Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Only half of patients with hypertension have adequately controlled blood pressure. Clinical decision support (CDS) has the potential to overcome barriers to delivering guideline-recommended care and improve hypertension management. However, optimal strategies for scaling CDS have not been well established, particularly in small, independent primary care practices which often lack the resources to effectively change practice routines. Practice facilitation is an implementation strategy that has been shown to support process changes. Our objective is to evaluate whether practice facilitation provided with hypertension-focused CDS can lead to improvements in blood pressure control for patients seen in small primary care practices. METHODS/DESIGN/METHODS:We will conduct a cluster randomized control trial to compare the effect of hypertension-focused CDS plus practice facilitation on BP control, as compared to CDS alone. The practice facilitation intervention will include an initial training in the CDS and a review of current guidelines along with follow-up for coaching and integration support. We will randomize 46 small primary care practices in New York City who use the same electronic health record vendor to intervention or control. All patients with hypertension seen at these practices will be included in the evaluation. We will also assess implementation of CDS in all practices and practice facilitation in the intervention group. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study will inform optimal implementation of CDS into small primary care practices, where much of care delivery occurs in the U.S. Additionally, our assessment of barriers and facilitators to implementation will support future scaling of the intervention. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov Identifier: NCT05588466.

Smoke-free housing policies are intended to reduce the deleterious health effects of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, but there is limited evidence regarding their health impacts. We examined associations between implementation of a federal smoke-free housing rule by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and pediatric Medicaid claims for asthma, lower respiratory infections (LRIs), and upper respiratory infections (URIs) in the early post-policy period. We used geocoded address data to match children living in tax lots with NYCHA buildings (exposed to policy) to children living in lots with other subsidized housing (unexposed to policy). We constructed longitudinal difference-in-differences models to assess relative changes in monthly rates of claims between November 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 (policy introduction was July 30, 2018). We also examined effect modification by baseline age group (0-2, 3-6, 7-15). In NYC, introduction of a smoke-free policy was not associated with lower rates of Medicaid claims for any outcomes in the early post-policy period. Exposure to the smoke-free policy was associated with slightly higher than expected rates of outpatient URI claims (IRR=1.05, 95% CI=1.01, 1.08), a result most pronounced among children ages 3-6. Ongoing monitoring is essential to understanding long-term health impacts of smoke-free housing policies.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:In July 2018, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development passed a rule requiring public housing authorities to implement smoke-free housing (SFH) policies. We measured secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure immediately before, and repeatedly up to 36 months post-SFH policy implementation in a purposeful sample of 21 New York City (NYC) high-rise buildings (>15 floors): 10 NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings subject to the policy and 11 privately managed buildings in which most residents received housing vouchers (herein 'Section 8'). METHODS:We invited participants from non-smoking households (NYCHA n=157, Section 8 n=118) to enroll into a longitudinal air monitoring study, measuring (1) nicotine concentration with passive, bi-sulfate-coated filters, and (2) particulate matter (PM2.5) with low-cost particle sensors. We also measured nicotine concentrations and counted cigarette butts in common areas (n=91 stairwells and hallways). We repeated air monitoring sessions in households and common areas every 6 months, totaling six post-policy sessions. RESULTS:After three years, we observed larger declines in nicotine concentration in NYCHA hallways than in Section 8, [difference-in-difference (DID) = -1.92 µg/m 3 (95% CI -2.98, -0.87), p=0.001]. In stairwells, nicotine concentration declines were larger in NYCHA buildings, but the differences were not statistically significant [DID= -1.10 µg/m 3 (95% CI -2.40, 0.18), p=0.089]. In households, there was no differential change in nicotine concentration (p=0.093) or in PM2.5 levels (p=0.385). CONCLUSIONS:Nicotine concentration reductions in NYCHA common areas over three years may be attributable to the SFH policy, reflecting its gradual implementation over this time. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Continued air monitoring over multiple years has demonstrated that SHS exposure may be declining more rapidly in NYCHA common areas as a result of SFH policy adherence. This may have positive implications for improved health outcomes among those living in public housing, but additional tracking of air quality and studies of health outcomes are needed. Ongoing efforts by NYCHA to integrate the SFH policy into wider healthier-homes initiatives may increase policy compliance.

BACKGROUND:African American and Hispanic populations have been affected disproportionately by COVID-19. Reasons are multifactorial and include social and structural determinants of health. During the onset and height of the pandemic, evidence suggested decreased access to SARS CoV-2 testing. In 2020, the National Institutes of Health launched the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx)- Underserved Populations initiative to improve SARS CoV-2 testing in underserved communities. In this study, we explored attitudes, experiences, and barriers to SARS CoV-2 testing and vaccination among New York City public housing residents. METHODS:Between December 2020 and March 2021, we conducted 9 virtual focus groups among 36 low-income minority residents living in New York City public housing. RESULTS:Among residents reporting a prior SARS CoV-2 test, main reasons for testing were to prepare for a medical procedure or because of a high-risk exposure. Barriers to testing included fear of discomfort from the nasal swab, fear of exposure to COVID-19 while traveling to get tested, concerns about the consequences of testing positive and the belief that testing was not necessary. Residents reported a mistrust of information sources and the health care system in general; they depended more on "word of mouth" for information. The major barrier to vaccination was lack of trust in vaccine safety. Residents endorsed more convenient testing, onsite testing at residential buildings, and home self-test kits. Residents also emphasized the need for language-concordant information sharing and for information to come from "people who look like [them] and come from the same background as [them]". CONCLUSIONS:Barriers to SARS CoV-2 testing and vaccination centered on themes of a lack of accurate information, fear, mistrust, safety, and convenience. Resident-endorsed strategies to increase testing include making testing easier to access either through home or onsite testing locations. Education and information sharing by trusted members of the community are important tools to combat misinformation and build trust.

BACKGROUND:Guidelines for managing and preventing chronic disease tend to be well-known. Yet, translation of this evidence into practice is inconsistent. We identify a combination of factors that are connected to guideline concordant delivery of evidence-informed chronic disease care in primary care. METHODS:Cross-sectional observational study; purposively selected 22 practices to vary on size, ownership and geographic location, using National Quality Forum metrics to ensure practices had a ≥ 70% quality level for at least 2 of the following: aspirin use in high-risk individuals, blood pressure control, cholesterol and diabetes management. Interviewed 2 professionals (eg, medical director, practice manager) per practice (n = 44) to understand staffing and clinical operations. Analyzed data using an iterative and inductive approach. RESULTS:Community Health Centers (CHCs) employed interdisciplinary clinical teams that included a variety of professionals as compared with hospital-health systems (HHS) and clinician-owned practices. Despite this difference, practice members consistently reported a number of functions that may be connected to clinical chronic care quality, including: having engaged leadership; a culture of teamwork; engaging in team-based care; using data to inform quality improvement; empaneling patients; and managing the care of patient panels, with a focus on continuity and comprehensiveness, as well as having a commitment to the community. CONCLUSIONS:There are mutable organizational attributes connected-guideline concordant chronic disease care in primary care. Research and policy reform are needed to promote and study how to achieve widespread adoption of these functions and organizational attributes that may be central to achieving equity and improving chronic disease prevention.

BACKGROUND:Housing insecurity is prevalent among emergency department (ED) patients. Despite a surge of interest in screening for patients' social needs including housing insecurity, little research has examined ED social needs interventions. We worked together with government and community partners to develop and pilot test a homelessness prevention intervention targeted to ED patients with drug or unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS:We approached randomly sampled patients at an urban public hospital ED, May to August 2019. Adult patients were eligible if they were medically stable, not incarcerated, spoke English, had unhealthy alcohol or any drug use, and were not currently homeless but screened positive for risk of future homelessness using a previously developed risk screening tool. Participants received a three-part intervention: (1) brief counseling and referral to treatment for substance use delivered through a preexisting ED program; (2) referral to Homebase, an evidence-based community homelessness prevention program; and (3) up to three troubleshooting phone calls by study staff. Participants completed surveys at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS:Of 2183 patients screened, 51 were eligible and 40 (78.4%) participated; one later withdrew, leaving 39 participants. Participants were diverse in age, gender, race, and ethnicity. Of the 32 participants reached at 6 months, most said it was very or extremely helpful to talk to someone about their housing situation (n = 23, 71.9%) at the baseline ED visit. Thirteen (40.6%) said their housing situation had improved in the past 6 months and 16 (50.0%) said it had not changed. Twenty participants (62.5%) had made contact with a Homebase office. Participants shared ideas of how to improve the intervention. CONCLUSIONS:This pilot intervention was feasible and well received by participants though it required a large amount of screening to identify potentially eligible patients. Our findings will inform a larger future trial and may be informative for others seeking to develop similar interventions.

In response to fast-turnaround funding opportunities, collaborations have been forming across the country to address severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disparities. Here we describe the process, notes from the field, and evaluation results from a new collaboration involving multiple partners, formed in October 2020 in New York City as part of the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics initiative. We used the validated Research Engagement Survey Tool to evaluate the partnership. Results can inform future research and improve engagement efforts aimed at reducing SARS-CoV-2 disparities. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S9):S904-S908. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307072).

BACKGROUND:Smoking rates remain high in Vietnam, particularly among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH), but tobacco cessation services are not available in outpatient HIV clinics (OPCs). The research team is conducting a type II hybrid randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the cost-effectiveness of three tobacco cessation interventions among PLWH receiving care in HIV clinics in Vietnam. The study is simultaneously evaluating the implementation processes and outcomes of strategies aimed at increasing the implementation of tobacco dependence treatment (TDT) in the context of HIV care. This paper describes the systematic, theory-driven process of adapting intervention components and implementation strategies with demonstrated effectiveness in high-income countries, and more recently in Vietnam, to a new population (i.e., PLWH) and new clinical setting, prior to launching the trial. METHODS:Data collection and analyses were guided by two implementation science frameworks and the socio-ecological model. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 13 health care providers and 24 patients in three OPCs. Workflow analyses were conducted in each OPC. Qualitative data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis procedures. Based on findings, components of the intervention and implementation strategies were adapted, followed by a 3-month pilot study in one OPC with 16 patients randomized to one of two intervention arms. RESULTS:The primary adaptations included modifying the TDT intervention counseling content to address barriers to quitting among PLWH and Vietnamese sociocultural norms that support smoking cessation. Implementation strategies (i.e., training and system changes) were adapted to respond to provider- and clinic-level determinants of implementation effectiveness (e.g., knowledge gaps, OPC resource constraints, staffing structure, compatibility). CONCLUSIONS:Adaptations were facilitated through a mixed method, stakeholder (patient and health care provider, district health leader)-engaged evaluation of context-specific influences on intervention and implementation effectiveness. This data-driven approach to refining and adapting components aimed to optimize intervention effectiveness and implementation in the context of HIV care. Balancing pragmatism with rigor through the use of rapid analysis procedures and multiple methods increased the feasibility of the adaptation process. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05162911 . Registered on December 16, 2021.

BACKGROUND:Studies specifically focused on patients' perspectives on telemedicine visits in primary and behavioral health care are fairly limited and have often focused on highly selected populations or used overall satisfaction surveys. OBJECTIVE:To examine patient perspectives on the shift to telemedicine, the remote delivery of health care via the use of electronic information and communications technology, in primary and behavioral health care in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) during COVID-19. DESIGN/METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted using video conference with patients and caregivers between October and December 2020. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Providers from 6 FQHCs nominated participants. Eighteen patients and caregivers were interviewed: 6 patients with only primary care visits; 5 with only behavioral health visits; 3 with both primary care and behavioral health visits; and 4 caregivers of children with pediatric visits. APPROACH/METHODS:Using a protocol-driven, rapid qualitative methodology, we analyzed the interview data and assessed the quality of care, benefits and challenges of telemedicine, and use of telemedicine post-pandemic. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Respondents broadly supported the option of home-based synchronous telemedicine visits in primary and behavioral health care. Nearly all respondents appreciated remote visits, largely because such visits provided a safe option during the pandemic. Patients were generally satisfied with telemedicine and believed the quality of visits to be similar to in-person visits, especially when delivered by a provider with whom they had established rapport. Although most respondents planned to return to mostly in-person visits when considered safe to do so, they remained supportive of the continued option for remote visits as remote care addresses some of the typical barriers faced by low-income patients. CONCLUSIONS:Addressing digital literacy challenges, enhancing remote visit privacy, and improving practice workflows will help ensure equitable access to all patients as we move to a new post-COVID-19 "normal" marked by increased reliance on telemedicine and technology.