Faculty Bibliography

To determine whether an opt-out approach is effective for referral to treatment for tobacco use, we designed a clinical reminder for nurses in a primary care setting that provides a referral for patients who smoke cigarettes. We will use a two-arm, cluster-randomized design to assign nurses at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System to test which mode of referral (opt-in vs opt-out) is more effective. All patients will be referred to evidence-based treatment for tobacco cessation including counseling from the New York State Quitline, and VetsQuit, a text messaging-based system for tobacco cessation counseling. We will measure patient engagement with the referral both in the short and long term to determine if referral modality had an impact on tobacco cessation treatment. We will also measure nurse engagement with the referral before, during, and after the implementation of the reminder to determine whether an opt-out approach is cost effective at the health system level. At the conclusion of this project, we expect to have developed and tested an opt-out system for increasing tobacco cessation treatment for Veterans in VA primary care and to have a thorough understanding of factors associated with implementation. Trial Registration:Clinicaltrials.govIdentifierNCT03477435.

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Most trials of behavioral or pharmaceutical interventions for people who smoke are limited to individuals reporting they are ready to quit smoking. Engaging individuals who initially report they are not yet ready to quit in brief, precessation, skills-building interventions (eg, practice quit attempts or nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] sampling) is challenging. OBJECTIVE:To test an integrated behavioral plus NRT-sampling intervention using a gamification approach supported by mobile health. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A multisite randomized clinical trial with site-level 1-to-1 allocation into 2 conditions was conducted in 4 US health care systems. A total of 433 individuals who were currently smoking and reported at enrollment that they were not ready to quit smoking were enrolled. The study was conducted from November 7, 2016, to July 31, 2020. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Take a Break (TAB) was a 3-week game experience and included 5 behavioral components (motivational messaging, challenge quizzes, brief abstinence goal setting, mobile health apps for cravings management, and reward points for participation) integrated with NRT sampling. TAB draws on social cognitive theory and game mechanics concepts to engage participants in health behavior change. The comparison included NRT sampling only. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/METHODS:Time to first quit attempt (duration from TAB experience to primary outcome) and carbon monoxide level-verified smoking cessation at 6-month follow-up. All analyses used an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS:Of the 433 individuals included in the trial, 223 were women (52%); mean (SD) age was 54 (13) years. More than half (53% [112 of 213]) of the TAB participants completed 100% of the daily challenge quizzes in the first week, 73% (145 of 199) of participants who completed the goal-setting call set a brief abstinence goal (most frequently 1-2 days of abstinence from cigarettes), and 75% (159 of 213) of participants used the mobile health apps to manage nicotine cravings. Time to the first quit attempt was lower for the TAB vs comparison group (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.60; P = .02). At the 6-month follow-up, 18% (28 of 160) of TAB participants and 10% (17 of 171) of the comparison (χ2 test, P = .045) participants obtained carbon monoxide level-verified smoking cessation (accounting for clustering of outcomes by site; odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.01-3.68; P = .048). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this randomized clinical trial demonstrate that individuals not yet ready to quit smoking could be engaged in a brief abstinence game. Six months later, the TAB group had nearly double the rate of smoking cessation vs the NRT sampling comparison group. Integrating a skills-building game experience with brief NRT sampling can enhance long-term cessation among those not yet ready to quit smoking. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02973425.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Financial toxicity is common and pervasive among cancer patients. Research suggests that gynecologic cancer patients experiencing financial toxicity are at increased risk for engaging in harmful cost-coping strategies, including delaying/skipping treatment because of costs, or forsaking basic needs to pay medical bills. However, little is known about patients' preferences for interventions to address financial toxicity. METHODS:Cross-sectional surveys to assess financial toxicity [Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST)], cost-coping strategies, and preferences for intervention were conducted in a gynecologic cancer clinic waiting room. Associations with cost-coping were determined using multivariate modeling. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) explored associations between financial toxicity and intervention preferences. RESULTS:Among 89 respondents, median COST score was 31.9 (IQR: 21-38); 35% (N = 30) scored < 26, indicating they were experiencing financial toxicity. Financial toxicity was significantly associated with cost-coping (adjusted OR = 3.32 95% CI: 1.08, 14.34). Intervention preferences included access to transportation vouchers (38%), understanding treatment costs up-front (35%), minimizing wait times (33%), access to free food at appointments (25%), and assistance with minimizing/eliminating insurance deductibles (23%). In unadjusted analyses, respondents experiencing financial toxicity were more likely to select transportation assistance (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.04, 6.90), assistance with co-pays (OR = 9.17, 95% CI: 2.60, 32.26), and assistance with deductibles (OR = 12.20, 95% CI: 3.47, 43.48), than respondents not experiencing financial toxicity. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings confirm the presence of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancer patients, describe how patients attempt to cope with financial hardship, and provide insight into patients' needs for targeted interventions to mitigate the harm of financial toxicity.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:AKI is a common complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is associated with high mortality. Palliative care, a specialty that supports patients with serious illness, is valuable for these patients but is historically underutilized in AKI. The objectives of this paper are to describe the use of palliative care in patients with AKI and COVID-19 and their subsequent health care utilization. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:We conducted a retrospective analysis of New York University Langone Health electronic health data of COVID-19 hospitalizations between March 2, 2020 and August 25, 2020. Regression models were used to examine characteristics associated with receiving a palliative care consult. RESULTS:=0.002). Despite greater use of palliative care, patients with AKI had a significantly longer length of stay, more intensive care unit admissions, and more use of mechanical ventilation. Those with AKI did have a higher frequency of discharges to inpatient hospice (6% versus 3%) and change in code status (34% versus 7%) than those without AKI. CONCLUSIONS:Palliative care was utilized more frequently for patients with AKI and COVID-19 than historically reported in AKI. Despite high mortality, consultation occurred late in the hospital course and was not associated with reduced initiation of life-sustaining interventions. PODCAST/UNASSIGNED:This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2022_02_24_CJN11030821.mp3.

Although the Affordable Care Act requires nonprofit hospital organizations to report how they identify and invest in community health needs, the utility of mandated reporting documents for tracking investments in the social determinants of health has been questioned. Using public reporting documents and focusing on housing as a social determinant of health, we describe how nonprofit hospital organizations in 5 communities with the highest rates of homelessness document needs and investments related to housing on their Community Health Needs Assessments, Implementation Strategies, and Schedule H (990H) tax forms. Of 47 organizations, 55% identified housing as a health need, 36% described housing-related implementation strategies, and 26% reported relevant 990H spending. Overall concordance among identified needs, strategies, and spending was low, with only 15% of organizations addressing housing across all 3 documents. Regulatory reform could help promote accountability and transparency in organizations' efforts to address housing and other health-related social needs.

OBJECTIVE:Curricula designed to teach and assess the communication skills of pediatric residents variably integrates the parent perspective. We compared pediatric residents' communication skills in an objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) case as assessed by Family Faculty (FF), parents of pediatric patients, versus standardized patients (SP). METHODS:Residents participated in an OSCE case with a SP acting as a patient's parent. We compared resident performance as assessed by FF and SP with a behaviorally-anchored checklist. Items were rated as not done, partly done or well done, with well-done indicating mastery. The residents evaluated the experience. RESULTS:42 residents consented to study participation. FF assessed a lower percentage of residents as demonstrating skill mastery as compared to SP in 19 of the 23 behaviors. There was a significant difference between FF and SP for Total Mastery Score and Mastery of the Competency Scores in three domains (Respect and Value, Information Sharing and Participation in Care and Decision Making). The majority of residents evaluated the experience favorably. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Involving parents of pediatric patients in the instructive and assessment components of a communication curriculum for pediatric residents adds a unique perspective and integrates the true stakeholders in parent-physician communication.

CONTEXT:As of 2015, an estimated 116000 New York City (NYC) residents had chronic hepatitis C, many of them undiagnosed. Although effective medications have been available since 2014 with the advent of direct-acting antivirals, provider-based barriers to treatment remain. The NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Health Department) coordinated the Hepatitis C Clinical Exchange Network (HepCX) from 2015 to 2019. The main goal of HepCX was to promote hepatitis C screening and treatment by hospital-based providers. PROGRAM:The Health Department recruited hepatitis C champions (Champions) from acute care hospitals (n = 40) to promote improved hepatitis C care at their institutions. The Health Department provided technical assistance for hospitals to improve electronic medical record (EMR) systems and implement reflex RNA testing, coordinated trainings to increase capacity to treat hepatitis C, and distributed dashboards containing facility-specific testing and treatment metrics. IMPLEMENTATION:By the end of the project period (2019), most hospitals (36/40; 90%) reported having a screening alert for baby boomers in their EMR system and 34 (85%) reported performing reflex RNA testing after a positive hepatitis C antibody test. The Health Department coordinated opportunities for Champions to share their work with providers from network hospitals at meetings and webinars and provided clinical education on hepatitis C treatment in partnership with a local nonprofit organization focused on liver health. Facility-specific dashboards were distributed annually to hospital leadership. RNA confirmation testing increased from an average of 57% in 2015 to 85% in 2018. Treatment initiation rates remained similar over 2 years, averaging 39% in 2017 and 38% in 2018. DISCUSSION:HepCX was a multipronged initiative designed to promote hepatitis C testing and treatment initiation among providers at NYC acute care hospitals. Improvements were observed in confirmatory testing rates; however, treatment initiation rates did not change. Further efforts should be targeted to hospitals in need of additional resources for linkage to care and treatment of hepatitis C.