Search

Introduction: Healthcare organizations are under increasing pressure from policymakers, payers, and advocates to screen for and address patients’ health-related social needs (HRSN). The emergency department (ED) presents several challenges to HRSN screening, and patients are frequently not screened for HRSNs. Predictive modeling using machine learning and artificial intelligence, approaches may address some pragmatic HRSN screening challenges in the ED. Because predictive modeling represents a substantial change from current approaches, in this study we explored the acceptability of HRSN predictive modeling in the ED.Methods: Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patient perspectives on the acceptability and usage of predictive modeling for HRSNs in the ED were obtained through in-depth semi-structured interviews (eight per group, total 24). All participants practiced at or had received care from an urban, Midwest, safety-net hospital system. We analyzed interview transcripts using a modified thematic analysis approach with consensus coding.Results: Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patients agreed that HRSN predictive modeling must lead to actionable responses and positive patient outcomes. Opinions about using predictive modeling results to initiate automatic referrals to HRSN services were mixed. Emergency clinicians and staff wanted transparency on data inputs and usage, demanded high performance, and expressed concern for unforeseen consequences. While accepting, patients were concerned that prediction models can miss individuals who required services and might perpetuate biases.Conclusion: Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patients expressed mostly positive views about using predictive modeling for HRSNs. Yet, clinicians, staff, and patients listed several contingent factors impacting the acceptance and implementation of HRSN prediction models in the ED.

Resilience and optimism may not only have main effects on health outcomes, but may also moderate and buffer negative effects of stressors. We examined whether dispositional resilience and optimism moderate the associations between HIV-related stigma in health care settings and health-related outcomes (trust in HIV health care providers and depression symptoms) among women living with HIV (WLHIV). One thousand four hundred five WLHIV in nine US cities completed validated questionnaires for cross-sectional analyses. Higher self-reported experienced and anticipated stigma and lower resilience and optimism were associated with higher depression symptoms and with lower trust in HIV providers. Importantly, resilience moderated the effects of experienced stigma (but not of anticipated stigma): When resilience was high, the association of experienced stigma with higher depression symptoms and lower trust in HIV providers was weaker compared with when resilience was low. Further, significant moderation effects suggested that when optimism was high, experienced and anticipated stigma was both less strongly associated with depression symptoms and with lower trust in one's HIV care providers compared with when optimism was low. Thus, the effects of experienced stigma on depression symptoms and provider trust were moderated by both resilience and optimism, but the effects of anticipated stigma were moderated only by optimism. Our findings suggest that in addition to their main effects, resilience and optimism may function as buffers against the harmful effects of stigma in health care settings. Therefore, optimism and resilience may be valuable intervention targets to reduce depression symptoms or improve trust in providers among populations that experience or anticipate stigma, such as WLHIV.

BackgroundFew population-based studies have described characteristics and management of patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in the USA.MethodsWe retrospectively studied adults with CHB in the Northern California Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program (KPNC) from July 2009 to December 2010 (n = 12,016). Laboratory tests, treatment patterns, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance were ascertained during a "recent" 18-month study window (July 2009-December 2010), or as "ever" based on records dating to 1995.ResultsThe mean age was 49 years; 51 % were men, 83 % Asian, and 87 % KPNC members >5 years. Overall, 51 % had ≥ 1 liver-related visit, 14 % with gastroenterology or infectious disease specialists, and 37 % with primary care providers (PCP) only. Less than 40 % of patients had both hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA and ALT testing conducted recently, while 56 % of eligible patients had received HCC surveillance. Recent laboratory testing and HCC surveillance were more frequent in patients seen by a specialist versus PCP only (90 vs. 47 % and 92 vs. 73 %, respectively, p values