Search

Purpose Values are critical to how individuals make decisions and cope, yet the values of heart failure (HF) patients and their family caregivers (FCGs) remain understudied. We sought to report the state of the science on how values are discussed, reflected upon, and acted on by patients with HF, their FCGs, or both related to health-related decision making and coping. Method A scoping review was conducted of empirical studies using the following keywords: “heart failure,” “values,” “decision-making,” and “coping.” PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched from inception to June 2022 in English. Included articles reported values as a key finding (outcome/theme) in their abstract. Results Of 448 articles screened for eligibility, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve articles reported findings addressing patient values, 3 addressed patient and FCG values, and 1 addressed FCG values. Values were reported to influence patient self-care behaviors and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation decisions, although their prioritization varied across time and contexts. When prioritized values conflicted with recommended self-care activities, some patients modified their approach to achieving the value. Others modified or abandoned tasks in favor of the value and accompanying goals. Low motivation and alignment between unhealthy behaviors and values often led to nonadherent decisions. Five of 8 articles focusing on cardiac devices reported patient survival as the most prioritized value during implantation decisions. FCG values were rarely reported or evaluated separately from patient values. Patients leveraged several coping strategies, although the processes through which values affected coping was not described. Conclusions Prioritized values influenced HF-related decisions, including self-care and LVAD implantation. While several articles reported on coping and values, none described processes through which values affect coping, which highlights a research gap. Highlights Family caregiver values were rarely reported or evaluated separately from patient values, highlighting a gap in the literature.

Firearm injury, particularly self-directed, is a major source of preventable morbidity and mortality among older adults. Older adults are at elevated risk of serious illness, cognitive impairment, and depression-all known risk factors for suicide and/or unintentional injury. Healthcare providers are often the first to identify these conditions and, although they commonly deliver safety guidance to such patients, little is known about how they approach firearm safety conversations with older adults.We conducted semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers who care for older adults (November 2020-May 2021). We used inductive and deductive thematic analyses to develop themes. We present themes and representative quotes from our analysis.We interviewed 13 healthcare providers who regularly care for older adult firearm owners. Emergent themes were: circumstances that prompt firearm safety conversations; strategies for addressing firearm safety in routine and acute circumstances; barriers to addressing firearm safety; and available or desired resources.Planning for firearm safety should occur "early and often" as part of a longitudinal relationship with older adult patients. Age-related safety issues such as driving are regularly addressed with older adult patients, likely because there are standard processes and established pathways. Establishing processes and provider/ patient resources would help improve provider efficacy to address firearm safety and relinquishment for older adult firearm owners. Integrating firearm safety conversations into routine encounters (e.g., Medicare Annual Wellness Visit, problem-focused visits) templates could be a promising initial step but resources for follow-up to the firearm screening must be available to both provider and patient.

Reducing firearm access during times of risk is a key component of suicide prevention, including the person at risk voluntarily, temporarily storing firearms outside the home. However, this approach relies on the participation of storage providers (ranges/retailers and law enforcement agencies (LEAs)). Our objective was to describe stakeholders' views and experiences surrounding voluntary, temporary out-of-home firearm storage for suicide prevention.We conducted individual interviews with (1) firearm ranges/retailers; (2) LEAs (in Colorado or Washington State); and (3) state/national organizations involved in policy development or enactment; public health; or firearm rights. Transcripts were analyzed using a team-based mixed inductive-deductive approach.Across 100 interviews (October-May 2021), potential storage providers were supportive of voluntary storage programs, often reporting a desire to help their customers and community. However, potential storage suppliers cited civil liability, regulatory, and legal concerns associated with storing and/or returning firearms (to people who had previously expressed suicide risk). Stakeholders offered suggested strategies meant to address liability and increase storage accessibility.Understanding stakeholder views supports the development of acceptable, feasible programs for out-of-home firearm storage during times of suicide risk. Clarification of existing regulations or creation of new policies is necessary to address potential providers' concerns.

Objectives Develop and pilot implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) decision aids (DAs) for patients considering primary prevention ICDs. Background Using DAs for preference-sensitive decisions is an evidence-based way to improve patient-centered decisions. Reimbursement mandates have increased the need for DAs in ICD care, although none have been formally evaluated. Methods Development Phase: An expert panel, including patients and physicians, iteratively developed four DAs: a one-page Option GridTM conversation aid, a four-page in-depth paper tool, a 17-minute video, and an interactive website. Trial phase At three sites, patients with heart failure who were eligible for primary prevention ICDs were randomly assigned 2:1 to intervention (received DAs) or control (usual care). We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation exploring acceptability and feasibility. Results Twenty-one eligible patients enrolled (fifteen intervention). Most intervention participants found the DAs to be unbiased (67%), helpful (89%), and would recommend them to others (100%). The pilot was feasible at all sites; however, using clinic staff to identify eligible patients was more efficient than chart review. Although the main goals were to measure acceptability and feasibility, intervention participants trended towards increased concordance between longevity values and ICD decisions (71% concordant vs. 29%, p = 0.06). Participants preferred the in-depth paper tool and video DAs. Access to a nurse during the decision-making window encouraged questions and improved participant-perceived confidence. Conclusions Participants felt the DAs provided helpful, balanced information that they would recommend to other patients. Further exploration of this larger context of DA use and strategies to promote independent use related to electrophysiology visits are needed. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND Firearm safety among individuals with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) is an underdiscussed and underresearched concern in the United States, especially given the growing population of community-dwelling adults with ADRD. The “Safety in Dementia” (SiD) web-based decision aid was developed to support caregivers in addressing firearm access; the efficacy of SiD is unknown. OBJECTIVE Through the SiD decision aid, the Safe at Home (S@H) study aims to support caregivers in making decisions about home safety that align with their goals and values, and behaviors regarding firearm access for persons with ADRD and firearm access. METHODS The S@H study is a 2-armed randomized controlled trial to test the effect of the SiD decision aid on caregivers of community-dwelling adults with ADRD who have firearm access. S@H aims to recruit 500 ADRD caregivers (age ≥18 years, fluent in English or Spanish, and in the United States) through online or social media advertisements and through relevant organizations. Participants are randomized to view SiD or a control website at their own pace; all participants complete web-based questionnaires at baseline, 2 weeks, 2 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome is immediate preparation for decision-making; secondary outcomes include longitudinal decision outcomes and self-reported modifications to firearm access. The relative reach and effectiveness of each recruitment method (online/social media and through relevant organizations) will be assessed by examining differences in caregiver participation, retention rates, and relative cost. RESULTS The study enrollment began in May 2022. As of December 2022, a total of 117 participants had enrolled. CONCLUSIONS The S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. The results from this study will inform how best to support caregivers in decision-making regarding firearm safety. Further, results may guide approaches for recruiting caregivers and for dissemination of resources. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05173922; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05173922 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/43702

BackgroundGun violence restraining orders (GVROs), implemented in California in 2016, temporarily prohibit individuals at high risk of violence from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition. We sought to describe the circumstances giving rise to GVROs issued 2016–2018, provide details about the GVRO process and quantify mortality outcomes for individuals subject to these orders (‘respondents’).MethodsFor this cross-sectional description of GVRO respondents, 2016–2018, we abstracted case details from court files and used LexisNexis to link respondents to mortality data through August 2020.ResultsWe abstracted information for 201 respondents with accessible court records. Respondents were mostly white (61.2%) and men (93.5%). Fifty-four per cent of cases involved potential harm to others alone, 15.3% involved potential harm to self alone and 25.2% involved both. Mass shooting threats occurred in 28.7% of cases. Ninety-six and one half per cent of petitioners were law enforcement officers and one-in-three cases resulted in arrest on order service. One-year orders after a hearing (following 21-day emergency/temporary orders) were issued in 53.5% of cases. Most (84.2%) respondents owned at least one firearm, and firearms were removed in 55.9% of cases. Of the 379 respondents matched by LexisNexis, 7 (1.8%) died after the GVRO was issued: one from a self-inflicted firearm injury that was itself the reason for the GVRO and the others from causes unrelated to violence.ConclusionsGVROs were used most often by law enforcement officers to prevent firearm assault/homicide and post-GVRO firearm fatalities among respondents were rare. Future studies should investigate additional respondent outcomes and potential sources of heterogeneity.

Background Patient-centered care includes matching treatments to patient values and preferences. This assumes clarity and consistency of values and preferences relevant to major medical decisions. We sought to describe stability of patient-reported values regarding aggressiveness of care and preferences for left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) for advanced heart failure. Methods and Results We conducted a secondary analysis of patients undergoing LVAD evaluation at 6 US centers. Surveys at baseline, 1 month, and 6 months included a single 10-point scale on the value of aggressive care (score 1 = “do everything,” 10 = “live with whatever time I have left”) and treatment preference (LVAD, unsure, no LVAD). Data were captured for 232 patients, of whom 196 were ultimately deemed medically eligible for LVAD, and 161 were surgically implanted by 1 month. Values at baseline favored aggressive care (mean [SD], 2.49 [2.63]), trending toward less aggressive over time (1 month, 2.63 [2.05]; 6 months, 3.22 [2.70]). Between baseline and 1 month, values scores changed by ≥2 points in 28% (50/176), as did treatment preferences for 18% (29/161) of patients. Values score changes over time were associated with lower illness acceptance, depression, and eventual LVAD ineligibility. Treatment preference change was associated with values score change. Conclusion Most patients considering LVAD were stable in their values and treatment preferences. This stability, as well as the association between unstable treatment preferences and changes to stated values, highlighted the clinical utility of the values scale of aggressiveness. However, a substantial minority reported significant changes over time that may complicate the process of shared decision making. Improved methods to elicit and clarify values, including support to those with depression and low illness acceptance, is critical for patient-centered care. [Box: see text]

Background: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) evaluation includes a psychosocial assessment, conducted by social workers (SWs) on the advanced heart failure multidisciplinary team. Postdischarge caregiving plans are central to psychosocial evaluation. Caregiving’s relationship with LVAD outcomes is mixed, and testing patients’ social resources may disadvantage those from historically undertreated groups. We describe variation in policies defining adequate caregiving plans post-LVAD implant and possible impacts on patients from marginalized groups. Methods: This was a 2-phase sequential mixed-methods study: (1) phase 1, survey of US-based LVAD SWs, describing assessment structure and policies guiding candidacy outcomes; and (2) phase 2, individual interviews with SWs to further describe how caregiving plan adequacy impacts LVAD candidacy. Results: Sixty-seven SWs returned surveys (rr=47%) from unique programs. Caregiving plan inadequacy (n=30) was the most common psychosocial dealbreaker. When asked what duration of caregiving is required, 23% indicated ≥3 months, 27% 4 to 12 weeks, and 30% Conclusions: Policies regarding adequate duration of 24/7 caregiving vary, but inadequate caregiving plans are the most common psychosocial contraindication. Participants worry about patients’ ability to meet restrictive requirements, particularly from historically undertreated groups. This highlights a need to operationalize quality caregiving, standardize assessment, and support medically appropriate patients with strained social resources.

The prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) is increasing. In the United States, older adults are among those most likely to have firearms in the home. Addressing firearm access among persons with ADRD can be confusing and stressful for family caregivers, healthcare providers, firearm industry representatives and law enforcement. This study sought to examine key stakeholder perspectives concerning legal and logistic considerations for temporary firearm transfers when a person with ADRD owned firearms. A secondary analysis of 24 qualitative interviews conducted to inform the development of a firearm safety tool for ADRD caregivers revealed four types of barriers. These barriers were each associated with logistical challenges and legal ambiguities that hampered ADRD-related firearm transfers: (1) legal questions on firearm ownership and permitted transferees; (2) transfer logistics and duration; (3) issues of engaging law enforcement or retailers for transfers; and, (4) lack of information resources and guidance. Siloes between stakeholder groups persist and limit information sharing. Broad initiatives engaging caregivers, older adults, clinicians, aging service providers, law enforcement, and firearm outlets could inform the development of policies, programs, and practices to enhance the safety and well-being of people with ADRD and their caregivers.

Background CMS reimbursement guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) include mandated shared decision making, but without any manner of assessing the quality of decisions made. We developed and tested a scale meant to assess patients' knowledge of and preferences specific to ICDs. Such a tool would assess these constructs in the clinical environment, targeting resources and support for patients considering a primary prevention ICD. Methods Development of the ICD decision quality (ICD-DQ) scale included 1) item creation, 2) content validation using surveys of patients (n = 23) and clinicians (n = 31), and 3) examination of validity and reliability using a survey of patients who previously received an ICD (n = 295, response rate = 72%). Results The final scale consists of 12 knowledge and 8 preference items. With respect to content validity, clinician and patient respondents agreed on the importance of 19 of 24 candidate knowledge items (79%), and 9 of 11 treatment preference items (81%). Knowledge items exhibited moderate internal validity (α = 0.62, 1 factor), strong test-retest reliability (mean % correct at first administration = 59%, 62% at follow-up, p>.1) and discriminant validity (59% correct for patients, 93% among cardiologists). Short versions of the ICD-DQ were developed for clinical settings, the scores from both of which correlated with the long version in this cohort (11- item (r = 0.90) and a 5-item (r = 0.75)). Conclusions The ICD-DQ fills a critical gap in measuring the quality of patients' ICD decisions. They may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids or the quality of shared decision making in clinical practice. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Background: Major gaps exist in the routine initiation and dose up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Without novel approaches to improve prescribing, the cumulative benefits of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treatment will be largely unrealized. Direct-to-consumer marketing and shared decision making reflect a culture where patients are increasingly involved in treatment choices, creating opportunities for prescribing interventions that engage patients. Methods: The EPIC-HF (Electronically Delivered, Patient-Activation Tool for Intensification of Medications for Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial randomized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from a diverse health system to usual care versus patient activation tools—a 3-minute video and 1-page checklist—delivered electronically 1 week before, 3 days before, and 24 hours before a cardiology clinic visit. The tools encouraged patients to work collaboratively with their clinicians to “make one positive change” in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction prescribing. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with GDMT medication initiations and dose intensifications from immediately preceding the cardiology clinic visit to 30 days after, compared with usual care during the same period. Results: EPIC-HF enrolled 306 patients, 290 of whom attended a clinic visit during the study period: 145 were sent the patient activation tools and 145 were controls. The median age of patients was 65 years; 29% were female, 11% were Black, 7% were Hispanic, and the median ejection fraction was 32%. Preclinic data revealed significant GDMT opportunities, with no patients on target doses of β-blocker, sacubitril/valsartan, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. From immediately preceding the cardiology clinic visit to 30 days after, 49.0% in the intervention and 29.7% in the control experienced an initiation or intensification of their GDMT ( P =0.001). The majority of these changes were made at the clinician encounter itself and involved dose uptitrations. There were no deaths and no significant differences in hospitalization or emergency department visits at 30 days between groups. Conclusions: A patient activation tool delivered electronically before a cardiology clinic visit improved clinician intensification of GDMT. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03334188.

Background Firearm safety among individuals with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) is an underdiscussed and underresearched concern in the United States, especially given the growing population of community-dwelling adults with ADRD. The “Safety in Dementia” (SiD) web-based decision aid was developed to support caregivers in addressing firearm access; the efficacy of SiD is unknown. Objective Through the SiD decision aid, the Safe at Home (S@H) study aims to support caregivers in making decisions about home safety that align with their goals and values, and behaviors regarding firearm access for persons with ADRD and firearm access. Methods The S@H study is a 2-armed randomized controlled trial to test the effect of the SiD decision aid on caregivers of community-dwelling adults with ADRD who have firearm access. S@H aims to recruit 500 ADRD caregivers (age ≥18 years, fluent in English or Spanish, and in the United States) through online or social media advertisements and through relevant organizations. Participants are randomized to view SiD or a control website at their own pace; all participants complete web-based questionnaires at baseline, 2 weeks, 2 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome is immediate preparation for decision-making; secondary outcomes include longitudinal decision outcomes and self-reported modifications to firearm access. The relative reach and effectiveness of each recruitment method (online/social media and through relevant organizations) will be assessed by examining differences in caregiver participation, retention rates, and relative cost. Results The study enrollment began in May 2022. As of December 2022, a total of 117 participants had enrolled. Conclusions The S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. The results from this study will inform how best to support caregivers in decision-making regarding firearm safety. Further, results may guide approaches for recruiting caregivers and for dissemination of resources. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05173922; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05173922 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/43702

Out-of-home storage of personal firearms is one recommended option for individuals at risk of suicide, and statewide online maps of storage locations have been created in multiple states, including Colorado and Washington. We sought to examine both the extent to which firearm retailers and ranges offer temporary, voluntary firearm storage and the perceived barriers to providing this service. We invited all firearm retailers and ranges in Colorado and Washington to complete an online or mailed survey; eligible sites had to have a physical location where they could provide storage. Between June-July 2021, 137 retailers/ranges completed the survey (response rate = 25.1%). Nearly half (44.5%) of responding firearm retailers/ranges in Colorado and Washington State indicated they had ever provided firearm storage. Among those who had ever offered storage, 80.3% currently offered storage while 19.7% no longer did. The majority (68.6%) of participants had not heard of the Colorado/Washington gun storage maps and 82.5% did not believe they were currently listed on the maps. Respondents indicated liability waivers would most influence their decision about whether to start or continue providing temporary, voluntary storage of firearms. Understanding current practices, barriers, and concerns about providing out-of-home storage by retailers and ranges may support development of more feasible approaches for out-of-home firearm storage during times of suicide risk.

Social workers in healthcare settings often support patient decision-making processes for complex medical decisions. The objective of this study was to examine decision support needs for patients considering aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis. Seventeen qualitative interviews were conducted to explore treatment decision experiences of patients who accepted AVR. Analysis was conducted using a mixed inductive-deductive approach. Fear was a prevalent response for most participants in the face of AVR. Two general paths of decision making emerged: an "active" information seeking approach, or a "passive" simplicity seeking approach. Patients with unique clinical presentations felt alienated by the decision-making process. Acknowledging fear while understanding different decision-making styles provide opportunities for social workers and other members of multidisciplinary teams to support complex patient decisions.

BackgroundFollowing the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, there was a dramatic increase in media coverage of extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) and in state policy proposals for ERPO laws. This study documents the frequency of news coverage of ERPOs throughout 2018 and examines the narratives used by media outlets to describe this risk-based firearm policy.MethodsUsing a mixed-method descriptive design, we examine the frequency of national news media coverage of ERPO legislation in 2018, before and after the Parkland shooting, and analyze the content of news articles related to a sample of states that considered ERPO legislation after the shooting.ResultsWe find a sharp increase in the frequency of articles related to ERPOs following the Parkland shooting and smaller increases in coverage surrounding ERPO policy proposals and other public mass shootings that year. Nearly three-quarters of articles in our content analysis mentioned the Parkland shooting. The news media often mentioned or quoted politicians compared to other stakeholders, infrequently specified uses for ERPOs (e.g., prevention of mass violence, suicide, or other violence), and rarely included evidence on effectiveness of such policies. More than one-quarter of articles mentioned a mass shooting perpetrator by name, and one-third of articles used the term “gun control.”ConclusionsThis study describes the emerging public discourse, as informed by media messaging and framing, on ERPOs as states continue to debate and implement these risk-based firearm violence prevention policies.

Background Cognitive impairment and behavioral changes associated with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRDs) can impair safe firearm handling ability, an issue that can be challenging for ADRD caregivers to address. In this qualitative analysis, we sought to explore behavioral disruptions that raise concerns about firearm access in dementia and how caregivers react and respond. Methods Secondary qualitative analysis using data from semi-structured, one-on-one interviews originally conducted as part of a study to develop firearm safety educational materials for ADRD caregivers. Interviewees were English-speaking adults (≥18 years) from three stakeholder groups: ADRD caregivers (professional or informal), medical professionals (geriatricians, neurologists), and firearm professionals (retailers, range employees, instructors). For secondary analysis, transcripts of interviews were recoded and analyzed after an inductive-deductive thematic analysis process. Results Among 24 participants, 17 (70%) were female and 20 (83%) white; 13 (54%) had personal or professional experience with ADRD caregiving; and 5 (21%) had a firearm affiliation. Major themes were: (1) behavioral disturbances that make caregivers concerned about firearm access; (2) caregiver emotional responses to and difficulties associated with these disturbances; and (3) caregiver actions (planned or actual) to limit firearms access. Conclusion Various behavioral disturbances and emotional burdens can trigger ADRD caregiver concern about firearms access, but strategies exist for restricting or safeguarding firearms in the home. Study findings suggest a need for caregiver support on this topic, including counseling by healthcare providers, advance planning for older firearm owners, and development of community resources.

Background Firearms are common in the households of persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). Safety in Dementia (SiD) is a free web-based decision aid that was developed to support ADRD caregivers in addressing firearm access. Objective We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of SiD among a web-based sample of ADRD caregivers. Methods SiD was tested in 2 phases by using participants who were recruited from a web-based convenience sample (Amazon Mechanical Turk participants). In phase 1, caregivers were randomized to view either the intervention (SiD) or the control (Alzheimer’s Association materials), and the blinding of participants to the study arms was conducted. In phase 2, caregivers of individuals with ADRD and firearm access were recruited; all of these participants viewed the firearm section of SiD. In both phases, participants viewed SiD independently for as long as they wanted. Measures for evaluating decision-making and SiD acceptability were used, and these were assessed via a self-administered web-based questionnaire. Results Participants were recruited for phases 1 (n=203) and 2 (n=54). Although it was feasible to collect the study outcome data in a web-based format, in phase 1, there were no significant differences between SiD and the control in terms of decision-making and self-efficacy. The majority (137/203, 67.5%) of phase 1 participants spent between 5 and 10 minutes reviewing the resources. In phase 2, 61% (33/54) of participants spent 5 to 10 minutes viewing the firearm section, and 31% (17/54) spent 10 to 20 minutes viewing this section. Usability and acceptability were high across the phases. Conclusions SiD represents a new resource for promoting safety among people with dementia, and high acceptability was achieved in a pilot trial. In this sample, SiD performed similarly to Alzheimer’s Association materials in supporting decision-making and self-efficacy.

BACKGROUND Firearms are common in the households of persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). Safety in Dementia (SiD) is a free web-based decision aid that was developed to support ADRD caregivers in addressing firearm access. OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of SiD among a web-based sample of ADRD caregivers. METHODS SiD was tested in 2 phases by using participants who were recruited from a web-based convenience sample (Amazon Mechanical Turk participants). In phase 1, caregivers were randomized to view either the intervention (SiD) or the control (Alzheimer’s Association materials), and the blinding of participants to the study arms was conducted. In phase 2, caregivers of individuals with ADRD and firearm access were recruited; all of these participants viewed the firearm section of SiD. In both phases, participants viewed SiD independently for as long as they wanted. Measures for evaluating decision-making and SiD acceptability were used, and these were assessed via a self-administered web-based questionnaire. RESULTS Participants were recruited for phases 1 (n=203) and 2 (n=54). Although it was feasible to collect the study outcome data in a web-based format, in phase 1, there were no significant differences between SiD and the control in terms of decision-making and self-efficacy. The majority (137/203, 67.5%) of phase 1 participants spent between 5 and 10 minutes reviewing the resources. In phase 2, 61% (33/54) of participants spent 5 to 10 minutes viewing the firearm section, and 31% (17/54) spent 10 to 20 minutes viewing this section. Usability and acceptability were high across the phases. CONCLUSIONS SiD represents a new resource for promoting safety among people with dementia, and high acceptability was achieved in a pilot trial. In this sample, SiD performed similarly to Alzheimer’s Association materials in supporting decision-making and self-efficacy.

Background Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are a relatively new type of law that are being considered or implemented in many states in the United States. Colorado’s law went into effect on January 1, 2020, after significant controversy and concern over potential misuse of the law to confiscate weapons; many (n = 37 of 64) counties declared themselves “2nd Amendment (2A) sanctuaries” and said they would not enforce the law. Here, reviewed the patterns of use of the law during its first year. Methods We obtained all court records for ERPO petitions filed between January 1 and December 31, 2020. Data elements were abstracted by trained staff using a standardized guide. We calculated the proportion of petitions that were approved or denied/dismissed, identified cases of obvious misuse, and examined patterns by 2A county status. Finding and results In 2020, 109 ERPO petitions were filed in Colorado; of these, 61 were granted for a temporary ERPO and 49 for a full (year-long) ERPO. Most petitions filed by law enforcement officers were granted (85%), compared to only 15% of petitions filed by family or household members. Of the 37 2A sanctuary counties, 24% had at least one petition filed, versus 48% of non-2A sanctuary counties. Across the 2A counties, there were 1.52 ERPOs filed per 100,000 population, compared to 2.05 ERPOs filed per 100,000 in non-2A counties. There were 4 cases of obvious law misuse; none of those petitions resulted in an ERPO or firearm confiscation. Conclusion State-level studies suggest ERPOs may prevent firearm injuries. Robust implementation, however, is critical for maximal effect. Understanding ERPO experiences and challenges can inform policy creation and enaction in other states, including identifying how best to address concerns and facilitate evaluation.

Background: Women who suffer an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) less often than men. Understanding public perceptions of why this occurs is a necessary first step toward equitable application of this potentially life-saving intervention. Methods: We conducted a national survey of members of the public using Mechanical Turk, Amazon’s crowdsourcing platform, to determine reasons why women might receive bystander CPR less often than men. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) located in the United States. Responses were excluded if the participant was not able to define CPR correctly. Participants were asked to answer the following free-text question: “Do you have any ideas on why women may be less likely to receive CPR than men when they collapse in public?” Descriptive statistics were used to define the cohort. The free-text response was coded using open coding, and major themes were identified via classical content analysis. Results: In total, 548 subjects were surveyed. Mean age was 38.8 years, and 49.8% were female. Participants were geographically distributed as follows: 18.5% West, 9.2% Southwest, 22.0% Midwest, 27.5% Southeast, and 22.9% Northeast. After analysis, 3 major themes were detected for why the public perceives that women receive less bystander CPR. They include the following: (1) sexualization of women’s bodies; (2) women are weak and frail and therefore prone to injury; and (3) misperceptions about women in acute medical distress. Overall, 41.9% (227) were trained in CPR while 4.4% reported having provided CPR in a medical emergency. Conclusions: Members of the general public perceive fears about inappropriate touching, accusations of sexual assault, and fear of causing injury as inhibiting bystander CPR for women. Educational and policy efforts to address these perceptions may reduce the sex differences in the application of bystander CPR.

Background Nearly half of patients do not take their cardiovascular medications as prescribed, resulting in increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Mobile and digital technologies for health promotion and disease self-management offer an opportunity to adapt behavioral “nudges” using ubiquitous mobile phone technology to facilitate medication adherence. The Nudge pragmatic clinical trial uses population-level pharmacy data to deliver nudges via mobile phone text messaging and an artificial intelligent interactive chat bot with the goal of improving medication adherence and patient outcomes in three integrated healthcare delivery systems. Methods The Theory of mHealth, the Expanded RE-AIM/PRISM, and the PRECIS-2 frameworks were used for program planning, implementation and evaluation, along with a focus on dissemination and cost considerations. During the planning phase, the Nudge study team developed and piloted a technology-based nudge message and chat bot of optimized interactive content libraries for a range of diverse patients. Inclusion criteria are very broad and include patients in one of three diverse health systems who take medications to treat hypertension, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, diabetes, or hyperlipidemia. A target of approximately 10,000 participants will be randomized to one of 4 study arms: usual care (no intervention), generic nudge (text reminder), optimized nudge, and optimized nudge plus interactive AI chat bot. The PRECIS-2 tool indicated that the study protocol is very pragmatic, although there is variability across PRECIS-2 dimensions.Discussion The primary effectiveness outcome is medication adherence defined by the proportion of days covered (PDC) using pharmacy refill data. Implementation outcomes are assessed using the RE-AIM framework, with particular focus on reach, consistency of implementation, adaptations, cost, and maintenance/sustainability. The project has limitations including limited power to detect some subgroup effects, medication complications (bleeding) and longer-term outcomes (myocardial infarction). Strengths of the study include the diverse health care systems, a feasible and generalizable intervention, transparent reporting using established pragmatic research and implementation science frameworks, strong stakeholder engagement and planning for dissemination and sustainment.Trial registration The study was funded by the NIH grant number is 4UH3HL144163-02 issued 4/5/19. The Clinicaltrial.gov identifier number is NCT03973931 which was registered on 6/4/2019. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03973931

Objective: Health misinformation on social media threatens public health. One question that could lend insight into how and through whom misinformation spreads is whether certain people are susceptible to many types of health misinformation, regardless of the health topic at hand. This study provided an initial answer to this question and also tested four hypotheses concerning the psychosocial attributes of people who are susceptible to health misinformation: (1) deficits in knowledge or skill, (2) preexisting attitudes, (3) trust in health care and/or science, and (4) cognitive miserliness. Method: Participants in a national U.S. survey (N = 923) rated the perceived accuracy and influence of true and false social media posts about statin medications, cancer treatment, and the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine and then responded to individual difference and demographic questions. Results: Perceived accuracy of health misinformation was strongly correlated across statins, cancer, and the HPV vaccine (rs ≥ .70), indicating that individuals who are susceptible to misinformation about one of these topics are very likely to believe misinformation about the other topics as well. Misinformation susceptibility across all three topics was most strongly predicted by lower educational attainment and health literacy, distrust in the health care system, and positive attitudes toward alternative medicine. Conclusions: A person who is susceptible to online misinformation about one health topic may be susceptible to many types of health misinformation. Individuals who were more susceptible to health misinformation had less education and health literacy, less health care trust, and more positive attitudes toward alternative medicine. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective Lethal means safety – counseling and guidance about reducing access to home firearms and medications – is recommended for emergency department patients at risk of suicide. Decision aids are tools that can facilitate potentially difficult decisions by incorporating personal preferences and values. The present study evaluates clinician perceptions about the implementation and utility of “Lock to Live,” a lethal means safety decision aid. Method One-on-one qualitative interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 15) at three large emergency departments. Interviewees were asked to evaluate the “Lock to Live” decision tool and its potential implementation and utilization in the emergency department. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were coded via thematic analysis; two coders developed a shared codebook iteratively with high interrater reliability. Results Perspectives on the tool fell into three domains: (1) patients (use with patients and families), (2) clinicians, and (3) emergency department system. Interviewees noted that the tool had numerous potential benefits but that its uptake and effectiveness would depend on clinicians' perceptions on its utility, time constraints, and integration into workflow. Addressable concerns related to relationship to other resources, fit within emergency department workflow, and clarification about which emergency department clinician types should use the tool. Conclusions “Lock to Live” represents a promising new tool for use in suicide prevention as an aid to lethal means counseling. This qualitative study provides insights into the importance of considering the clinical environment when designing and implementing interventions.

Background Uptake of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), which temporarily prohibit the possession and purchase of firearms and ammunition from individuals at particularly high risk of harming themselves or others with a firearm, has been slow and heterogenous across California. Insights into the implementation process and perceived effectiveness of the law could guide implementation in California and the many states that have enacted or are considering enacting such a law. Methods We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with 27 key informants, including judges, law enforcement officers, city and district attorneys, policy experts, and firearm violence researchers. Analysis of transcripts was guided by grounded theory and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Findings The following constructs emerged within 4 CFIR domains as salient features of implementation: 1) implementation characteristics: risk of violence, cost, and adaptability; 2) outer setting: interagency coordination and local firearm ideology; 3) inner setting: readiness for implementation and law enforcement firearm culture; and 4) implementation process: planning and engaging with those involved in implementation. Key informants perceived the law to be effective, particularly for preventing firearm suicide, but agreed that more research was needed. While most indicated that the law resulted in positive outcomes, concerns about the potential for class- and race-based inequities were also raised. Conclusions Implementation of the GVRO law in California was hampered by a lack of funding to support local proactive implementation efforts. This resulted in ad hoc policies and procedures, leading to inconsistent practices and widespread confusion among those responsible for implementation. In states that have not begun implementation, we recommend dedicating funding for implementation and creating local procedures statewide prior to the law’s rollout. In California, recommendations include providing training on the GVRO law—including an explication of agency-specific roles, responsibilities, and procedures—to officers, city attorneys, and civil court judges.

Objective Shared decision making (SDM) has been proposed as a method to improve treatment adherence, placement stability, and other youth-centric outcomes for children who have been victims of commercial sexual exploitation (CSEC). This project seeks to characterize service providers’ perspectives on the adoption and implementation of SDM into treatment and placement planning decisions. Method Sixteen key stakeholders who provide services for youth who have experienced CSEC in a Southern city, as well as adults who survived exploitation as children, were individually interviewed. These interviews focused on stakeholders’ perspective on the appropriateness and contextual considerations regarding implementing this model to engage youth in decision-making conversations. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using group-based inductive content analysis. Result While all participants acknowledged the philosophical importance of including youth in decision-making, perspectives varied on how this philosophy could be operationalized. Trauma-bonds to offenders, distrust in service systems, and policy and time constraints were discussed as potential barriers to implementation. Perceived benefits to applying this model included encouraging youth empowerment, helping youth develop decision-making skills, and strengthening relationships between youth and providers. Implementation considerations mirrored those seen in other medical and behavioral health settings, including extensive training, fidelity monitoring, enforcement through policy and legislation, and ultimately resetting the culture of services to be maximally youth inclusive. Conclusion Participants supported the use of SDM to standardize the inclusion of youth in treatment and placement planning decisions. However, there exist challenges in defining exactly how to adopt this approach, and how to implement broad-scale cultural change within the service-providing community.

Background Decision-making about when to stop driving for older adults involves assessment of driving risk, availability of support or resources, and strong emotions about loss of independence. Although the risk of being involved in a fatal crash increases with age, driving cessation can negatively impact an older adult’s health and well-being. Decision aids can enhance the decision-making process by increasing knowledge of the risks and benefits of driving cessation and improve decision quality. The impact of decision aids regarding driving cessation for older adults is unknown. Methods The Advancing Understanding of Transportation Options (AUTO) study is a multi-site, two-armed randomized controlled trial that will test the impact of a decision aid on older adults’ decisions about changes in driving behaviors and cessation. AUTO will enroll 300 drivers age ≥ 70 years with a study partner (identified by each driver); the dyads will be randomized into two groups (n = 150/group). The decision aid group will view the web-based decision aid created by Healthwise at baseline and the control group will review information about driving that does not include evidence-based elements on risks and benefits and values clarification about driving decisions. The AUTO trial will compare the effect of the decision aid, versus control, on a) immediate decision quality (measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale; primary outcome); b) longitudinal psychosocial outcomes at 12 and 24 months (secondary outcomes); and c) longitudinal driving behaviors (including reduction or cessation) at 12 and 24 months (secondary outcomes). Planned stratified analyses will examine the effects in subgroups defined by cognitive function, decisional capacity, and readiness to stop driving. Discussion The AUTO study is the first large-scale randomized trial of a driving decision aid for older adults. Results from this study will directly inform clinical practice about how best to support older adults in decision-making about driving. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04141891. Registered on October 28, 2019. Located at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04141891

Background: Little is known about practices used to disseminate findings to non-research, practitioner audiences. This study describes the perspectives, experience and activities of dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists around disseminating their research findings. Methods: The study explored D&I scientists’ experiences and recommendations for assessment of dissemination activities to non-research audiences. Existing list serves were used to recruit scientists. Respondents were asked three open-ended questions on an Internet survey about dissemination activities, recommendations for changing evaluation systems and suggestions to improve their own dissemination of their work. Results: Surveys were completed by 159 scientists reporting some training, funding and/or publication history in D&I. Three themes emerged across each of the three open-ended questions. Question 1 on evaluation generated the themes of: 1a) promotional review; 1b) funding requirements and 1c) lack of acknowledgement of dissemination activities. Question 2 on recommended changes generated the themes of: 2a) dissemination as a requirement of the academic promotion process; 2b) requirement of dissemination plan and 2c) dissemination metrics. Question 3 on personal changes to improve dissemination generated the themes of: 3a) allocation of resources for dissemination activities; 3b) emerging dissemination channels and 3c) identify and address issues of priority for stakeholders. Conclusions: Our findings revealed different types of issues D&I scientists encounter when disseminating findings to clinical, public health or policy audiences and their suggestions to improve the process. Future research should consider key requirements which determine academic promotion and grant funding as an opportunity to expand dissemination efforts.

BackgroundNearly half of patients do not take their cardiovascular medications as prescribed, resulting in increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Mobile and digital technologies for health promotion and disease self-management offer an opportunity to adapt behavioral “nudges” using ubiquitous mobile phone technology to facilitate medication adherence. The Nudge pragmatic clinical trial uses population-level pharmacy data to deliver nudges via mobile phone text messaging and an artificial intelligent interactive chat bot with the goal of improving medication adherence and patient outcomes in three integrated healthcare delivery systems.MethodsThe Theory of mHealth, the Expanded RE-AIM/PRISM, and the PRECIS-2 frameworks were used for program planning, implementation, and evaluation, along with a focus on dissemination and cost considerations. During the planning phase, the Nudge study team developed and piloted a technology-based nudge message and chat bot of optimized interactive content libraries for a range of diverse patients. Inclusion criteria are very broad and include patients in one of three diverse health systems who take medications to treat hypertension, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, diabetes, or hyperlipidemia. A target of approximately 10,000 participants will be randomized to one of 4 study arms: usual care (no intervention), generic nudge (text reminder), optimized nudge, and optimized nudge plus interactive AI chat bot. The PRECIS-2 tool indicated that the study protocol is very pragmatic, although there is variability across PRECIS-2 dimensions.DiscussionThe primary effectiveness outcome is medication adherence defined by the proportion of days covered (PDC) using pharmacy refill data. Implementation outcomes are assessed using the RE-AIM framework, with a particular focus on reach, consistency of implementation, adaptations, cost, and maintenance/sustainability. The project has limitations including limited power to detect some subgroup effects, medication complications (bleeding), and longer-term outcomes (myocardial infarction). Strengths of the study include the diverse healthcare systems, a feasible and generalizable intervention, transparent reporting using established pragmatic research and implementation science frameworks, strong stakeholder engagement, and planning for dissemination and sustainment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.govNCT03973931. Registered on 4 June 2019. The study was funded by the NIH; grant number is 4UH3HL144163-02 issued 4/5/19.

Introduction: Women who suffer an out of hospital cardiac arrest receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (bCPR) less often than men. We sought to determine if there were differences in potential deterrents to providing CPR if the rescuer was a man or a woman. Methods: We surveyed participants via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, a national crowdsourcing platform, to query why women receive less bCPR than men based on the sex of the rescuer. We asked participants to rank five themes previously identified. Eligible participants were ≥18 years, US residents, and correctly defined CPR. Participants were asked to rank the 5 following themes if the sex of the rescuer was unidentified sex, male, and female: 1) Rescuers are afraid to injure or hurt women; 2) Rescuers might have a misconception that women don’t suffer cardiac arrest; 3) Rescuers are afraid to be accused of sexual assault or sexual harassment; 4) Rescuers have a fear of touching women or that the touch might be inappropriate; 5) Rescuers think that women are “faking it” or being “overdramatic.” Results: In total, 576 participants were surveyed, and 520 responses were formally analyzed. The respondents were 42.3% female, 74.2% Caucasian, 10.4% African American, and 6.7% Hispanic. To determine a “consensus” ranking, a statistical model that finds the mode of the rankings was used, generating separate results for each of the categories of rescuer. This method determined that the modal ranking for respondents asked about a female rescuer was Hurt/Injure, Touch, Overdramatic, Misconception, Sexual Assault/Harassment. By contrast, when respondents were asked about a male rescuer, the modal ranking was found to be Touch, Sexual Assault/Harassment, Hurt/Injure, Misconception, Overdramatic. When the sex of the rescuer was not identified, the modal ranking was identical to that for the male rescuer question. Conclusion: When querying the public as to why women receive less-bystander CPR than men, there were differences in response based on the sex of the rescuer. Participants reported that a male rescuer would potentially be hindered by fears of accusation of sexual assault/harassment or inappropriate touch, while female rescuers would be more deterred due to fears of causing physical injury or harm.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has mandated shared decision making (SDM) using patient decision aids for three conditions (lung cancer screening, atrial fibrillation, and implantable defibrillators). These forward-thinking approaches are in response to a wealth of efficacy data demonstrating that decision aids can improve patient decision making. However, there has been little focus on how to implement these approaches in real-world practice. This article demonstrates how using an implementation science framework may help programs understand multilevel challenges and opportunities to improve adherence to the CMS mandates. Using the PRISM (Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model) framework, we discuss general challenges to implementation of SDM, issues specific to each mandate, and how to plan for, enhance, and assess SDM implementation outcomes. Notably, a theme of this discussion is that successful implementation is context-specific and to truly have successful and sustainable changes in practice, context variability, and adaptation to context must be considered and addressed.

Background Many mobile health (mHealth) technologies exist for patients with heart failure (HF). However, HF mhealth lacks evidence of efficacy, caregiver involvement, and clinically useful real-time data. Objective We aim to capture health care providers’ perceived value of HF mHealth, particularly for pairing patient–caregiver-generated data with clinical intervention to inform the design of future HF mHealth. Methods This study is a subanalysis of a larger qualitative study based on interviewing patients with HF, their caregivers, and health care providers. This analysis included interviews with health care providers (N=20), focusing on their perceived usefulness of HF mHealth tools and interventions. Results A total of 5 themes emerged: (1) bio-psychosocial-spiritual monitoring, (2) use of sensors, (3) interoperability, (4) data sharing, and (5) usefulness of patient-reported outcomes in practice. Providers remain interested in mHealth technologies for HF patients and their caregivers. However, providers report being unconvinced of the clinical usefulness of robust real-time patient-reported outcomes. Conclusions The use of assessments, sensors, and real-time data collection could provide value in patient care. Future research must continually explore how to maximize the utility of mHealth for HF patients, their caregivers, and health care providers.

Background: Nearly half of patients do not take their cardiovascular medications as prescribed, resulting in increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Mobile and digital technologies for health promotion and disease self-management offer an opportunity to adapt behavioral “nudges” using ubiquitous mobile phone technology to facilitate medication adherence. The Nudge pragmatic clinical trial uses population-level pharmacy data to deliver nudges via mobile phone text messaging and an artificial intelligent interactive chat bot with the goal of improving medication adherence and patient outcomes in three integrated healthcare delivery systems. Methods: The Theory of mHealth, the Expanded RE-AIM/PRISM, and the PRECIS-2 frameworks were used for program planning, implementation and evaluation, along with a focus on dissemination and cost considerations. During the planning phase, the Nudge study team developed and piloted a technology-based nudge message and chat bot of optimized interactive content libraries for a range of diverse patients. Inclusion criteria are very broad and include patients in one of three diverse health systems who take medications to treat hypertension, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, diabetes, or hyperlipidemia. A target of approximately 10,000 participants will be randomized to one of 4 study arms: usual care (no intervention), generic nudge (text reminder), optimized nudge, and optimized nudge plus interactive AI chat bot. The PRECIS-2 tool indicated that the study protocol is very pragmatic, although there is variability across PRECIS-2 dimensions. Discussion: The primary effectiveness outcome is medication adherence defined by the proportion of days covered (PDC) using pharmacy refill data. Implementation outcomes are assessed using the RE-AIM framework, with particular focus on reach, consistency of implementation, adaptations, cost, and maintenance/sustainability. The project has limitations including limited power to detect some subgroup effects, medication complications (bleeding) and longer-term outcomes (myocardial infarction). Strengths of the study include the diverse health care systems, a feasible and generalizable intervention, transparent reporting using established pragmatic research and implementation science frameworks, strong stakeholder engagement and planning for dissemination and sustainment. Trial registration: The study was funded by the NIH grant number is 4UH3HL144163-02 issued 4/5/19. The Clinicaltrial.gov identifier number is NCT03973931 which was registered on 6/4/2019. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03973931

This survey study of caregivers of people with Alzheimer disease and related dementias assesses caregiver views on firearm safety risks, experiences with health care professional–delivered counseling, and preferred sources of information about firearm safety., Key Points Question What proportion of adults living in homes with firearms are caregivers for people with Alzheimer disease and related dementias, and what are their characteristics, experiences, and preferences related to firearms? Findings In this survey study of US adults (aged ≥35 years) living in homes with firearms, 2.6% reported being caregivers of a person with Alzheimer disease and related dementias, and 41% of these caregivers lived with that person. Although most caregivers were open to health care professional counseling about firearm safety for persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias, few caregivers had ever received any such counseling. Meaning The findings suggest that many community-dwelling adults with dementia have firearm access and that there may be a need for enhanced education and resources for their caregivers., Importance The population of adults with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) is increasing, and many people with ADRD have access to firearms. Little is known, however, about how caregivers of people with ADRD think about or address firearm safety. Objective To assess views on firearm safety risks among caregivers of persons with ADRD, experiences of caregivers with health care professional–delivered counseling, and their preferred sources of information about firearm safety. Design, Setting, and Participants This survey study used a probability-based online survey (National Firearms Survey, July 30 to August 11, 2019) with weights used to generate nationally representative estimates of adults living in households with firearms to assess firearm safety views of English-speaking adults 35 years or older. Respondents for the National Firearm Survery were drawn from I KnowledgePanel, a frame with approximately 55 000 US adults selected on an ongoing basis using address-based sampling methods. Main Outcomes and Measures Caregivers were asked whether the person with ADRD owned or had access to firearms. Additional ADRD-related measures assessed perceptions about the likelihood of types of firearm injuries involving people with ADRD, support for firearm safety counseling by health care professionals with regard to dementia, and history of ever having received such counseling. Results Of 6712 invited panel members, 4030 completed the survey (completion rate, 65%). For this analysis, we excluded the youngest participants (aged 18-34 years; n = 498); among the remaining 3532 participants, 124 reported being caregivers for persons with ADRD. Of the 124 caregivers, 51% were female and the mean (SD) age was 60 (12.5) years. Most participants (71%; 95% CI, 69%-72%) thought that a person with ADRD was more likely to hurt someone else unintentionally than intentionally hurt themselves or someone else. Many participants thought health care professionals should always (45%; 95% CI, 43%-47%) or sometimes (34%; 95% CI, 32%-37%) talk about firearm safety with caregivers or patients with dementia, but only 5% of caregivers (95% CI, 2%-12%) reported that a health care professional had ever spoken to them about firearm safety. Among the 41% (95% CI, 31%-51%) of caregivers who lived with a person with dementia, 31% (95% CI, 18%-49%) said the person with dementia could access firearms in the home. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, few caregivers of adults with ADRD reported having received health care professional counseling about firearm safety, although most thought health care professionals should provide such counseling. These findings raise concerns about home firearm access among adults with ADRD and indicate potential opportunities for enhanced education by health care professionals and community organizations.

Background Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) benefits from initiation and intensification of multiple pharmacotherapies. Unfortunately, there are major gaps in the routine use of these drugs. Without novel approaches to improve prescribing, the cumulative benefits of HFrEF treatment will be largely unrealized. Direct-to-consumer marketing and shared decision making reflect a culture where patients are increasingly involved in treatment choices, creating opportunities for prescribing interventions that engage patients. Hypothesis Encouraging patients to engage providers in HFrEF prescribing decisions will improve the use of guideline-directed medical therapies. Design The Electronically delivered, Patient-activation tool for Intensification of Chronic medications for Heart Failure with reduced ejection fraction (EPIC-HF) trial randomizes patients with HFrEF to usual care versus patient-activation tools—a 3-minute video and 1-page checklist—delivered prior to cardiology clinic visits that encourage patients to work collaboratively with their clinicians to intensify HFrEF prescribing. The study assesses the effectiveness of the EPIC-HF intervention to improve guideline-directed medical therapy in the month after its delivery while using an implementation design to also understand the reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of this approach within the context of real-world care delivery. Study enrollment was completed in January 2020, with a total 305 patients. Baseline data revealed significant opportunities, with Summary The EPIC-HF trial assesses the implementation, effectiveness, and safety of patient engagement in HFrEF prescribing decisions. If successful, the tool can be easily disseminated and may inform similar interventions for other chronic conditions.

Purpose: To describe potential gender differences in the psychosocial evaluation for left ventricular assist devices (VADs) using retrospective data from the DECIDE-LVAD trial. Method: Psychosocial evaluations performed as part of pre-VAD evaluations, including all female participants as well as men matched by site and age. 55 notes from 5 institutions were analyzed using a mixed method approach. Analytic codes were developed a priori, using domains assessed in the Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant (SIPAT) and others addressing caregiver attributes. Overall risk was calculated using a composite percent-of-perfect formula based on various adaptations of the SIPAT used in some evaluations. After notes were coded across each domain, a content analysis was performed. Results: Records from 28 male and 27 female patients were analyzed. Lack of standardized assessment limited our ability to draw comparisons. However, men were more likely to be clinically depressed (55.9% vs 44.1%), have substance use problems (53.4% vs. 46.6%), understand their HF (57.7% vs. 42.3%), and to have a caregiver (54.5% vs. 45.6%). While the number of assessments including quantitative assessment was low, men scored better than women (53.1% men [n=11] vs. 46.9% women [n=12]).The way in which caregivers were identified was different for men and women. Qualitatively, female caregivers seemed to be preferred, implicitly favoring male patients in many circumstances. This was apparent in how caregiving plans were described and in a seeming desire to supplement male caregivers' effort with support from women ( Table 1). Conclusion: Across our sample, men trended toward being rated as better VAD candidates than women, despite higher rates of depression and substance use. Caregiver identification was different in ways which may be due to differences in how male vs. female caregivers are perceived. Differences in caregiver identification need to be explored further, but could stem from women being unable to find a caregiver for themselves, serving as caregivers for others, or from men not being viewed as able caregivers. Standardized evaluation, including quantification of risk and caregiver appropriateness, would enhance efforts to reduce implicit bias in evaluation.