Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether training improves physicians' obesity counseling. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of an obesity counseling curriculum for residents. DESIGN: A non-randomized, wait-list/control design. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three primary care internal medicine residents; 12 were assigned to the curriculum group, and 11 were assigned to the no-curriculum group. Over a 7-month period (1-8 months post-intervention) 163 of the residents' obese patients were interviewed after their medical visits. INTERVENTION: A 5-hour, multi-modal obesity counseling curriculum based on the 5As (Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist, Arrange) using didactics, role-playing, and standardized patients. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-report of physicians' use of the 5As was assessed using a structured interview survey. Main outcomes were whether obese patients were counseled about diet, exercise, or weight loss (rate of counseling) and the quality of counseling provided (percentage of 5As skills performed during the visit). Univariate statistics (t-tests) were used to compare the rate and quality of counseling in the two resident groups. Logistic and linear regression was used to isolate the impact of the curriculum after controlling for patient, physician, and visit characteristics. KEY RESULTS: A large percentage of patients seen by both groups of residents received counseling about their weight, diet, and/or exercise (over 70%), but the quality of counseling was low in both the curriculum and no curriculum groups (mean 36.6% vs. 31.2% of 19 possible 5As counseling strategies, p = 0.21). This difference was not significant. However, after controlling for patient, physician and visit characteristics, residents in the curriculum group appeared to provide significantly higher quality counseling than those in the control group (std beta = 0.18; R(2) change = 2.9%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Residents who received an obesity counseling curriculum were not more likely to counsel obese patients than residents who did not. Training, however, is associated with higher quality of counseling when patient, physician, and visit characteristics are taken into account

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to asthma medications is associated with increased emergency department visits and hospitalizations. If adherence is to be improved, first-fill adherence is the first goal to meet after the physician and patient have decided to begin treatment. Little is known about first-fill adherence with asthma medications and the factors for no-fill. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to examine the proportion of patients who fill a new prescription for an asthma medication and analyze characteristics associated with this first-fill. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study linked electronic health records with pharmacy claims. The cohort was comprised of 2023 patients aged 18 years or older who sought care from the Geisinger Clinic, had Geisinger Health Plan pharmacy benefits, and were prescribed an asthma medication for the first time between 2002 and 2006. The primary outcome of interest was first-time prescription filled by the patient within 30 days of the prescription order date. Covariates examined included factors related to the patient (ie, age, sex, and ethnicity), comorbidities and utilization (ie, Charlson comorbidity index, number of office visits, number of additional medications), asthma treatment (ie, delivery route, pharmacologic class), and pharmacy copay amount. A logistic-regression model was used to determine covariates associated with first-fill. RESULTS: The overall first-fill rate for new asthma medications was 78%. First-fill rate was lower for patients with a copay above the mean of $12 (odds ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.99) and higher for patients prescribed oral plus inhaled medications (versus inhaled only, odds ratio = 3.91; 95% confidence interval, 2.15-7.11). CONCLUSIONS: SEVERAL FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH FAILING TO FILL AN INITIAL PRESCRIPTION FOR ASTHMA CAN BE ADDRESSED THROUGH SIMPLE INTERVENTIONS: screening for difficulties a patient may have in filling prescriptions, avoiding nonformulary medications, and recognizing the barrier that high copays present. In addition, for employers and policymakers, decreasing copay may improve adherence and, therefore, asthma control.