enrollment provision established during the pandemic ended, and states have to make decisions about their program eligibility, exploring the impact of Medicaid expansion on the detection, and management of hypertension and diabetes could inform these decisions. We summarized the effect of Medicaid expansion on community health centers and their patients specific to hypertension and diabetes from existing literature. These studies suggest the beneficial impact of the Affordable Care Act and acquiring insurance on diabetes and hypertension disease detection, treatment, and control for patients receiving care in community health centers. Overall, these studies suggest the clear importance of health insurance coverage, and notably insurance stability, on diabetes and hypertension control.

Background: A team approach is one of the most effective ways to lower blood pressure (BP) in uncontrolled hypertension, but different models for organizing team-based care have not been compared directly., Methods: A pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial compared 2 interventions in adult patients with moderately severe hypertension (BP≥150/95 mm Hg): (1) clinic-based care using best practices and face-to-face visits with physicians and medical assistants; and (2) telehealth care using best practices and adding home BP telemonitoring with home-based care coordinated by a clinical pharmacist or nurse practitioner. The primary outcome was change in systolic BP over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were change in patient-reported outcomes over 6 months., Results: Participants (N=3071 in 21 primary care clinics) were on average 60 years old, 47% male, and 19% Black. Protocol-specified follow-up within 6 weeks was 32% in clinic-based care and 27% in telehealth care. BP decreased significantly during 12 months of follow-up in both groups, from 157/92 to 139/82 mm Hg in clinic-based care patients (adjusted mean difference -18/-10 mm Hg) and 157/91 to 139/81 mm Hg in telehealth care patients (adjusted mean difference -19/-10 mm Hg), with no significant difference in systolic BP change between groups (-0.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.84 to 1.32]). Telehealth care patients were significantly more likely than clinic-based care patients to report frequent home BP measurement, rate their BP care highly, and report that BP care visits were convenient., Conclusions: Telehealth care that includes extended team care is an effective and safe alternative to clinic-based care for improving patient-centered care for hypertension., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02996565.

Background: Mailing HPV self-sampling kits to overdue individuals increases cervical cancer screening adherence; offering self-sampling to previously adherent individuals has not been evaluated in the U.S. Given heterogeneity of the U.S. health system and population, data are needed to optimize how HPV self-sampling is offered to individuals who are overdue, due after successful past screening, or have an unknown screening history., Methods: STEP is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial set within a U.S. integrated healthcare delivery system, designed to compare different outreach approaches for offering HPV self-sampling in populations defined by prior screening behavior (previously-adherent, overdue, or unknown screening history). Over 14 months, eligible individuals were identified through electronic medical record (EMR) data and randomized to Usual Care (UC), Education (UC + educational materials about cervical cancer screening), Direct-Mail (UC + Education + a mailed self-sampling kit) or Opt-In (UC + Education + option to request a kit), depending on screening history. The primary objective is to compare screening completion by outreach approach and screening history. Secondary objectives include evaluating incremental cost-effectiveness of outreach approaches, and identifying patient preference for, and satisfaction with, HPV self-screening, and barriers to abnormal results follow-up (measured through interviews and focus groups)., Conclusions: The trial was designed to generate data that U.S. health systems can use to inform primary HPV screening implementation strategies that incorporate HPV self-sampling options to improve screening access, adherence, and patient satisfaction. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale and design of this pragmatic trial., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hypertension control is falling in the US yet efficacious interventions exist. Poor patient reach has limited the ability of pragmatic trials to demonstrate effectiveness. This paper uses quantitative and qualitative data to understand factors influencing reach in Hyperlink 3, a pragmatic hypertension trial testing an efficacious pharmacist-led Telehealth Care intervention in comparison to a physician-led Clinic-based Care intervention. Referrals to both interventions were ordered by physicians., Methods: A sequential-explanatory mixed methods approach was used to understand barriers and facilitators to reach. Reach was assessed quantitatively using EHR data, defined as the proportion of eligible patients attending intended follow-up hypertension care and qualitatively, via semi-structured interviews with patients who were and were not reached. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed via combined deductive and inductive content analysis., Results: Of those eligible, 27% of Clinic-based (n = 532/1945) and 21% of Telehealth patients (n = 385/1849) were reached. In both arms, the largest drop was between physician-signed orders and patients attending initial intended follow-up care. Qualitative analyses uncovered patient barriers related to motivation, capability, and opportunity to attend follow-up care., Conclusions: Although the proportion of eligible patients with signed orders was high in both arms, the proportion ultimately reached was lower. Patients described barriers related to the influence of one's own personal beliefs or priorities, decision making processes, logistics, and patient perceptions on physician involvement on reach. Addressing these barriers in the design of pragmatic interventions is critical for future effectiveness., Trial Registration: NCT02996565., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Karen Margolis is a recipient of Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute© (PCORI©) Award (IHS-1507-31,146). Leif Solberg is an employee of a health insurance plan and medical group and has received federal (but not proprietary) research grants to study the quality of care., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes for identifying HF subtypes., Methods: We validated ICD-10-CM HF diagnosis codes among Kaiser Permanente Washington enrollees who were ≥18 years of age and had an ICD-10-CM HF diagnosis code during 2017-2018 and a procedure code for an echocardiogram in the 12 months before through 6 months after the HF code. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ascertained from medical chart review was used as the gold standard for classifying patients as having reduced ejection fraction (rEF), mid-range ejection fraction (mEF), or preserved ejection fraction (pEF)., Results: Among 6194 eligible patients, we randomly sampled 1000 for medical chart review. A total of 974 patients had LVEF information in their chart. The ICD-10-CM HF code group with the highest PPV for rEF was I50.20-I50.23, "Systolic (congestive) heart failure," PPV = 41.4% (95% CI, 34.5-48.7%); and the highest PPV for mEF or rEF was also I50.20-I50.23, PPV = 70.2% (95% CI, 63.1-76.4%). The highest PPV for pEF was the I50.30-I50.33 group, "Diastolic (congestive) heart failure," PPV = 92.0% (95% CI, 88.1-94.7%); and the highest PPV for mEF or pEF was also I50.30-I50.33, PPV = 97.7% (95% CI, 95.1-99.0%)., Conclusions: If the accuracy measure of greatest interest is PPV, our results suggest that ICD-10-CM HF codes alone may not be adequate for identifying patients with rEF but may be adequate for identifying patients with pEF. HF coding practices may vary across settings, which may impact generalizability of our findings., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis., Objective: Compare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension., Design, Setting, and Participants: Diagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18-85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic., Interventions: Randomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks., Main Measures: Primary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes., Key Results: Five hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (-4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval -7.3, -2.2]; P<.001); home (-0.1mmHg [-1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (-7.2mmHg [-8.8, -5.5]; P<.001); home (-0.4mmHg [-1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively., Limitations: Single health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation., Conclusions: Compared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Explanatory trials are designed to assess intervention efficacy under ideal conditions, while pragmatic trials are designed to assess whether research-proven interventions are effective in "real-world" settings without substantial research support., Methods: We compared two trials (Hyperlink 1 and 3) that tested a pharmacist-led telehealth intervention in adults with uncontrolled hypertension. We applied PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) scores to describe differences in the way these studies were designed and enrolled study-eligible participants, and the effect of these differences on participant characteristics and adherence to study interventions., Results: PRECIS-2 scores demonstrated that Hyperlink 1 was more explanatory and Hyperlink 3 more pragmatic. Recruitment for Hyperlink 1 was conducted by study staff, and 2.9% of potentially eligible patients enrolled. Enrollees were older, and more likely to be male and White than non-enrollees. Study staff scheduled the initial pharmacist visit and adherence to attending this visit was 98%. Conversely for Hyperlink 3, recruitment was conducted by clinic staff at routine encounters and 81% of eligible patients enrolled. Enrollees were younger, and less likely to be male and White than non-enrollees. Study staff did not assist with scheduling the initial pharmacist visit and adherence to attending this visit was only 27%. Compared to Hyperlink 1, patients in Hyperlink 3 were more likely to be female, and Asian or Black, had lower socioeconomic indicators, and were more likely to have comorbidities. Owing to a lower BP for eligibility in Hyperlink 1 (>140/90 mm Hg) than in Hyperlink 3 (>150/95 mm Hg), mean baseline BP was 148/85 mm Hg in Hyperlink 1 and 158/92 mm Hg in Hyperlink 3., Conclusion: The pragmatic design features of Hyperlink 3 substantially increased enrollment of study-eligible patients and of those traditionally under-represented in clinical trials (women, minorities, and patients with less education and lower income), and demonstrated that identification and enrollment of a high proportion of study-eligible subjects could be done by usual primary care clinic staff. However, the trade-off was much lower adherence to the telehealth intervention than in Hyperlink 1, which is likely to reflect uptake under real-word conditions and substantially dilute intervention effect on BP., Trial Registration: The Hyperlink 1 study (NCT00781365) and the Hyperlink 3 study (NCT02996565) are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Lack of health insurance is a risk factor for uncontrolled hypertension, but it is unknown whether health insurance or neighborhood-level social deprivation is associated with greater reductions in blood pressure over time., Methods: We estimated the association of health insurance and social deprivation index on blood pressure reduction over time using electronic health record data from 2012 to 2017. We included patients aged 19-64 years with an initial systolic blood pressure ≥150 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥100 mmHg and ≥1 additional visit from 93 community health centers in states that expanded Medicaid in 2014., Results: We included 66,207 patients: 20.1% uninsured, 64.8% publicly insured, and 15.1% privately insured. Adjusting for patient characteristics and baseline blood pressure, systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure declined over the study period by 21.3/11.2 mmHg, 22.0/11.4 mmHg, and 21.1/10.7 mmHg among uninsured, publicly insured, and privately insured individuals, respectively. There were small but significantly greater reductions in systolic blood pressure among patients with public insurance than among those who were uninsured (difference= -1.3, 95% CI= -1.6, -1.0) but none associated with social deprivation index. There were no differences in diastolic blood pressure reductions over time by insurance status or social deprivation index. Blood pressure control (systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure <90 mmHg) was significantly greater among publicly or commercially insured individuals than among uninsured individuals (51.7%, 51.5%, 44.6% respectively, both comparisons p <0.001), with no associations between blood pressure control and social deprivation index., Conclusions: Reductions in blood pressure were large but mostly not associated with insurance type or social deprivation index. Additional research is needed to understand the factors that lead to blood pressure reduction in community health center settings., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Importance: Terminal digit preference has been shown to be associated with inaccurate blood pressure (BP) recording., Objective: To evaluate whether converting from manual BP measurement with aneroid sphygmomanometers to automated BP measurement was associated with terminal digit preference, mean levels of recorded BP, and the rate at which hypertension was diagnosed., Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study was conducted from May 9, 2021, to March 24, 2022, using interrupted time series analysis of medical record data from 11 primary care clinics in a single health care system from April 2008 to April 2015. The study population was patients aged 18 to 75 years who had their BP measured and recorded at least once during the study period., Exposures: Manual BP measurement before April 2012 vs automated BP measurement with the Omron HEM-907XL monitor from May 2012 to April 2015., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the distribution of terminal digits and mean systolic BP (SBP) values obtained during 4 years of manual measurement vs 3 years of automated measurement, assessed using a generalized linear mixed regression model with a random intercept for clinic and adjusted for seasonal fluctuations and patient demographic and clinical characteristics., Results: The study included 1 541 227 BP measurements from 225 504 unique patients during the entire study period, with 849 978 BP measurements from 165 137 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [15.2] years; 58.2% female) during the manual measurement period and 691 249 measurements from 149 080 patients (mean [SD] age, 48.4 [15.3] years; 56.3% female) during the automated measurement period. With manual measurement, 32.8% of SBP terminal digits were 0 (20% was the expected value because nursing staff was instructed to record BP to the nearest even digit). This proportion decreased to 12.4% during the automated measurement period (expected value, 10%) when both even and odd digits were to be recorded. After automated measurement was implemented, the mean SBP estimated with statistical modeling increased by 5.09 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.98-5.19 mm Hg). Fewer BP values recorded during the automated than the manual measurement period were below 140/90 mm Hg (69.9% vs 84.3%; difference, -14.5%; 95% CI, -14.6% to -14.3%) and below 130/80 mm Hg (42.1% vs 60.0%; difference, -17.9%; 95% CI, -18.0% to -17.7%). The proportion of patients with a diagnosis of hypertension was 4.3 percentage points higher (23.4% vs 19.1%) during the automated measurement period., Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, automated BP measurement was associated with decreased terminal digit preference and significantly higher mean BP levels. The method of BP measurement was also associated with the rate at which hypertension was diagnosed. These findings may have implications for pay-for-performance programs, which may create an incentive to record BP levels that meet a particular goal and a disincentive to adopt automated measurement of BP.

Background: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) using 3-5 measurements taken with an oscillometric device with or without an attendant in the room may decrease "white coat" effect. We evaluated the impact of the presence or absence of the attendant and rest on BP and diagnosis of hypertension., Methods: We randomly assigned 133 adults aged 18-85 with high BP at baseline (≥140/90 mm Hg), no hypertensive diagnosis and no antihypertensive medications to either attended AOBP first, unattended second, or unattended AOBP first, attended second. Outcomes included within-person BP difference for attended vs. unattended measurements; 5 vs. 15 minutes of rest; and the diagnostic performance of AOBP compared with daytime automated blood pressure measurement (ABPM)., Results: We found no significant differences between attended and unattended AOBP (mean difference attended - unattended [95% confidence interval, CI], systolic 0.14 mm Hg [-0.78, 1.06]; diastolic 0.16 mm Hg [-0.45, 0.78]) or by rest time (mean difference 15 - 5 minutes [95% CI], systolic -0.45 mm Hg [-1.36, 0.47]; diastolic 0.61 mm Hg [-1.23, 0.003]). AOBP was lower than mean daytime ABPM, regardless of attendance or rest (after 5 minutes rest systolic -3.6 and diastolic -2.55 mm Hg, P = 0.001 for both comparisons). Using daytime ABPM of ≥135/85 mm Hg as the diagnostic threshold, AOBP sensitivity and specificity after 5 minutes of rest were 71.0% and 54.1%, respectively., Conclusions: The presence or absence of a clinic attendant during AOBP measurement and the amount of rest time before AOBP measurements had no effects on BP. AOBP measurements have low sensitivity and specificity for making a new diagnosis of hypertension., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The PRedicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm accurately predicted out-of-office blood pressure (BP) among adults with suspected high BP in the United Kingdom and Canada. We tested the accuracy of PROOF-BP in a diverse US population and evaluated a newly developed US-specific algorithm (PROOF-BP-US)., Methods: Adults with ≥2 office BP readings and ≥10 awake BP readings on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring from 4 pooled US studies were included. We compared mean awake BP with predicted out-of-office BP using PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US. Our primary outcomes were hypertensive out-of-office systolic BP (SBP) ≥130 mm Hg and diastolic BP (DBP) ≥80 mm Hg., Results: We included 3,058 adults, mean (SD) age was 52.0 (11.9) years, 38% were male, and 54% were Black. The area under the receiver-operator characteristic (AUROC) curve (95% confidence interval) for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.81 (0.79-0.82) and DBP was 0.76 (0.74-0.78) for PROOF-BP. For PROOF-BP-US, the AUROC curve for hypertensive out-of-office SBP was 0.82 (0.81-0.83) and for DBP was 0.81 (0.79-0.83). The optimal predicted out-of-office BP ranges for out-of-office BP measurement referral were 120-134/75-84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP and 125-134/75-84 mm Hg for PROOF-BP-US. The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association BP guideline (referral range 130-159/80-99 mm Hg) would refer 93.1% of adults not taking antihypertensive medications with office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for out-of-office BP measurement, compared with 53.1% using PROOF-BP and 46.8% using PROOF-BP-US., Conclusions: PROOF-BP and PROOF-BP-US accurately predicted out-of-office hypertension in a diverse sample of US adults., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.)

Background: Screening over many years is required to optimize colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes., Objective: To evaluate the effect of a CRC screening intervention on adherence to CRC screening over 9 years., Design: Randomized trial., Setting: Integrated health care system in Washington state., Participants: Between August 2008 and November 2009, 4653 adults in a Washington state integrated health care system aged 50-74 due for CRC screening were randomized to usual care (UC; N =1163) or UC plus study interventions (interventions: N = 3490)., Interventions: Years 1 and 2: (arm 1) UC or this plus study interventions; (arm 2) mailed fecal tests or information on scheduling colonoscopy; (arm 3) mailings plus brief telephone assistance; or (arm 4) mailings and assistance plus nurse navigation. In year 3, stepped-intensity participants (arms 2, 3, and 4 combined) still eligible for screening were randomized to either stopped or continued interventions in years 3 and 5-9., Main Measures: Time in adherence to CRC testing over 9 years (covered time, primary outcome), and percent with no CRC testing in participants assigned to any intervention compared to UC only. Poisson regression models estimated incidence rate ratios for covered time, adjusting for patient characteristics and accounting for variable follow-up time., Key Results: Compared to UC, intervention participants had 21% more covered time over 9 years (57.5% vs. 69.1%; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.25, P<0.001). Fecal testing accounted for almost all additional covered time among intervention patients. Compared to UC, intervention participants were also more likely to have completed at least one CRC screening test over 9 years or until censorship (88.6% vs. 80.6%, P<0.001)., Conclusions: An outreach program that included mailed fecal tests and phone follow-up led to increased adherence to CRC testing and fewer age-eligible individuals without any CRC testing over 9 years., Trial Registration: Systems of Support (SOS) to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up (SOS), NCT00697047, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00697047., (© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Introduction: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement before making a new hypertension diagnosis and initiating treatment, using 24-hour ambulatory (ABPM) or home BP monitoring. However, this approach is not common., Methods: e-mail-linked surveys were sent to primary care team members (n = 421) from 10 clinics. The sample included medical assistants, licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, and advanced practice registered nurses (LPN/RN/APRNs), physician assistants (PAs), and physicians. Those licensed to diagnosis hypertension (physician/PA/APRNs) received additional questions. Data were collected from November 2017 to July 2019., Results: 2-thirds of invitees responded (163 MA/LPN/RNs, 86 physicians, and 33 PA/APRNs). When making a new hypertension diagnosis, most respondents believed that BP measured manually with a stethoscope (78.6%) or ABPM (84.2%) were very or highly accurate. In contrast, most did not believe that automated clinic BPs, home BP, or kiosk BP measurements were very or highly accurate. Almost all reported always or almost always relying on clinic BP measurements in making a diagnosis (95.7%), but most physician/PA/APRNs (60.5%) would prefer ABPM if it was readily available. Very few physician/PA/APRNs used the guideline-concordant diagnostic threshold (135/85 mmHg) with home monitoring (14.0%) or ABPM (8.4%), with 140/90 mmHg the most commonly reported threshold for home (59.4%) and ABPM (49.6%)., Discussion: Our study found health care professional knowledge, beliefs, and practices gaps in diagnosing hypertension. These gaps could lead to clinical care that is not aligned with guidelines., Conclusion: System changes and interventions to increase use of evidence-based practices could improve hypertension diagnosis and outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright 2022 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies)., Methods: This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan-based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six-month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program-related health plan costs for each program are described., Results: All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt-in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%-17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%-16.2%]) in 2018 (P = .36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126)., Conclusions: An opt-in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees., Lay Summary: Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing., (© 2021 American Cancer Society.)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has emerged worldwide as an indispensable resource to improve the surveillance of patients, curb the spread of disease, facilitate timely identification and management of ill people, but, most importantly, guarantee the continuity of care of frail patients with multiple chronic diseases. Although during COVID-19 telemedicine has thrived, and its adoption has moved forward in many countries, important gaps still remain. Major issues to be addressed to enable large scale implementation of telemedicine include: (1) establishing adequate policies to legislate telemedicine, license healthcare operators, protect patients' privacy, and implement reimbursement plans; (2) creating and disseminating practical guidelines for the routine clinical use of telemedicine in different contexts; (3) increasing in the level of integration of telemedicine with traditional healthcare services; (4) improving healthcare professionals' and patients' awareness of and willingness to use telemedicine; and (5) overcoming inequalities among countries and population subgroups due to technological, infrastructural, and economic barriers. If all these requirements are met in the near future, remote management of patients will become an indispensable resource for the healthcare systems worldwide and will ultimately improve the management of patients and the quality of care., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Stefano Omboni is scientific consultant of Biotechmed Ltd., an Italian telemedicine company. Raj Padwal is CEO of mmHg Inc., a digital health software development company and provider of cloud-based home and ambulatory BP telemonitoring. Richard McManus is working with Omron to develop and evaluate the Hypertension Plus Telemonitoring system. Aletta Schutte received consultant fees from Abbott, and speaker honoraria from Servier, Sanofi, Takeda, Novartis, and Sun Pharmaceuticals, and is Immediate Past President of the International Society of Hypertension. Other authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Older adults with obesity spend the majority of their waking hours sedentary. Given substantial barriers to regular physical activity in this population, approaches to reduce sedentary time could be an effective health promotion strategy. We present the protocol of a randomized controlled trial to reduce sitting time in older adults with a body mass index of 30 kg/m 2 or above. Participants (N = 284) will be randomized to receive a sitting reduction intervention (termed I-STAND) or a healthy living focused attention control condition. I-STAND includes 10 contacts with a health coach (10 sessions total) and participants receive a wrist-worn prompting device and portable standing desk. The healthy living condition includes 10 sessions with a health coach to set goals around various topics relating to healthy aging. Participants receive their assigned intervention for 6 months. After 6 months, those receiving the I-STAND condition are re-randomized to receive five booster health coaching sessions by 'phone or no further contact; healthy living participants receive no further contact and those in both conditions are followed for an additional 6 months. Measurements initially included wearing an activPAL device and completing several biometric tests (e.g., blood pressure, HbA1c), at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months; however, during the COVID-19 pandemic we shifted to remote assessments and were unable to collect all of these measures. The primary outcomes remained activPAL-assessed sitting time and blood pressure. Recruitment is anticipated to be completed in 2022., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hypertension control has been decreasing recently. We compared the experience and attitudes toward care between patients with uncontrolled hypertension who are more and less satisfied with that care to identify ways to improve their care., Methods: Baseline survey of 3072 patients with diagnosed hypertension and repeated blood pressure measurements at or above 150/95 mmHg during clinic appointments at 21 primary care clinics of a large Midwestern multi-specialty medical group. Survey questions were about previous hypertension care satisfaction, the degree to which that care was patient-centered, their feelings of self-confidence and treatment burden in managing hypertension, and medication side effects., Results: A total of 1697 patients completed surveys (response rate = 55%). Of the 1697 patients, the 24% who were most dissatisfied (scored 0 to 5 on a 0 to 10 scale of satisfaction) significantly differed from those most satisfied (scored 9 to 10) on all demographic and clinical characteristics as well as on every measure of care experience and health status. After adjusting for those characteristics, reports of patient-centered care, self-confidence, stopping the medication because of side effects, and the burdensomeness of treatment were all significantly worse ( P <.01 to P <.001) than for those with a higher rating of their hypertension care. Correlations among these measures were low, so the people with each problem with care seem to be different., Conclusions: Many patients with uncontrolled hypertension are dissatisfied with their care, but that is associated with different problems for different people. Identifying and attending to these problems may provide opportunities to help them achieve better control., Competing Interests: Conflict of interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (© Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion improved access to health insurance and health care services. This study assessed whether the rate of patients with undiagnosed hypertension and the rate of patients with hypertension without anti-hypertensive medication decreased post-ACA in community health center (CHC)., Methods: We analyzed electronic health record data from 2012 to 2017 for 126,699 CHC patients aged 19-64 years with ≥1 visit pre-ACA and ≥1 post-ACA in 14 Medicaid expansion states. We estimated the prevalence of patients with undiagnosed hypertension (high blood pressure reading without a diagnosis for ≥1 day) and the prevalence of patients with hypertension without anti-hypertensive medication by year and health insurance type (continuously uninsured, continuously insured, gained insurance, and discontinuously insured). We compared the time to diagnosis or to anti-hypertensive medication pre- vs. post-ACA., Results: Overall, 37.3% of patients had undiagnosed hypertension and 27.0% of patients with diagnosed hypertension were without a prescribed anti-hypertensive medication for ≥1 day during the study period. The rate of undiagnosed hypertension decreased from 2012 through 2017. Those who gained insurance had the lowest rates of undiagnosed hypertension (2012: 14.8%; 2017: 6.1%). Patients with hypertension were also more likely to receive anti-hypertension medication during this period, especially uninsured patients who experienced the largest decline (from 47.0% to 8.1%). Post-ACA, among patients with undiagnosed hypertension, time to diagnosis was shorter for those who gained insurance than other insurance types., Conclusions: Those who gained health insurance were appropriately diagnosed with hypertension faster and more frequently post-ACA than those with other insurance types., Clinical Trials Registration: Trial Number NCT03545763., (© American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2021. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) and quality improvement (QI) activities often occur simultaneously within healthcare systems (HCSs). Embedded PCTs within HCSs are conducted to test interventions and provide evidence that may impact public health, health system operations, and quality of care. They are larger and more broadly generalizable than QI initiatives, and may generate what is considered high-quality evidence for potential use in care and clinical practice guidelines. QI initiatives often co-occur with ePCTs and address the same high-impact health questions, and this co-occurrence may dilute or confound the ability to detect change as a result of the ePCT intervention. During the design, pilot, and conduct phases of the large-scale NIH Collaboratory Demonstration ePCTs, many QI initiatives occurred at the same time within the HCSs. Although the challenges varied across the projects, some common, generalizable strategies and solutions emerged, and we share these as case studies. KEY LESSONS: Study teams often need to monitor, adapt, and respond to QI during design and the course of the trial. Routine collaboration between ePCT researchers and health systems stakeholders throughout the trial can help ensure research and QI are optimally aligned to support high-quality patient-centered care., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection or affect disease severity. Prior studies have not examined risks by medication dose., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included people aged ≥18 years enrolled in a US integrated healthcare system for at least 4 months as of 2/29/2020. Current ACEI and ARB use was identified from pharmacy data, and the estimated daily dose was calculated and standardized across medications. COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations were identified through 6/14/2020 from laboratory and hospitalization data. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for race/ethnicity, obesity, and other covariates., Results: Among 322,044 individuals, 826 developed COVID-19 infection. Among people using ACEI/ARBs, 204/56,105 developed COVID-19 (3.6 per 1,000 individuals) compared with 622/265,939 without ACEI/ARB use (2.3 per 1,000), yielding an adjusted OR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.74-1.12). For use of <1 defined daily dose (DDD) vs. nonuse, the adjusted OR for infection was 0.92 (95% CI 0.66-1.28); for 1 to <2 DDDs, 0.89 (95% CI 0.66-1.19); and for ≥2 DDDs, 0.92 (95% CI 0.72-1.18). The OR was similar for ACEIs and ARBs and in subgroups by age and sex. 26% of people with COVID-19 infection were hospitalized; the adjusted OR for hospitalization in relation to ACEI/ARB use was 0.98 (95% CI 0.63-1.54), and there was no association with dose., Conclusions: These findings support current recommendations that individuals on these medications continue their use., (© American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2020. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

BeneFIT is a 4-year observational study of a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans in Oregon and Washington. In Health Plan Oregon's (HPO) collaborative model, HPO mails FITs that enrollees return to their clinics for processing. In Health Plan Washington's (HPW) centralized model, FITs are mailed directly to enrollees who return them to a centralized laboratory. This paper examines model-specific Year 1 development and implementation costs and estimates costs per screened enrollee. Staff completed activity-based costing spreadsheets. Non-labor costs were from study and external data. Data matched each plan's 2016 development and implementation dates. HPO development costs were $23.0K, primarily administration (eg, clinic recruitment). HPW development costs were $37.3K, 38.8% for FIT selection and mailing/tracking protocols. Year 1 implementation costs were $51.6K for HPO and $139.7K for HPW, reflecting HPW's greater outreach. Labor was 50.4% ($26.0K) of HPO's implementation costs, primarily enrollee eligibility and processing returned FITs, and was shared by HPO ($17.0K) and 6 participating clinics ($9.0K). Labor was 10.5% of HPW's implementation costs, primarily administration and enrollee eligibility. HPO's implementation costs per enrollee were 12.3% higher ($18.36) than for HPW ($16.34). Similar proportions of completed FITs among screening-eligibles produced a 15% lower cost per completed FIT in HPW ($89.75) vs. HPO ($105.79). Implementation costs for HPO only (without clinic costs) were $15.16/mailed introductory letter, $16.09/mailed FIT, and $87.35/completed FIT, comparable to HPW. Results highlight cost implications of different approaches to implementing a mailed FIT program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans.

Screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality; however, this remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States and adherence to colorectal cancer screening falls far short of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable goal of 80%. Numerous studies have examined the effectiveness of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. Outreach is the active dissemination of screening outside of the primary care setting, such as mailing fecal blood tests to individuals' homes. Navigation uses trained personnel to assist individuals through the screening process. Patient education may take the form of brochures, videos, or websites. Provider education can include feedback about screening rates of patient panels. Reminders to healthcare providers can be provided by dashboards of patients due for screening. Financial incentives provide monetary compensation to individuals when they complete screening tests, either as fixed payments or via a lottery. Individual preference for specific screening strategies has also been examined in several trials, with a choice of screening strategies yielding higher adherence than recommendation of a single strategy., (Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To explore financial incentives as an intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) adherence among traditionally disadvantaged patients who have never been screened or are overdue for screening., Approach: We used qualitative methods to describe patients' attitudes toward the offer of incentives, plans for future screening, and additional barriers and facilitators to CRCS., Setting: Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA)., Participants: KPWA patients who were due or overdue for CRCS., Method: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 37 patients who were randomized to 1 of 2 incentives (guaranteed $10 or a lottery for $50) to complete CRCS. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a qualitative content approach., Results: Patients generally had positive attitudes toward both types of incentives, however, half did not recall the incentive offer at the time of the interview. Among those who recalled the offer, 95% were screened compared to only 25% among those who did not remember the offer. Most screeners stated that staying healthy was their primary motivator for screening, but many suggested that the incentive helped them prioritize and complete screening., Conclusions: Incentives to complete CRCS may help motivate patients who would like to screen but have previously procrastinated. Future studies should ensure that the incentive offer is noticeable and shorten the deadline for completion of FIT screening.

Background: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs can improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but health systems vary how they implement (i.e., adapt) these programs for their organizations. A health insurance plan implemented a mailed FIT program (named BeneFIT), and participating health systems could adapt the program. This multi-method study explored which program adaptations might have resulted in higher screening rates., Methods: First, we conducted a descriptive analysis of CRC screening rates by key health system characteristics and program adaptations. Second, we generated an overall model by fitting a weighted regression line to our data. Third, we applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to determine how combinations of conditions were linked to higher screening rates. The main outcome measure was CRC screening rates., Results: Seventeen health systems took part in at least 1 year of BeneFIT. The overall screening completion rate was 20% (4-28%) in year 1 and 25% (12-35%) in year 2 of the program. Health systems that used two or more adaptations had higher screening rates, and no single adaptation clearly led to higher screening rates. In year 1, small systems, with just one clinic, that used phone reminders (n = 2) met the implementation success threshold (≥ 19% screening rate) while systems with > 1 clinic were successful when offering a patient incentive (n = 4), scrubbing mailing lists (n = 4), or allowing mailed FIT returns with no other adaptations (n = 1). In year 2, larger systems with 2-4 clinics were successful with a phone reminder (n = 4) or a patient incentive (n = 3). Of the 10 systems that implemented BeneFIT in both years, seven improved their CRC screening rates in year 2., Conclusions: Health systems can choose among many adaptations and successfully implement a health plan's mailed FIT program. Different combinations of adaptations led to success with health system size emerging as an important contextual factor.

Objective: To assess the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion's impact on new hypertension and diabetes diagnoses in community health centres (CHCs)., Design: Rates of new hypertension and diabetes diagnoses were computed using generalised estimating equation Poisson models and we tested the difference-in-difference (DID) pre-ACA versus post-ACA in states that expanded Medicaid compared with those that did not., Setting: We used electronic health record data (pre-ACA: 1 January 2012-31 December 2013-post-ACA: 1 January 2014-31 December 2016) from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network clinical data network. We included clinics with ≥50 patients contributing to person-time-at risk in each study year., Participants: Patients aged 19-64 with ≥1 ambulatory visit in the study period were included. We then excluded patients who were pregnant during the study period (N=127 530). For the hypertension outcome, we excluded individuals with a diagnosis of hypertension prior to the start of the study period, those who had a hypertension diagnosis on their first visit to a clinic or their first visit after 3 years without a visit, and those who had a diagnosis more than 3 years after their last visit (pre-ACA non-expansion N=130 973; expansion N=193 198; post-ACA non-expansion N=186 341; expansion N=251 015). For the diabetes analysis, we excluded patients with a diabetes diagnosis prior to study start, on their first visit or first visit after inactive patient status, and diagnosis while not an active patient (pre-ACA non-expansion N=145 435; expansion N=198 558; post-ACA non-expansion N=215 039; expansion N=264 644)., Results: In non-expansion states, adjusted hypertension diagnosis rates saw a relative decrease of 6%, while in expansion states, the adjusted rates saw a relative increase of 7% (DID 1.14, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.18). For diabetes diagnosis, adjusted rates in non-expansion states experienced a significant relative increase of 28% and in expansion states the relative increase was 25%; yet these differences were not significant pre-ACA to post-ACA comparing expansion and non-expansion states (DID 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05)., Conclusion: There was a differential impact of Medicaid expansion for hypertension and diabetes diagnoses. Moderate increases were found in diabetes diagnosis rates among all patients served by CHCs post-ACA (both in expansion and non-expansion states). These increases suggest that ACA-related opportunities to gain health insurance (such as marketplaces and the Medicaid expansion) may have facilitated access to diagnostic tests for this population. The study found a small change in hypertension diagnosis rates from pre-ACA to post-ACA (a decrease in non-expansion and an increase in expansion states). Despite the significant difference between expansion and non-expansion states, the small change from pre-ACA to post-ACA suggests that the diagnosis of hypertension is likely documented for patients, regardless of health insurance availability. Future studies are needed to understand the impact of the ACA on hypertension and diabetes treatment and control., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Primary care provider's (PCP) perceptions of colorectal cancer screening test effectiveness and their recommendations for testing intervals influence patient screening uptake. Few large studies have examined providers' perceptions and recommendations, including their alignment with evidence suggesting comparable test effectiveness and guideline recommendations for screening frequency. Providers ( n = 1,281) within four healthcare systems completed a survey in 2017-2018 regarding their perceptions of test effectiveness and recommended intervals for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for patients ages 40-49, 50-74, and ≥75 years. For patients 50-74 (screening eligible), 82.9% of providers rated colonoscopy as very effective versus 59.6% for FIT, and 26.3% rated colonoscopy as more effective than FIT. Also, for this age group, 77.9% recommended colonoscopy every 10 years and 92.4% recommended FIT annually. For patients ages 40-49 and ≥75, more than one-third of providers believed the tests were somewhat or very effective, although >80% did not routinely recommend screening by either test for these age groups. Provider screening test interval recommendations generally aligned with colorectal cancer guidelines; however, 25% of providers believed colonoscopy was more effective than FIT for mortality reduction, which differs from some modeling studies that suggest comparable effectiveness. The latter finding may have implications for health systems where FIT is the dominant screening strategy. Only one-third of providers reported believing these screening tests were effective in younger and older patients (i.e., <50 and ≥75 years). Evidence addressing these beliefs may be relevant if cancer screening recommendations are modified to include older and/or younger patients., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Telemedicine allows the remote exchange of medical data between patients and healthcare professionals. It is used to increase patients' access to care and provide effective healthcare services at a distance. During the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telemedicine has thrived and emerged worldwide as an indispensable resource to improve the management of isolated patients due to lockdown or shielding, including those with hypertension. The best proposed healthcare model for telemedicine in hypertension management should include remote monitoring and transmission of vital signs (notably blood pressure) and medication adherence plus education on lifestyle and risk factors, with video consultation as an option. The use of mixed automated feedback services with supervision of a multidisciplinary clinical team (physician, nurse, or pharmacist) is the ideal approach. The indications include screening for suspected hypertension, management of older adults, medically underserved people, high-risk hypertensive patients, patients with multiple diseases, and those isolated due to pandemics or national emergencies.

Uncontrolled hypertension is a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease. A cluster-randomized trial in 16 primary care clinics showed that 12 months of home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist management lowered blood pressure more than usual care (UC) for 24 months. We report cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalized heart failure, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death) and costs over 5 years of follow-up. In the telemonitoring intervention (TI group, n=228), there were 15 cardiovascular events (5 myocardial infarction, 4 stroke, 5 heart failure, 1 cardiovascular death) among 10 patients. In UC group (n=222), there were 26 events (11 myocardial infarction, 12 stroke, 3 heart failure) among 19 patients. The cardiovascular composite end point incidence was 4.4% in the TI group versus 8.6% in the UC group (odds ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.21-1.13], P =0.09). Including 2 coronary revascularizations in the TI group and 10 in the UC group, the secondary cardiovascular composite end point incidence was 5.3% in the TI group versus 10.4% in the UC group (odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.22-1.08], P =0.08). Microsimulation modeling showed the difference in events far exceeded predictions based on observed blood pressure. Intervention costs (in 2017 US dollars) were $1511 per patient. Over 5 years, estimated event costs were $758 000 in the TI group and $1 538 000 in the UC group for a return on investment of 126% and a net cost savings of about $1900 per patient. Telemonitoring with pharmacist management lowered blood pressure and may have reduced costs by avoiding cardiovascular events over 5 years. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00781365.