Search

Background: Research on social determinants of genetic testing uptake is limited, particularly among unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE) trial at University of Utah Health and NYU Langone Health, involving 2,760 unaffected patients meeting genetic testing criteria for inherited cancer susceptibility and who were initially randomized to either an automated chatbot or an enhanced standard of care (SOC) genetic services delivery model. We used encounters from the electronic health record (EHR) to measure the uptake of genetic counseling and testing, including dichotomous measures of (1) whether participants initiated pre-test cancer genetic services, (2) completed pre-test cancer genetic services, (3) had genetic testing ordered, and (4) completed genetic testing. We merged zip codes from the EHR to construct census tract-weighted social measures of the Social Vulnerability Index. Multilevel models estimated associations between social vulnerability and genetic services utilization. We tested whether intervention condition (i.e., chatbot vs. SOC) moderated the association of social vulnerability with genetic service utilization. Covariates included study arm, study site, age, sex, race/ethnicity, language preference, rural residence, having a recorded primary care provider, and number of algorithm criteria met. Results: Patients living in areas of medium socioeconomic status (SES) vulnerability had lower odds of initiating pre-test genetic services (adjusted OR [aOR] = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.98) compared to patients living in low SES vulnerability areas. Patients in medium household vulnerability areas had a lower likelihood of completing pre-test genetic services (aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66–0.97) and having genetic testing ordered (aOR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63–0.99) relative to patients in low household vulnerability areas. We did not find that social vulnerability associations varied by intervention condition. Conclusions: These results underscore the importance of investigating social and structural mechanisms as potential pathways to increasing genetic testing uptake among patients with increased inherited risk of cancer. Census information is publicly available but seldom used to assess social determinants of genetic testing uptake among unaffected populations. Existing and future cohort studies can incorporate census data to derive analytic insights for clinical scientists. Trial registration: BRIDGE was registered as NCT03985852 on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertension is among the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and dementia. The artificial intelligence (AI) field is advancing quickly, and there has been little discussion on how AI could be leveraged for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension. AI technologies, including machine learning tools, could alter the way we diagnose and manage hypertension, with potential impacts for improving individual and population health. The development of successful AI tools in public health and health care systems requires diverse types of expertise with collaborative relationships between clinicians, engineers, and data scientists. Unbiased data sources, management, and analyses remain a foundational challenge. From a diagnostic standpoint, machine learning tools may improve the measurement of blood pressure and be useful in the prediction of incident hypertension. To advance the management of hypertension, machine learning tools may be useful to find personalized treatments for patients using analytics to predict response to antihypertension medications and the risk for hypertension-related complications. However, there are real-world implementation challenges to using AI tools in hypertension. Herein, we summarize key findings from a diverse group of stakeholders who participated in a workshop held by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in March 2023. Workshop participants presented information on communication gaps between clinical medicine, data science, and engineering in health care; novel approaches to estimating BP, hypertension risk, and BP control; and real-world implementation challenges and issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interventions designed to address COVID-19 needed to be rapidly scaled up to the population level, and to address health equity by reaching historically marginalized populations most affected by the pandemic (e.g., racial/ethnic minorities and rural and low socioeconomic status populations). From February 2021 to June 2022, SCALE-UP Utah used text messaging interventions to reach 107 846 patients from 28 clinics within seven safety-net health care systems. Interventions provided informational and motivational messaging regarding COVID-19 testing and vaccination, and were developed using extensive community partner input. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(11):1207–1211. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307770) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maintaining a healthy weight postintentional weight loss is crucial for preventing chronic health conditions, yet many regain weight postintervention. Electronic health record (EHR) portals offer a promising avenue for weight management interventions, leveraging patient-primary care relationships. Our previous research demonstrated that coaching alongside self-monitoring improves weight maintenance compared to monitoring alone. Integrating weight management into routine clinical practice by training existing staff could enhance scalability and sustainability. However, challenges such as inconsistent staff qualifications and high coach turnover rates could affect intervention effectiveness. Standardizing services, training, and coaching continuity seem crucial for success. To report on developing, testing, and evaluating an EHR-based coaching training program for clinical staff, guided by an implementation tool for the MAINTAIN PRIME study. Conducted across 14 University of Utah primary care sites, we developed, tested, and evaluated a coaching training for clinical staff. Guided by a planning model and the Predisposing, Enabling, and Reinforcing (PER) tool, stakeholders actively participated in planning, ensuring alignment with clinic priorities. All clinical staff were invited to participate voluntarily. Evaluation measures included staff interest, training effectiveness, confidence, and readiness. Data collection utilized REDCap, with survey results analyzed using descriptive statistics. Despite increased clinical workload and reassignments posed by coronavirus disease 2019, we were able to train 39 clinical staff, with 34 successfully coaching patients. Feedback indicated high readiness and positive perceptions of coaching feasibility. Coaches reported satisfaction with training, support, and enjoyed establishing connections with patients. The PER strategies allowed us to implement a well-received training program found effective by primary care coaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision‐making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development. Aim: This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach. Methods: We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider‐facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient‐facing SDM tool. Results: The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient‐facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient–provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids. Conclusion: These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Patient care using genetics presents complex challenges. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools are a potential solution because they provide patient-specific risk assessments and/or recommendations at the point of care. This systematic review evaluated the literature on CDS systems which have been implemented to support genetically guided precision medicine (GPM). Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase, encompassing January 1, 2011–March 14, 2023. The review included primary English peer-reviewed research articles studying humans, focused on the use of computers to guide clinical decision-making and delivering genetically guided, patient-specific assessments, and/or recommendations to healthcare providers and/or patients. Results The search yielded 3832 unique articles. After screening, 41 articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Alerts and reminders were the most common form of CDS used. About 27 systems were integrated with the electronic health record; 2 of those used standards-based approaches for genomic data transfer. Three studies used a framework to analyze the implementation strategy. Discussion Findings include limited use of standards-based approaches for genomic data transfer, system evaluations that do not employ formal frameworks, and inconsistencies in the methodologies used to assess genetic CDS systems and their impact on patient outcomes. Conclusion We recommend that future research on CDS system implementation for genetically GPM should focus on implementing more CDS systems, utilization of standards-based approaches, user-centered design, exploration of alternative forms of CDS interventions, and use of formal frameworks to systematically evaluate genetic CDS systems and their effects on patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To enhance the Business Process Management (BPM)+ Healthcare language portfolio by incorporating knowledge types not previously covered and to improve the overall effectiveness and expressiveness of the suite to improve Clinical Knowledge Interoperability. Methods We used the BPM+ Health and Object Management Group (OMG) standards development methodology to develop new languages, following a gap analysis between existing BPM+ Health languages and clinical practice guideline knowledge types. Proposal requests were developed based on these requirements, and submission teams were formed to respond to them. The resulting proposals were submitted to OMG for ratification. Results The BPM+ Health family of languages, which initially consisted of the Business Process Model and Notation, Decision Model and Notation, and Case Model and Notation, was expanded by adding 5 new language standards through the OMG. These include Pedigree and Provenance Model and Notation for expressing epistemic knowledge, Knowledge Package Model and Notation for supporting packaging knowledge, Shared Data Model and Notation for expressing ontic knowledge, Party Model and Notation for representing entities and organizations, and Specification Common Elements, a language providing a standard abstract and reusable library that underpins the 4 new languages. Discussion and conclusion In this effort, we adopted a strategy of separation of concerns to promote a portfolio of domain-agnostic, independent, but integrated domain-specific languages for authoring medical knowledge. This strategy is a practical and effective approach to expressing complex medical knowledge. These new domain-specific languages offer various knowledge-type options for clinical knowledge authors to choose from without potentially adding unnecessary overhead or complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To design an interface to support communication of machine learning (ML)-based prognosis for patients with advanced solid tumors, incorporating oncologists' needs and feedback throughout design. Materials and Methods Using an interdisciplinary user-centered design approach, we performed 5 rounds of iterative design to refine an interface, involving expert review based on usability heuristics, input from a color-blind adult, and 13 individual semi-structured interviews with oncologists. Individual interviews included patient vignettes and a series of interfaces populated with representative patient data and predicted survival for each treatment decision point when a new line of therapy (LoT) was being considered. Ongoing feedback informed design decisions, and directed qualitative content analysis of interview transcripts was used to evaluate usability and identify enhancement requirements. Results Design processes resulted in an interface with 7 sections, each addressing user-focused questions, supporting oncologists to "tell a story" as they discuss prognosis during a clinical encounter. The iteratively enhanced interface both triggered and reflected design decisions relevant when attempting to communicate ML-based prognosis, and exposed misassumptions. Clinicians requested enhancements that emphasized interpretability over explainability. Qualitative findings confirmed that previously identified issues were resolved and clarified necessary enhancements (eg, use months not days) and concerns about usability and trust (eg, address LoT received elsewhere). Appropriate use should be in the context of a conversation with an oncologist. Conclusion User-centered design, ongoing clinical input, and a visualization to communicate ML-related outcomes are important elements for designing any decision support tool enabled by artificial intelligence, particularly when communicating prognosis risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Racial/ethnic minority, low socioeconomic status, and rural populations are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Developing and evaluating interventions to address COVID-19 testing and vaccination among these populations are crucial to improving health inequities. The purpose of this paper is to describe the application of a rapid-cycle design and adaptation process from an ongoing trial to address COVID-19 among safety-net healthcare system patients. The rapid-cycle design and adaptation process included: (a) assessing context and determining relevant models/frameworks; (b) determining core and modifiable components of interventions; and (c) conducting iterative adaptations using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. PDSA cycles included: Plan. Gather information from potential adopters/implementers (e.g. Community Health Center [CHC] staff/patients) and design initial interventions; Do. Implement interventions in single CHC or patient cohort; Study. Examine process, outcome, and context data (e.g. infection rates); and, Act. If necessary, refine interventions based on process and outcome data, then disseminate interventions to other CHCs and patient cohorts. Seven CHC systems with 26 clinics participated in the trial. Rapid-cycle, PDSA-based adaptations were made to adapt to evolving COVID-19-related needs. Near real-time data used for adaptation included data on infection hot spots, CHC capacity, stakeholder priorities, local/national policies, and testing/vaccine availability. Adaptations included those to study design, intervention content, and intervention cohorts. Decision-making included multiple stakeholders (e.g. State Department of Health, Primary Care Association, CHCs, patients, researchers). Rapid-cycle designs may improve the relevance and timeliness of interventions for CHCs and other settings that provide care to populations experiencing health inequities, and for rapidly evolving healthcare challenges such as COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose for Review: This perspective piece has two goals: first, to describe issues related to artificial intelligence-based applications for cancer control as they may impact health inequities or disparities; and second, to report on a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of artificial intelligence-based tools for cancer control to ascertain the extent to which discussions of justice, equity, diversity, inclusion, or health disparities manifest in syntheses of the field's best evidence. Recent Findings: We found that, while a significant proportion of existing syntheses of research on AI-based tools in cancer control use formal bias assessment tools, the fairness or equitability of models is not yet systematically analyzable across studies. Issues related to real-world use of AI-based tools for cancer control, such as workflow considerations, measures of usability and acceptance, or tool architecture, are more visible in the literature, but still addressed only in a minority of reviews. Summary: Artificial intelligence is poised to bring significant benefits to a wide range of applications in cancer control, but more thorough and standardized evaluations and reporting of model fairness are required to build the evidence base for AI-based tool design for cancer and to ensure that these emerging technologies promote equitable healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) for patients living with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), used in combination at recommended doses, result in significant improvements in cardiac function, quality of life, and survival. However, busy clinicians treating stable patients with chronic diseases often "leave well enough alone". This clinical inertia results in GDMT underuse and a missed opportunity to achieve attainable health goals. The EPIC-HF trial tested effects of patient activation through a brief video and 1-page checklist sent to patients just prior to a clinic visit; the PROMPT-HF trial tested tailored alerts delivered to clinicians during clinic visits. Both electronic health record tools increased the appropriate use of GDMT while taking into consideration patients' preferences and overall medical care. Yet, neither EPIC-HF nor PROMPT-HF were implemented widely. The I-I-CAPTAIN-HF study—Implementation and Interaction of Clinician And Patient-facing Tools Aiming to Intensify Neurohormonal medicines for Heart Failure with reduced ejection fraction—will implement and test the EPIC-HF and PROMPT-HF tools at 5 diverse health systems across the United States in a type-2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness, cluster randomized trial. Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the 5-year study started in March 2024. Aim 1 will modify and implement the EPIC-HF and PROMPT-HF tools at 5 health systems through participatory work with a multi-level team. The Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) will guide the delivery of implementation strategies that respect mandatory aspects of the interventions and explore helpful adaptations. Prototypes of interoperable, next-generation, "plug-and-play" versions of the tools will leverage advanced interoperability standards such as the Health Level Seven International (HL7) SMART-on-FHIR and CDS Hooks standards. Aim 2 will test the effectiveness and the interaction of the EPIC-HF and PROMPT-HF tools to improve GDMT prescribing from before to after clinic visits using a 2 × 2 factorial design randomized at the clinician-level. About 200 clinicians and 2000 patients will be enrolled to either usual care, EPIC-HF, PROMPT-HF, or both. Aim 3 will evaluate ongoing implementation of both tools to promote broad dissemination. Formal evaluation using PRISM will include patient and clinician surveys and interviews to understand optimal intervention design and delivery, as well as adaptations to contextual factors, that will lead to broad, effective, and sustained use of these clinical tools to improve GDMT use. We anticipate the lessons learned from I-I-CAPTAIN-HF about how to best use the EPIC-HF and PROMPT-HF tools will improve patient-clinician interactions, address therapeutic inertia, and enhance patient-centered prescribing for the growing number of people living with HFrEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Warnings about drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between warfarin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) within electronic health records indicate potential harm but fail to account for contextual factors and preferences. We developed a tool called DDInteract to enhance and support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and physicians when both warfarin and NSAIDs are used concurrently. DDInteract was designed to be integrated into electronic health records using interoperability standards. Objective: The purpose of this study was to conduct a formative evaluation of a DDInteract that incorporates patient and product contextual factors to estimate the risk of bleeding. Methods: A randomized formative evaluation was conducted to compare DDInteract to usual care (UC) using physician-patient dyads. Using case vignettes, physicians and patients on warfarin participated in simulated virtual clinical encounters where they discussed the use of taking ibuprofen and warfarin concurrently and determined an appropriate therapeutic plan based on the patient's individualized risk. Dyads were randomized to either DDInteract or UC. Participants completed a postsession interview and survey of the SDM process. This included the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), tool usability and workload National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) scale, System Usability Scale (SUS), and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). They also were interviewed after the session to obtain perceptions on DDInteract and UC resources for DDIs. Results: Twelve dyad encounters were performed using virtual software. Most (n=11, 91.7%) patients were over 50 years of age, and 9 (75%) had been taking warfarin for more than 2 years (75%). Regarding scores on the SDM-Q-9, participants rated DDInteract higher than UC for questions pertaining to helping patients clarify the decision (P=.03), involving patients in the decision (P=.01), displaying treatment options (P<.001), identifying advantages and disadvantages (P=.01), and facilitating patient understanding (P=.01) and discussion of preferences (P=.01). Five of the 8 UTAUT constructs showed differences between the 2 groups, favoring DDInteract (P<.05). Usability ratings from the SUS were significantly higher (P<.05) for physicians using DDInteract compared to those in the UC group but showed no differences from the patient's perspective. No differences in patient responses were observed between groups using the DCS. During the session debrief, physicians indicated little concern for the additional time or workload entailed by DDInteract use. Both clinicians and patients indicated that the tool was beneficial in simulated encounters to understand and mitigate the risk of harm from this DDI. Conclusions: Overall, DDInteract may improve encounters where there is a risk of bleeding due to a potential drug-drug interaction involving anticoagulants. Participants rated DDInteract as logical and useful for enhancing SDM. They reported that they would be willing to use the tool for an interaction involving warfarin and NSAIDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]