Allison M. Cole

Urban–rural disparities in colorectal cancer screening: cross-sectional analysis of 1998–2005 data from the Centers for Disease Control's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Study

Despite the existence of effective screening, colorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Identification of disparities in colorectal cancer screening will allow for targeted interventions to achieve national goals for screening. The objective of this study was to contrast colorectal cancer screening rates in urban and rural populations in the United States. The study design comprised a cross‐sectional study in the United States 1998–2005. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 1998 to 2005 were the method and data source. The primary outcome was self‐report up‐to‐date colorectal cancer screening (fecal occult blood test in last 12 months, flexible sigmoidoscopy in last 5 years, or colonoscopy in last 10 years). Geographic location (urban vs. rural) was used as independent variable. Multivariate analysis controlled for demographic and health characteristics of respondents. After adjustment for demographic and health characteristics, rural residents had lower colorectal cancer screening rates (48%; 95% CI 48, 49%) as compared with urban residents (54%, 95% CI 53, 55%). Remote rural residents had the lowest screening rates overall (45%, 95% CI 43, 46%). From 1998 to 2005, rates of screening by colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy increased in both urban and rural populations. During the same time, rates of screening by fecal occult blood test decreased in urban populations and increased in rural populations. Persistent disparities in colorectal cancer screening affect rural populations. The types of screening tests used for colorectal cancer screening are different in rural and urban areas. Future research to reduce this disparity should focus on screening methods that are acceptable and feasible in rural areas.

Boundary Negotiating Artifacts in Personal Informatics: Patient-Provider Collaboration with Patient-Generated Data

Patient-generated data is increasingly common in chronic disease care management. Smartphone applications and wearable sensors help patients more easily collect health information. However, current commercial tools often do not effectively support patients and providers in collaboration surrounding these data. This paper examines patient expectations and current collaboration practices around patient-generated data. We survey 211 patients, interview 18 patients, and re-analyze a dataset of 21 provider interviews. We find that collaboration occurs in every stage of self- tracking and that patients and providers create boundary negotiating artifacts to support the collaboration. Building upon current practices with patient-generated data, we use these theories of patient and provider collaboration to analyze misunderstandings and privacy concerns as well as identify opportunities to better support these collaborations. We reflect on the social nature of patient-provider collaboration to suggest future development of the stage-based model of personal informatics and the theory of boundary negotiating artifacts.

Use of mobile health (mHealth) tools by primary care patients in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network (WPRN).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of mobile health (mHealth) use among primary care patients and examine demographic and clinical correlates. Methods: Adult patients who presented to 1 of 6 primary care clinics in a practice-based research network in the northwest United States during a 2-week period received a survey that assessed smartphone ownership; mHealth use; sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, health literacy); chronic conditions; and depressive symptoms (2-item Patient Health Questionnaire). Data analysis used descriptive statistics and mixed logistic regression. Results: Of 918 respondents (estimated response rate, 67.4%), 55% owned a smartphone, among whom 70% were mHealth users. In multivariate analyses, smartphone ownership and mHealth use were not associated with health literacy, chronic conditions, or depression but were less common among adults >45 years old (adjusted odds ratio, 0.07–0.39; P < .001). Only 10% of patients learned about mHealth tools from their physician, and few (31%) prioritized their providers involvement. Conclusions: Use of mHealth technologies is lower among older adults but otherwise is common among primary care patients, including those with limited health literacy and those with chronic conditions. Findings support the potential role of mHealth in improving disease management among certain groups in need; however, greater involvement of health care providers may be important for realizing this potential.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Disparities for Rural Minorities in the United States

Background: Despite the existence of effective screening, colorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Adults living in rural areas and members of minority populations both experience disparities in colorectal cancer screening. Methods: Cross-sectional prevalence study of Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from the Centers for Disease Control from 1998 to 2005. Primary outcome: Predicted probability of reporting timely colorectal cancer screening. Independent variables: rural residence, race/ethnicity. We adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of respondents. Results: After adjustment rural non-Hispanic whites (44.3%), rural African American/blacks (44.8%), urban and rural Hispanic/Latinos (43.7% and 40.8%, respectively), urban and rural American Indian/Alaska Natives (45.8% and 46.8%), and urban and rural Asians (35.4% and 39.6%) had lower compared with urban non-Hispanic whites (49.5%; P < .05% for all comparisons). Urban Asians were least likely to report use of fecal occult blood testing (8.6%, 95% confidence interval = 6.3% to 10.9%) and rural Asians were least likely to report use of endoscopy screening (21.2%, 95% confidence interval = 16.2% to 26.2%). Discussion: Rural minorities may face different barriers to colorectal cancer screening than urban minorities or rural non-Hispanic whites. Further research to develop interventions to improve screening in these populations is warranted.

Satisfaction of Family Physicians Working in Community Health Centers

Background: Community health centers (CHCs) receive

Rewards and Challenges of Community Health Center Practice

2.9 billion in federal funding to provide primary care to 20 million people annually, and these numbers are increasing. Understanding of physician satisfaction in CHCs may help guide recruitment and retention efforts aimed at expanding CHC programs. The objective of this study was to contrast the satisfaction of family physicians working in CHCs with the satisfaction of family physicians working in other practice settings. Methods: Analysis of 4 cross-sectional surveys of recent residency graduates from the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho Family Medicine Residency Network. Surveys were conducted approximately every 3 years from 2000 to 2010. Main outcome measures included self-reported satisfaction with residency training, practice, and specialty on a 1 (low) to 5 (high) scale. Results: Eight hundred ninety-three family physician responded (response rate, 61%), of whom 129 were CHC physicians and 764 were non-CHC physicians. Compared with non-CHC physicians, higher proportions of CHC physicians reported being highly satisfied with their residency training (79% vs 61%; P < .01) and choice of specialty (74% vs 60%; P < .01). In contrast, lower proportions of CHC physicians were highly satisfied with their employers (62% vs 72%; P = .05). There were no differences in satisfaction with practice partners, income, practice location, or work hours. After adjustment for physician, practice, and community characteristics, CHC physicians were more likely to be highly satisfied with their residency training (odds ratio, 2.6; P = .001) and their choice of specialty (odds ratio, 1.7; P = .03). CHC physicians were less likely to be highly satisfied with their employers (odds ratio, 0.5; P < .01). Conclusions: The lower level of satisfaction reported by CHC physicians has implications for workforce recruitment and retention in CHC settings. In an era of CHC growth, efforts to improve physician relationships with employers may be a potential target for enhancing the physician workforce in CHCs.

Qualitative study of primary care clinicians’ views on point-of-care testing for C-reactive protein for acute respiratory tract infections in family medicine

Background: More than 1100 community health centers (CHCs) in the United States provide primary care to 20 million underserved patients annually. CHCs have struggled to recruit and retain qualified physicians. Objective: To understand physicians’ work experiences in CHCs and identify major sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Methods: Using purposeful sampling, we conducted semistructured interviews with 12 family physicians practicing in CHCs. Interview questions assessed physicians’ experiences in CHCs and sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Interview notes were coded and analyzed by 2 investigators using a grounded theory approach to identify key themes. Results: Though family physicians feel tremendous satisfaction from care of underserved patients, they are frustrated with the overwhelming workload they experience. Family physicians also report poor administrative management while working in CHCs. Conclusions: Implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which relies on expansion of CHC services, may be adversely affected by family physicians’ frustrations with CHC practice. Further research to explore and potentially improve the CHC work environment may be needed.

Reported Use of Electronic Health Records to Implement Evidence Based Approaches to Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers

Objective To explore clinicians views of the barriers and facilitators to use of C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care tests (POCT) in US family medicine clinics for the management of acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in adults. Setting Five family medicine clinics across two US states. Participants 30 clinicians including 18 physicians, 9 physician residents, 2 physician assistants and 1 nurse practitioner, took part in the study. Design A qualitative study using a grounded theory approach to thematically analyse focus group interviews. Results These clinicians had limited access to diagnostic tests for patients with ARTI, and very little knowledge of CRP POCT. Three major themes were identified and included the potential clinical role of CRP POCT, concerns related to implementing CRP POCT and evidence needed prior to wider adoption in family medicine. Clinicians believed CRP POCT could support decision-making for some presentations of ARTIs and patient populations when used in conjunction with clinical criteria. Clinicians had concerns about possible overuse and inaccuracy of CRP POCT which they believed might increase antibiotic prescribing rates. Other concerns identified included integration of the test with clinic workflows and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Clinicians stand at the forefront of antibiotic stewardship efforts, but have few diagnostic tests to help them confidently manage ARTIs. CRP POCT may facilitate some aspects of clinical practice. Incorporating CRP POCT with clinical guidelines may strengthen utility of this test, when there is diagnostic uncertainty.

Extracting Electronic Health Record Data in a Practice-Based Research Network: Lessons Learned from Collaborations with Translational Researchers

Background. Community health centers (CHCs) are critical sources of primary care for medically underserved populations. Electronic health records (EHRs) are important for implementation of evidence-based approaches for cancer control. Methods. Cross-sectional study of CHCs from the Cancer Prevention Control Research Network’s community health center Clinic Characteristics Survey. Proportions of CHCs using EHR data to: 1) measure colorectal cancer screening, 2) deliver reports, and 3) provide patient reminders for colorectal cancer screening. Results. Only 27% of CHCs perceive EHR system’s colorectal cancer screening data as very accurate. Over half (57%) of respondent CHCs with EHRs reported it is easy or very easy to do colorectal cancer screening activities using EHR systems. Conclusions. Poor EHR data quality and cumbersome EHR systems may be significant barriers to implementation of evidence-based approaches to colorectal cancer screening in CHCs.

Primary Care Patients' Willingness to Participate in Comprehensive Weight Loss Programs: From the WWAMI Region Practice and Research Network

Context: The widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) offers significant opportunities to conduct research with clinical data from patients outside traditional academic research settings. Because EHRs are designed primarily for clinical care and billing, significant challenges are inherent in the use of EHR data for clinical and translational research. Efficient processes are needed for translational researchers to overcome these challenges. The Data QUEST Coordinating Center (DQCC), which oversees Data QUEST – a primary care EHR data sharing infrastructure – created processes that that guide EHR data extraction for clinical and translational research across these diverse practices. We describe these processes and their application in a case example. Case Description: The DQCC process for developing EHR data extractions not only supports researchers access to EHR data, but supports this access for the purpose of answering scientific questions. This process requires complex coordination across multiple domains, including: 1) understanding the context of EHR data; 2) creating and maintaining a governance structure to support exchange of EHR data; and 3) defining data parameters that are used in order to extract data from the EHR.1,2,3,4 We use the Northwest-Alaska Pharmacogenomics Research Network (NWA-PGRN) as a case example that focuses on pharmacogenomic discovery and clinical applications to describe the DQCC process. The NWA-PGRN collaborates with Data QUEST to explore ways to leverage primary care EHR data to support pharmacogenomics research. Findings: Preliminary analysis on the case example shows that initial decisions about how researchers define the study population can influence study outcomes. Major Themes and Conclusions: The experience of the DQCC demonstrates that Coordinating Centers provide expertise in helping researchers understand the context of EHR data, create and maintain governance structures, and guide the definition of parameters for data extractions. This expertise is critical to support research with EHR data. Replication of these strategies through Coordinating Centers may lead to more efficient translational research. Investigators must also consider the impact of initial decisions in defining study groups that may potentially affect outcomes. Acknowledgements We acknowledge the Northwest Alaska Pharmacogenomics Research Network group for supporting the infrastructure and data collection, and Imara West for her assistance in data cleaning and analysis. This project was funded by the National Institute of General Medical Science (U01 GM092676) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000423). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of HealthContext: The widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) offers significant opportunities to conduct research with clinical data from patients outside traditional academic research settings. Because EHRs are designed primarily for clinical care and billing, significant challenges are inherent in the use of EHR data for clinical and translational research. Efficient processes are needed for translational researchers to overcome these challenges. The Data QUEST Coordinating Center (DQCC), which oversees Data Query Extraction Standardization Translation (Data QUEST) – a primary-care, EHR data-sharing infrastructure – created processes that guide EHR data extraction for clinical and translational research across these diverse practices. We describe these processes and their application in a case example. Case Description: The DQCC process for developing EHR data extractions not only supports researchers’ access to EHR data, but supports this access for the purpose of answering scientific questions. This process requires complex coordination across multiple domains, including the following: (1) understanding the context of EHR data; (2) creating and maintaining a governance structure to support exchange of EHR data; and (3) defining data parameters that are used in order to extract data from the EHR. We use the Northwest-Alaska Pharmacogenomics Research Network (NWA-PGRN) as a case example that focuses on pharmacogenomic discovery and clinical applications to describe the DQCC process. The NWA-PGRN collaborates with Data QUEST to explore ways to leverage primary-care EHR data to support pharmacogenomics research. Findings: Preliminary analysis on the case example shows that initial decisions about how researchers define the study population can influence study outcomes. Major Themes and Conclusions: The experience of the DQCC demonstrates that coordinating centers provide expertise in helping researchers understand the context of EHR data, create and maintain governance structures, and guide the definition of parameters for data extractions. This expertise is critical to supporting research with EHR data. Replication of these strategies through coordinating centers may lead to more efficient translational research. Investigators must also consider the impact of initial decisions in defining study groups that may potentially affect outcomes.