Dana Petersen

Promoting Children’s Physical Activity in Low-Income Communities in Colorado: What Are the Barriers and Opportunities?

Introduction Colorado has the highest rate of adult physical activity in the United States. However, children in Colorado have a lower rate of physical activity relative to other states, and the rate is lowest among children in low-income households. We conducted focus groups, surveys, and interviews with parents, youth, and stakeholders to understand barriers to physical activity among children in low-income households in Colorado and to identify opportunities to increase physical activity. Methods From April to July 2016, we recruited participants from 5 communities in Colorado with high rates of poverty, inactivity, and obesity; conducted 20 focus groups with 128 parents and 42 youth; and interviewed 8 stakeholders. All focus group participants completed intake surveys. We analyzed focus group and interviews by using constant comparison. Results We identified 12 themes that reflect barriers to children’s physical activity. Within the family context, barriers included parents’ work schedules, lack of interest, and competing commitments. At the community level, barriers included affordability, traffic safety, illicit activity in public spaces, access to high-quality facilities, transportation, neighborhood inequities, program availability, lack of information, and low community engagement. Survey respondents most commonly cited lack of affordable options and traffic safety as barriers. Study participants also identified recommendations for addressing these barriers. Providing subsidized transportation, improving parks and recreation centers, and making better use of existing facilities were all proposed as opportunities to improve children’s physical activity levels. Conclusion In this formative study of Colorado families, participants confirmed barriers to physical activity that previous research on low-income communities has documented, and these varied by geographic location. Participants proposed a set of solutions for addressing barriers and endorsed community input as an essential first step for planning community-level health initiatives.

Implementing Electronic Health Record Default Settings to Reduce Opioid Overprescribing: A Pilot Study

Objective To pilot test the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of instituting a 15-pill quantity default in the electronic health record for new Schedule II opioid prescriptions. Design A mixed-methods pilot study in two health systems, including pre-post analysis of prescribed opioid quantity and focus groups or interviews with prescribers and health system administrators. Methods We implemented a 15-pill electronic health record default for new Schedule II opioids and assessed opioid quantity before and after implementation using electronic health record data on 6,390 opioid prescriptions from 448 prescribers. We then analyzed themes from focus groups and interviews with four staff members and six prescribers. Results The proportion of opioid prescriptions for 15 pills increased at both sites after adding an electronic health record default, with one reaching statistical significance (from 4.1% to 7.2% at CHC, P = 0.280, and 15.9% to 37.2% at WVU, P < 0.001). The proportion of 15-pill prescriptions increased among high-prescribing departments and among most high- and low-frequency prescribers, except for low-frequency prescribers at CHC. Sites reported limited challenges in instituting the default, although ease of implementation varied by electronic health record vendor. Most prescribers were not aware of the default change and stated that they made prescribing decisions based on patient clinical characteristics rather than defaults. Conclusions This pilot provides initial evidence that changing default settings can increase the number of prescriptions at the default level. This low-cost and relatively simple intervention could have an impact on opioid overprescribing. However, default settings should be selected carefully to avoid unintended consequences.

What Factors Influence States’ Capacity to Report Children’s Health Care Quality Measures? A Multiple-Case Study

Objectives The objective of this study was to describe factors that influence the ability of state Medicaid agencies to report the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) core set of children’s health care quality measures (Child Core Set). Methods We conducted a multiple-case study of four high-performing states participating in the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) Quality Demonstration Grant Program: Illinois, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Oregon. Cases were purposively selected for their diverse measurement approaches and used data from 2010 to 2015, including 154 interviews, semiannual grant progress reports, and annual public reports on Child Core Set measures. We followed Yin’s multiple-case study methodology to describe how and why each state increased the number of measures reported to CMS. Results All four states increased the number of Child Core Set measures reported to CMS during the grant period. Each took a different approach to reporting, depending on the available technical, organizational, and behavioral inputs in the state. Reporting capacity was influenced by a state’s Medicaid data availability, ability to link to other state data systems, past experience with quality measurement, staff time and technical expertise, and demand for the measures. These factors were enhanced by CHIPRA Quality Demonstration grant funding and other federal capacity building activities, as hypothesized in our conceptual framework. These and other states have made progress reporting the Child Core Set since 2010. Conclusion With financial support and investment in state data systems and organizational factors, states can overcome challenges to reporting most of the Child Core Set measures.