Alison B. Bocian

Motivational Interviewing and Dietary Counseling for Obesity in Primary Care: An RCT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Few studies have tested the impact of motivational interviewing (MI) delivered by primary care providers on pediatric obesity. This study tested the efficacy of MI delivered by providers and registered dietitians (RDs) to parents of overweight children aged 2 through 8. METHODS: Forty-two practices from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network of the American Academy of Pediatrics were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. Group 1 (usual care) measured BMI percentile at baseline and 1- and 2-year follow-up. Group 2 (provider only) delivered 4 MI counseling sessions to parents of the index child over 2 years. Group 3 (provider + RD) delivered 4 provider MI sessions plus 6 MI sessions from a RD. The primary outcome was child BMI percentile at 2-year follow up. RESULTS: At 2-year follow-up, the adjusted BMI percentile was 90.3, 88.1, and 87.1 for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The group 3 mean was significantly (P = .02) lower than group 1. Mean changes from baseline in BMI percentile were 1.8, 3.8, and 4.9 across groups 1, 2, and 3. CONCLUSIONS: MI delivered by providers and RDs (group 3) resulted in statistically significant reductions in BMI percentile. Research is needed to determine the clinical significance and persistence of the BMI effects observed. How the intervention can be brought to scale (in particular, how to train physicians to use MI effectively and how best to train RDs and integrate them into primary care settings) also merits future research.

Study design and baseline description of the BMI 2 trial: reducing paediatric obesity in primary care practices

This study will test the efficacy of motivational interviewing (MI) conducted by primary care providers and dieticians among children ages 2‐8 years old with a body mass index (BMI) ≥85th and ≤97th percentile.

Patient Visits to a National Practice-Based Research Network: Comparing Pediatric Research in Office Settings With the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey

OBJECTIVE. Our objective with this study was to assess the extent to which patients who are seen by practitioners in Pediatric Research in Office Settings, a national primary care practice–based research network, are representative of those who are seen in ambulatory office–based pediatric primary care in the United States. METHODS. Pediatric Research in Office Settings patient data were collected from the offices of 57 randomly selected network practitioners as part of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality–funded effort to describe primary care visits and replicate the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey in primary care practice–based research networks. These data were from 1706 randomly selected pediatric patient visits that occurred between March and June 2002. National comparison data were 948 randomly selected pediatric patient visits that occurred between March and June 2000 in the offices of the 33 primary care pediatric practitioners who had participated in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. The groups were compared on patient demographics (age, gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, as represented by Medicaid status), visit characteristics (percentages of patients referred, practitioner designation of visit as acute versus nonacute, and continuity of care), the top patient/parent-articulated reasons for visit, and the top practitioner diagnoses. RESULTS. Comparisons revealed substantial similarities between Pediatric Research in Office Settings and national data, including gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and visit characteristics. Differences were noted for age and race, with Pediatric Research in Office Settings children approximately 1 year older and comprising a significantly lower proportion of black patients than their National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey counterparts. Although the top 6 reasons that were articulated by parents for outpatient visits in the 2 groups were remarkably similar in rank order and proportions, there were overall differences, mostly attributable to a larger number of the “other” category in the Pediatric Research in Office Settings cases. There were no significant differences among the top 5 practitioner visit diagnoses between the Pediatric Research in Office Settings and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data. CONCLUSIONS. The Pediatric Research in Office Settings patient population is reasonably representative of patients who are seen in US ambulatory office-based pediatric primary care practices; therefore, the Pediatric Research in Office Settings is an appropriate laboratory for studies of care in such settings.

Pediatric Clinical Research Networks: Current Status, Common Challenges, and Potential Solutions

OBJECTIVES: The goals were (1) to describe and to characterize pediatric clinical research networks (PCRNs) in the United States and Canada, (2) to identify PCRN strengths and weaknesses, (3) to evaluate the potential for collaboration among PCRNs, and (4) to assess untapped potential interest in PCRN participation. METHODS: Data collection included (1) initial identification of PCRNs through an Internet search and word of mouth, (2) follow-up surveys of PCRN leaders, (3) telephone interviews with 21 PCRN leaders, and (4) a survey of 43 American Academy of Pediatrics specialty leaders regarding untapped interest in network research. RESULTS: Seventy exclusively pediatric networks were identified. Of those, specialty care networks constituted the largest proportion (50%), followed by primary care (28.6%) and disease-specific (21.4%) networks. A network profile survey (response rate: 74.3%) revealed that ∼90% held infrastructure funding. Nearly 75% of respondents viewed cross-network collaborations positively. In-depth telephone interviews corroborated the survey data, with cross-network collaboration mentioned consistently as a theme. American Academy of Pediatrics specialty leaders indicated that up to 30% of current nonparticipants might be interested in research involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric networks exist across the care continuum. Significant numbers of uninvolved practitioners may be interested in joining PCRNs. A strong majority of network leaders cited potential benefits from network collaboration.

Limited Capacity in US Pediatric Drug Trials

BackgroundThe recently renewed Best Pharmaceuticals for Children and Pediatric Research Equity Acts (BPCA/PREA) have continued industry incentives and opportunities for pediatric drug trials (PDTs). However, there is no current assessment of the capacity to perform PDTs.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to deepen understanding of the capacity for US PDTs by assessing PDT infrastructure, present barriers to PDTs, and potential approaches and solutions to identified issues.Design/MethodsPediatric clinical research experts participated in semi-structured interviews on current US pediatric research capacity (February–July 2007). An initial informant list was developed using purposive sampling, and supplemented and refined to generate a group of respondents to explore emerging themes. Each phone interview included a physician researcher and two health researchers who took notes and recorded the calls. Health researchers produced detailed summaries, which were verified by the physician researcher and informants. We then undertook qualitative analysis of the summaries, employing multiple coding, with the two health researchers and the physician researcher independently coding each summary for themes and subthemes. Coding variations were resolved by physician researcher/health researcher discussion and consensus achieved on themes and subthemes.ResultsThe 33 informants’ primary or secondary roles included academia (n = 21), federal official (5), industry medical officer (8), pediatric research network leader (10), pediatric specialist leader (8), pediatric clinical pharmacologist (5), and practitioner/research site director (9). While most experts noted an increase in PDTs since the initial passage of BPCA/PREA, a dominant theme of insufficient US PDT capacity emerged. Subthemes included (i) lack of systems for finding, incentivizing, and/or maintaining trial sites; (ii) complexity/demands of conducting PDTs in clinical settings; (iii) inadequate numbers of qualified pediatric pharmacologists and clinician investigators trained in FDA Good Clinical Practice; and (iv) poor PDT protocol design resulting in operational and enrollment difficulties in the pediatric population. Suggested potential solutions for insufficient PDT capacity included (i) consensus-building among stakeholders to create PDT systems; (ii) initiatives to train more pediatric pharmacologists and educate clinicians in Good Clinical Practice; (iii) advocacy for PDT protocols designed by individuals sensitive to pediatric issues; and (iv) physician and public education on the importance of PDTs.ConclusionsInsufficient US PDT capacity may hinder the development of new drugs for children and limit studies on the safety and efficacy of drugs presently used to treat pediatric conditions. Further public policy initiatives may be needed to achieve the full promise of BPCA/PREA.

Maintenance of Certification Part 4 Credit and recruitment for practice-based research.

BACKGROUND: Competing priorities in pediatric practice have created challenges for practice-based research. To increase recruitment success, researchers must design studies that provide added value to participants. This study evaluates recruitment of pediatricians into a study, before and after the development and addition of a quality improvement (QI) curriculum approved for American Board of Pediatrics Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Part 4 Credit as an enrollment incentive. METHODS: Researchers implemented multiple outreach methods to enroll pediatric practices over 28 months. Field note review revealed that many physicians declined enrollment, stating that they prioritized MOC Part 4 projects over research studies. A QI curriculum meeting standards for MOC Part 4 Credit was developed and added to the study protocol as an enrollment incentive. Enrollment rates and characteristics of practitioners enrolled pre- and post-MOC were compared. RESULTS: Pre-MOC enrollment contributed 48% of practices in 22 months; post-MOC enrollment contributed 49% of practices in 6 months. An average of 3.5 practices enrolled per month pre-MOC, compared with 13.1 per month post-MOC (P < .001). Clinicians in pre- and post-MOC groups were similar in age, gender, race, and time spent on patient care; practices enrolled post-MOC were more likely to be located in federally designated Medically Underserved Areas than those enrolled pre-MOC (28.6% vs 12%, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of MOC Part 4 Credit increased recruitment success and increased enrollment of pediatricians working in underserved areas. Including QI initiatives meeting MOC Part 4 criteria in practice-based research protocols may enhance participation and aid in recruiting diverse practice and patient populations.

Pediatric Research in Office Settings at 25: A Quarter Century of Network Research Toward the Betterment of Children's Health

Twenty-five years ago, Robert Haggerty, MD, then newly elected as President of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), made the formation of a national pediatric practice-based research network an integral part of his presidency. His reasons for promoting this idea were compelling. Family medicine already had begun recruiting and maintaining stable cohorts of practices to examine issues of importance in primary care. In pediatrics, however, primary care issues were being addressed largely by academic medical center investigators who did not have access to typical pediatric populations and who did their studies on samples drawn from the urban inner city environment. Inspired by the early work of a handful of family medicine networks, Dr Haggerty foresaw a stable network of pediatric practices to conduct research in “real world” settings, rather than in the academic settings where condition severity and comorbidity, as well as available technology and treatments, were atypical, limiting the generalizability of findings. 1 The envisioned end product was the generation of new, compelling, and generalizable research to improve the health of the nation’s children. From Dr Haggerty’s vision sprang Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS)—a network that began with a modest 100 practices, and 25 years later, includes over 700 practices, active in every state, as well as in the District of Columbia, 2 Canadian provinces, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Fig 1—PROS map). The mission of PROS is to improve the health of children by conducting collaborative practice-based research to enhance primary care practice. In the service of that mission, with core support from the AAP and the Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal and Child Health Bureau, PROS has conducted more than 30 national studies, changed policy and practice, and contributed to the betterment of children’s health. This article reviews the policy and practice changes realized, discusses key lessons learned along the way, and describes new horizons for the network, as it embarks on its next quarter century.

How Should Immunization Rates Be Measured in the Office Setting? A Study from PROS and NMA PedsNet

The aim of the study was to compare the validity and reliability of 2 sampling methods for measuring immunization rates to a reference standard in a national sample of pediatric office practices. The consecutive method involved patients seen consecutively in the office for any reason; the random record was a random selection of medical records; and the reference standard active method, data of a randomly selected subgroup of children in the random record survey were supplemented with information from a telephone interview. The consecutive method of assessing immunization rates results in rates that are, on average, higher and closer to the reference standard, but also more variable. The random record method rates are lower and further from the study reference standard compared with the consecutive method, but more precise. The consecutive method for measuring practice immunization rates could be a useful quality improvement tool as practices seek to improve immunization delivery and quality of care. It is inexpensive, simple, and easy to implement.

INSURANCE STATUS AND CLINICIAN RECOGNITION OF CHILD PSYCHOSOCIAL PROBLEMS.|[bull]| 91

Because previous studies have suggested differences in treatment choices and referral by insurance status, we examined the effect of insurance status on clinician recognition of psychosocial problems for pediatric primary care visits.