Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Healthcare systems use electronic patient reminders to encourage preventive care receipt. We used an innovative randomized testing approach to identify reminder design elements associated with improved patient responsiveness. AIM/OBJECTIVE:Improve patient response to electronic preventive care screening reminders. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Outpatient clinics affiliated with NYU Langone Health (NYULH) and their patients. Included patients were due for retinal, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), or mammography screening. PROGRAM/METHODS:Iterative EHR reminder redesign using a behaviorally informed framework, testing improvements based on randomized implementation. We randomized patients for each screening type to intervention (redesigned) or control (existing) reminders. Outcomes were scheduling or completion of indicated test. Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycle #1 tested all three redesigned reminders. Cycle #2 tested a personalized reminder versus the redesigned mammography reminder from Cycle #1. RESULTS:Cycle #1: Redesigned mammography reminders showed greater adherence (25/212 [11.8%] vs. 13/212 [6.1%]) compared to controls (p = 0.04). Redesigned retinal and HbA1c reminders showed no difference. Cycle #2: Scheduling adherence for mammography was similar for personalized and non-personalized reminders (p = 0.68). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Iterative, randomized testing of re-designed electronic preventive care reminders was feasible within a large, complex healthcare system and showed the value of brief messages with a scheduling link for mammography.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Colorectal cancer screening rates in the US remain suboptimal, particularly among low-income and minoritized populations, despite the availability of effective, low-cost options such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Scalable outreach strategies are needed to improve uptake and reduce staff burden in safety-net settings. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate whether a behavioral economics-informed, automated text messaging strategy was associated with increased FIT completion compared with nurse-led telephone call outreach. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This quality improvement randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 7 to June 24, 2025, at 8 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in Brooklyn, New York, within the Family Health Centers at NYU Langone. Participants included adults (aged ≥18 years) with a new FIT order who listed English, Spanish, or Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese) as their preferred language and had not opted out of text messaging. INTERVENTION/UNASSIGNED:Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either 3 automated, 1-way text message reminders on days 2, 5, and 8 (intervention) or a single nurse-led telephone call reminder on day 8 (usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was FIT completion within 21 days of the test order, assessed from the electronic health record. Secondary outcomes included completion at 7 and 14 days. FIT completion at 7, 14, and 21 days was compared between groups using χ2 tests. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 1275 eligible randomized participants, 649 were assigned to the text group (418 female participants [64.4%]; mean [SD] age, 56.4 [9.3] years) and 626 to the telephone group (398 female participants [63.6%]; mean [SD] age, 56.7 [9.6] years). FIT completion within 21 days was higher in the text group (382 of 649 participants [58.9%]) compared with the telephone group (312 of 626 participants [49.8%]) with an absolute difference of 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 3.6-14.5 percentage points; P = .001). Post hoc analyses found no evidence of differential effectiveness by age, sex, race and ethnicity, or patient portal use. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In this quality improvement randomized clinical trial, a behaviorally informed text messaging strategy was associated with significantly improved FIT completion compared with usual nurse-led telephone outreach. Automated messaging may offer a scalable, low-cost strategy to promote preventive care and reduce staff burden in underserved populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06632054.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading cause of cancer deaths in the US. Although early detection improves survival, the rarity of the disease has rendered population screening a difficult approach. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To develop and validate a parsimonious, interpretable, and generalizable model predicting incident PDAC-termed PRIME (PDAC Risk Model for Earlier Detection)-using routinely available electronic health record (EHR) data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This cohort study used the Optum Labs Data Warehouse, a longitudinal, deidentified US EHR and claims database. Adults 40 years or older with an outpatient clinical encounter between 2016 and 2018 were included. Participants from 23 health systems (n = 4 859 833) comprised the training cohort; 31 additional systems (n = 5 619 091) served as validation. International validation was conducted in the UK Biobank (n = 498 754). Data analysis occurred July 2025 to January 2026. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:Demographics, diagnosis codes, and routinely measured laboratory values were evaluated. Elastic-net regularization with 10-fold cross-validation selected the predictor set. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Incident PDAC was identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions (ICD-9/10) codes. Model performance was assessed using time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) and calibration metrics. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Overall, the study included more than 11 million adults (2.1% Asian individuals, 8.4% Black individuals, 4.3% Hispanic/Latino individuals, 82.7% White individuals, and 2.4% other race/ethnicity by EHR reporting). In the training cohort (mean [SD] age, 60.4 [11] years), 14 405 individuals were diagnosed with PDAC (incidence 55 per 100 000 person-years) over a mean (SD) of 5.4 (2.5) years; in the validation cohort, 11 693 individuals were diagnosed with PDAC (54 per 100 000 person-years) over a mean (SD) of 3.9 (2.5) years. PRIME retained 19 predictors including history of pancreatitis, gastrointestinal disorders, prior cancers, type 2 diabetes, elevated aspartate aminotransferase levels, smoking, non-type-O blood, and male sex. Discrimination was strong at the 36-month time horizon (AUC = 0.75 in both the training and validation cohorts) with good calibration. In the validation cohort, patients in the top 1% of predicted risk had substantially higher PDAC risk (HR, 7.63; 95% CI, 6.85-8.49) compared with average-risk patients. In the UK Biobank, PRIME achieved a 36-month AUC of 0.71 with good calibration. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In this validation cohort study, PRIME was a transparent EHR-based model that effectively stratified PDAC risk across diverse US health systems and generalized internationally. Prospective studies should evaluate for EHR-guided PDAC case-finding and integration with blood-based early-detection assays.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Health care systems can help protect patients from the increasing threat of extreme heat-driven morbidity and mortality. Electronic health records (EHRs) provide insight into trends and local variation in thresholds above which extreme heat is associated with emergency department (ED) use among at-risk patient populations. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To examine associations between extreme heat exposure and all-cause ED visits among patients aged 65 years and older. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This matched case-control study of patients seeking emergency care at an urban health care system during the summer (May 1 to September 30) from 2022 to 2024. Two New York City (NYC) EDs were included: (1) ED-1, predominantly serving Medicaid-enrolled patients from minoritized racial and ethnic groups, and (2) ED-2, predominantly serving White, privately insured patients. Included patients were aged 65 years or older and presented to ED-1 and ED-2 during the study period. Data were analyzed from April to August 2025. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:Daily maximum heat index (HImax) values during the summer were calculated from the National Centers for Environmental Information monitor-derived recordings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Daily all-cause ED use counts were derived from EHRs, and extreme heat exposure-outcome curves were calculated. Daily HImax anomalies were calculated based on a 30-year baseline average. The cumulative odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:This study included 55 200 ED encounters and represented 15 092 unique patients at ED-1 and 19 559 at ED-2 with a mean (SD) age of 74.9 (8.92) years at ED-1 and 74.9 (8.72) years at ED-2. Compared with ED-2, more ED-1 patients were female (8589 [56.9%] vs 10 767 [55.0%]), Hispanic (3544 [23.5%] vs 2576 [13.2%]), and Medicaid-enrolled (1321 [8.8%] vs 824 [4.2%]). At ED-1, daily HImax associations increased after 66 °F (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01-1.21]), peaking at 101 °F (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.11-1.39]), and were higher on days with HImax anomalies between 15 °F (OR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.01-1.13]) and 18 °F (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01-1.20]) warmer than average. At ED-2, daily HImax ED use associations were not significant and were significantly negative for days with HImax anomalies above 16 °F, nadiring at 21 °F (0.84, 95% CI [0.73, 0.95]) warmer than average. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In this case-control study of the association between heat exposure and ED use in adults aged 65 years and older, positive associations were only observed at ED-1, which served a predominantly lower-income population from minoritized racial and ethnic groups. These association thresholds were not fully captured by NYC heat advisories, which were triggered by 2 days above HImax 95 °F or any time above 100 °F, highlighting an opportunity for future research to develop targeted, risk-informed health care system-based heat warning strategies.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate whether the risk of long COVID among individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during pregnancy differs from that of individuals who were not pregnant at time of virus acquisition. METHODS:We conducted a multicenter observational cohort study at 79 NIH RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) sites. Individuals assigned female at birth aged 18-45 years with an index (first) SARS-CoV-2 infection on or after December 1, 2021, were included. The exposure was pregnancy (any gestational age) at the time of index SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was long COVID 6 months after index infection , defined as RECOVER-Adult Long COVID Research Index score 11 or higher based on a detailed symptom survey. To account for confounding and differential selection between participants who were pregnant and not pregnant at infection, propensity score-matching methods were used to balance the groups on variables potentially associated with both pregnancy status and long COVID. RESULTS:Overall 2,423 participants were included; 580 (23.9%) were pregnant at index SARS-CoV-2 infection. The median age at infection was 33 years (interquartile range 28-38 years), and 2,131 of participants (90.0%) with known vaccination status were vaccinated. After propensity score matching, the adjusted long COVID prevalence estimates 6 months after index infection were 10.2% (95% CI, 6.2-14.3%) among those pregnant at infection and 10.6% (95% CI, 8.8-12.4%) among those not pregnant at infection. Pregnancy was not associated with a difference in adjusted risk of long COVID (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% CI, 0.63-1.48). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy was not associated with a differential risk of long COVID at 6 months compared with similar-aged individuals who acquired SARS-CoV-2 outside of pregnancy.

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Patients with poor glycaemic control have a high risk for major cardiovascular events. Improving glycaemic monitoring in patients with diabetes can improve morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE:To assess the effectiveness of a patient portal message in prompting patients with poorly controlled diabetes without a recent glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) result to have their HbA1c repeated. DESIGN/METHODS:A pragmatic, randomised clinical trial. SETTING/METHODS:A large academic health system consisting of over 350 ambulatory practices. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Patients who had an HbA1c greater than 10% who had not had a repeat HbA1c in the prior 6 months. EXPOSURES/METHODS:A single electronic health record (EHR)-based patient portal message to prompt patients to have a repeat HbA1c test versus usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES/RESULTS:The primary outcome was a follow-up HbA1c test result within 90 days of randomisation. RESULTS:The study included 2573 patients with a mean (SD) HbA1c of 11.2%. Among 1317 patients in the intervention group, 24.2% had follow-up HbA1c tests completed within 90 days, versus 21.1% of 1256 patients in the control group (p=0.07). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to log into the patient portal within 60 days as compared with the control group (61.2% vs 52.3%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with poorly controlled diabetes and no recent HbA1c result, a brief patient portal message did not significantly increase follow-up testing but did increase patient engagement with the patient portal. Automated patient messages could be considered as a part of multipronged efforts to involve patients in their diabetes care.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:A minority of childhood cancer survivors (CCS) receive post-therapy survivorship surveillance at their oncology center (OC) within 5 years of diagnosis. Primary care providers (PCPs) could be a promising alternative. We determined CCS' preferences for the site of surveillance, associated factors, and rationale. METHODS:CCS diagnosed with cancer at < 21 years at one of four participating hospitals, 2-4 years post-therapy, and English- or Spanish-speaking (or their caregivers if CCS < 18 years) indicated their preference and reasons for site of survivorship surveillance (OC vs. PCP vs. no preference) at baseline prior to randomization into the BRIDGES trial (NCT05448560). Multivariable logistic regression models estimated prevalence ratios for site preference and examined associations with patient characteristics. Qualitative methods examined reasons for preference. RESULTS:Of 235 participants, 92% (n = 214; 48% female, 36% Hispanic, 46% public insurance, median age 12 years at enrollment) indicated their preference. The majority (63%) were amenable to PCP-based surveillance (21% preferred PCP, 42% no preference). Preference for OC was associated with identifying as non-Hispanic "other" (Black, Asian, multi-racial) vs. non-Hispanic White (PR 4.7, p = 0.005, 95% CI 1.68, 13.84) and older age (PR 1.1/year, p = 0.02, 95% CI 1.01, 1.15), but not insurance or area-level social determinants of health (SDoH) indices. Reasons for preference comprised two themes: practical (facts, logistics) and psychological (emotions, beliefs). OCs were preferred for psychological reasons (46/60; 77%); PCPs were preferred for practical reasons (25/35; 74%). CONCLUSIONS:Among diverse CCS, most were amenable to PCP-based survivorship surveillance, independent of SDoH factors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS/CONCLUSIONS:Survivorship surveillance by PCPs may be a useful alternative for CCS.