Pediatrician identification of Latino children at risk for autism spectrum disorder.
ABSTRACT: Latino-white disparities in age at autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis may be modified by primary care pediatrician (PCP) practices and beliefs. The objectives of this study were to assess ASD and developmental screening practices, attitudes toward ASD identification in Latino children, and barriers to ASD identification for Latino children, in a sample of 267 California PCPs.In mail-based PCP survey, we assessed rates of bilingual general developmental and ASD screening, perceptions of parent ASD knowledge in Latino and white families, reports of difficulty assessing for ASDs in Latino and white children, and perceptions of barriers to early ASD identification for Latinos.Although 81% of PCPs offered some form of developmental screening, 29% of PCPs offered Spanish ASD screening per American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, and only 10% offered both Spanish general developmental and Spanish ASD screening per American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines. Most PCPs thought that Latino (English and Spanish primary family language) parents were less knowledgeable about ASDs than white parents. PCPs had more difficulty assessing ASD risk for Latino children with Spanish primary family language than for white children, even when the PCP conducted recommended ASD screening or had >25% Latino patients. The most frequent barrier to ASD identification in Latinos was access to developmental specialists.Multiple factors in the primary care setting may contribute to delayed ASD identification for Latinos. Promoting language-appropriate screening, disseminating culturally appropriate ASD materials to Latino families, improving the specialist workforce, and providing PCP support in screening and referral of Latino children may be important ways to reduce racial and ethnic differences in care.
Project description:In this study we developed a brief, English/Spanish bilingual parent-reported scale of perceived community autism spectrum disorder (ASD) stigma and tested it in a multi-site sample of Latino and non-Latino white parents of children with ASD. Confirmatory factor analysis of the scale supported a single factor solution with 8 items showing good internal consistency. Regression modeling suggested that stigma score was associated with unmet ASD care needs but not therapy hours or therapy types. Child public insurance, parent nativity, number of children with ASD in the household, parent-reported ASD severity, and family structure, were associated with higher stigma score. The scale and the scale's associations with service use may be useful to those attempting to measure or reduce ASD stigma.
Project description:To examine whether having a primary care physician (PCP) is associated with reduced ethnic disparities for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and whether clustering of minorities within PCPs contributes to the disparities.Retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries age 66-75 in 2009 in Texas.The percentage of beneficiaries up to date in CRC screening in 2009 was stratified by race/ethnicity. Multilevel models were used to study the effect of having a PCP and PCP characteristics on the racial and ethnic disparities on CRC screening.Medicare data from 2000 to 2009 were used to assess prior CRC screening.Odds of undergoing CRC screening were more than twice as high in patients with a PCP (OR = 2.05, 95 percent CI 2.03-2.07). After accounting for clustering and PCP characteristics, the black-white disparity in CRC screening rates almost disappears and the Hispanic-white disparity decreases substantially.Ethnic disparities in CRC screening in the elderly are mostly explained by decreased access to PCPs and by clustering of minorities within PCPs less likely to screen any of their patients.
Project description:Most evidence-based autism spectrum disorder (ASD) interventions are tested with primarily White, mid-upper class, English-speaking populations, despite the increase in Latino children with ASD in early intervention programs throughout the United States. Unfortunately, interventions that are incongruent with a target population's culture may be relatively ineffective. This mixed-methods study explored how culturally appropriate, feasible, and acceptable Latino caregivers perceived intervention models, strategies, and targets. Survey data were compared for 28 Latino and 27 non-Latino White parents of young children with ASD. Further, 20 Latino caregivers participated in focus groups to describe their challenges, perspectives and preferences for intervention strategies and models, and unmet needs from providers. These findings underscore the need for culturally modified interventions for Latino children and families.
Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective but underutilized. Although physician recommendation is an important predictor of screening, considerable variation in CRC screening completion remains.To characterize the influence of patient trust in care providers on CRC screening behavior.Data were collected as part of a cluster-randomized CRC screening intervention trial performed in the San Francisco Community Health Network from March 2007 to January 2012 (analysis, Spring 2012). All study participants received a recommendation to complete CRC screening from their primary care provider (PCP). Included participants were aged 50-79 years, not current with screening, and completed the Wake Forest Trust Scale (WFTS) measuring trust in PCPs and doctors in general. Primary outcome was CRC screening completion (colonoscopy or fecal occult blood testing) within 12 months following enrollment. Multivariable association adjusted for race/ethnicity, language, and other sociodemographics was estimated using generalized estimating equations with logit link and binomial distribution.WFTS response was 70.3% (701). Most participants (83%) were Latino, Asian, or black. Most had income <$30,000 (96%) and public health insurance (86%). Higher trust in PCP was associated with screening completion (OR=1.11, 95% CI=1.03, 1.17), but trust in doctors was not (OR=1.02, 95% CI=0.82, 1.28). Race, language, and other sociodemographic factors were not significant in multivariable analysis.After controlling for traditional factors, trust in PCP remained the only significant driver of CRC screening completion in low-income patients. Interventions to promote CRC screening may be improved by including efforts to enhance patient trust in PCP.
Project description:Decades of research have established that racial ethnic minority, low-income, and/or non-English speaking children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are diagnosed later than white children, and their families experience greater difficulty accessing services in the USA. Delayed access to timely diagnosis and early intervention may impact child outcomes and family quality of life. Despite their cognition of these disparities and their significant impact on the lives of those affected, explanations for the barriers experienced by underserved families are elusive, likely due to the complex interaction between structural and family factors. This study used qualitative methods to gather family and provider perspectives of perceived barriers and facilitators to obtaining an ASD diagnosis and accessing ASD-related services for underserved families. Themes from focus groups and interviews with families from three cultural groups (black, Hispanic/Latino, and Korean) and three primary languages (English, Korean, and Spanish) highlight specific barriers related to family, community, and systemic challenges as well as facilitators to accessing care for these populations. Family experiences are expanded upon with viewpoints from the providers who work with them. Recommendations are made for reducing disparities in the existing ASD service system including increasing professional, family, and community education; increasing culturally responsive care; improving provider-family partnerships; and addressing practical challenges to service access.
Project description:OBJECTIVE: This study examined the likelihood that U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) discuss and recommend prostate cancer screening with their patients and physician-related and practice-related factors associated with this behavior. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Primary Care Physician Practices Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening (N = 1,256), the most recent and comprehensive survey specifically designed to address issues concerning prostate cancer screening and representing nearly 95,000 PCPs. We evaluated the relationship between PCP behavior regarding prostate cancer screening discussions and covariates, including PCP demographic and practice-related factors. Weighted percentages and Chi-square tests were used to compare use of screening discussions by PCP characteristics. Adjusted odds of discussing screening and recommending the PSA test were determined from logistic regression. RESULTS: Eighty percent of PCPs reported that they routinely discuss prostate cancer screening with all of their male patients, and 64.1% of PCPs who discussed screening with any patients reported that they attempted to talk their patients into getting the PSA test. In multivariate analyses, encouraging PSA testing was more likely among non-Hispanic black PCPs (OR = 2.80, 95% CI [1.88, 4.16]), PCPs serving 100 or more patients per week (OR = 2.16, 95% CI [1.38, 3.37]), and PCPs spending longer hours per week in direct patient care (31-40 hours: OR = 1.90, 95% CI [1.13, 3.20]; 41 or more hours: OR = 2.09, 95% CI [1.12, 3.88]), compared to their referents. PCPs in multi-specialty group practice were more likely to remain neutral or discourage PSA testing compared to PCPs in solo practice. CONCLUSIONS: Both individual and practice-related factors of PCPs were associated with the use of prostate cancer screening discussions by U.S. PCPs. Results from this study may prove valuable to researchers and clinicians and help guide the development and implementation of future prostate cancer screening interventions in the U.S.
Project description:We designed a continuing medical education (CME) program to teach primary care physicians (PCP) how to engage in cancer risk communication and shared decision making with patients who have limited health literacy (HL).We evaluated whether training PCPs, in addition to audit-feedback, improves their communication behaviors and increases cancer screening among patients with limited HL to a greater extent than only providing clinical performance feedback.Four-year cluster randomized controlled trial.Eighteen PCPs and 168 patients with limited HL who were overdue for colorectal/breast/cervical cancer screening.Communication intervention PCPs received skills training that included standardized patient (SP) feedback on counseling behaviors. All PCPs underwent chart audits of patients' screening status semiannually up to 24 months and received two annual performance feedback reports.PCPs experienced three unannounced SP encounters during which SPs rated PCP communication behaviors. We examined between-group differences in changes in SP ratings and patient knowledge of cancer screening guidelines over 12 months; and changes in patient cancer screening rates over 24 months.There were no group differences in SP ratings of physician communication at baseline. At follow-up, communication intervention PCPs were rated higher in general communication about cancer risks and shared decision making related to colorectal cancer screening compared to PCPs who only received performance feedback. Screening rates increased among patients of PCPs in both groups; however, there were no between-group differences in screening rates except for mammography. The communication intervention did not improve patient cancer screening knowledge.Compared to audit and feedback alone, including PCP communication training increases PCP patient-centered counseling behaviors, but not cancer screening among patients with limited HL. Larger studies must be conducted to determine whether lack of changes in cancer screening were due to clinic/patient sample size versus ineffectiveness of communication training to change outcomes.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To explore primary care provider (PCP) and patient perspectives on postpartum screening for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), including reasons for not completing oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) specifically, preferred provider for organizing screening, and value of reminder letters for facilitating screening. DESIGN:A follow-up survey, administered by fax or telephone, to PCPs and patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial assessing effectiveness of postpartum postal reminders to enhance screening for T2DM in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). SETTING:The Ottawa Hospital, a university-affiliated tertiary centre in Ottawa, Ont. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 223 female patients with previously identified GDM and their respective PCPs were surveyed; 173 PCPs and 140 patients participated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Whether or not the patient was screened for T2DM post partum, the test used for screening, the factors contributing to the patient not being screened, perspectives on the importance of screening post partum, and opinions about which care provider should be responsible for screening in the postpartum period. RESULTS:Response rates were 78% (173 of 223) for PCPs and 63% (140 of 223) for patients. Only 37% of the PCP responders had their patients complete OGTTs, while 85% of patient responders reported that they had completed OGTTs. The most common reason PCPs gave for not screening was no postpartum visit from the patient for any reason. Time pressures were the most common reason provided by patients for not being screened. More than 95% of patients and providers agreed that screening for T2DM was important. Patients and PCPs agreed that PCPs should be responsible for screening. Reminder letters were perceived as helpful by more than 85% of patients and PCPs. CONCLUSION:This follow-up survey demonstrates that PCPs and patients value the importance of screening for diabetes, identify the PCP as pivotal to screening, and appreciate a reminder strategy. There continue to be barriers that affect screening rates, despite the perceived importance of screening by PCPs and patients.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the known benefits of early, specialized intervention for toddlers with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), access to such intervention remains limited. This pragmatic trial examines a novel healthcare delivery model (Screen-Refer-Treat [SRT]), which capitalizes upon existing health care and early intervention (EI) infrastructure to increase community capacity for ASD detection and treatment before age 3, when it is likely to have the greatest impact. This model comprises three components: (1) universal use of Stage 1 ASD screening by primary care providers (PCPs) at 18-month well-child visits (i.e., Screen); (2) immediate referral of positive screens to a community-based EI program (i.e., Refer); and (3) provision of an inexpensive, evidence-based ASD-specialized treatment by EI providers, after verifying ASD risk with a Stage 2 screen (i.e., Treat). This paper describes our research design and the initial successes, challenges, and adaptations made during the early implementation phase. METHOD/DESIGN:A stepped-wedge cluster RCT was used to implement the SRT model sequentially in four diverse Washington State counties ("clusters"). Counties are randomly assigned to the time of receipt of the SRT intervention, which comprises training workshops and technical assistance focused on the use of evidence-based ASD screening and intervention tools. Separate cohorts of families with toddlers (16-35 months old) with and without ASD concerns are recruited before and after the SRT intervention from participating PCP practices and EI programs. PCPs and EI providers complete measures on their screening, referral, and intervention practices before and after the SRT intervention. Each family cohort completes surveys about their well-being, parenting efficacy, health care satisfaction, and toddler's social-communicative behaviors. CONCLUSION:This trial is the first of its kind to work simultaneously with two service delivery systems with the goal of improving early detection and treatment for ASD. Our approach was successful in attaining buy-in from PCPs and EI providers, building and maintaining partnerships with providers, and achieving high levels of retention and survey completion. Fostering provider engagement and problem-solving issues together as partners were integral to overcoming the main challenges. Numerous lessons have been learned thus far, which have applicability for implementation researchers in ASD and those in other fields. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The registration number for this trial is NCT02409303 and it was posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on April 6, 2015.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Teleophthalmology for diabetic eye screening is an evidence-based intervention substantially underused in US multipayer primary care clinics, even when equipment and trained personnel are readily available. We sought to identify patient and primary care provider (PCP) barriers, facilitators, as well as strategies to increase teleophthalmology use. DESIGN:We conducted standardised open-ended, individual interviews and analysed the transcripts using both inductive and directed content analysis to identify barriers and facilitators to teleophthalmology use. The Chronic Care Model was used as a framework for the development of the interview guide and for categorising implementation strategies to increase teleophthalmology use. SETTING:A rural, US multipayer primary care clinic with an established teleophthalmology programme for diabetic eye screening. PARTICIPANTS:We conducted interviews with 29 participants (20 patients with diabetes and 9 PCPs). RESULTS:Major patient barriers to teleophthalmology use included being unfamiliar with teleophthalmology, misconceptions about diabetic eye screening and logistical challenges. Major patient facilitators included a recommendation from the patient's PCP and factors related to convenience. Major PCP barriers to referring patients for teleophthalmology included difficulty identifying when patients are due for diabetic eye screening and being unfamiliar with teleophthalmology. Major PCP facilitators included the ease of the referral process and the communication of screening results. Based on our results, we developed a model that maps where these key patient and PCP barriers occur in the teleophthalmology referral process. Patients and PCPs also identified implementation strategies to directly address barriers and facilitators to teleophthalmology use. CONCLUSIONS:Patients and PCPs have limited familiarity with teleophthalmology for diabetic eye screening. PCPs were expected to initiate teleophthalmology referrals, but reported significant difficulty identifying when patients are due for diabetic eye screening. System-based implementation strategies primarily targeting PCP barriers in conjunction with improved patient and provider education may increase teleophthalmology use in rural, US multipayer primary care clinics.