Group medical visits (GMVs) for patients with chronic pain are becoming more accessible and have been shown to be successful in furthering patient education on multidisciplinary, nonopioid interventions. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that many group visit models lack sustainability due to recruitment issues and retention rates. Additionally, most of the studies surrounding GMVs are located in primarily urban health centers, potentially limiting their generalizability. This study aims to identify patient interest in and barriers to GMVs for chronic pain and to explore how chronic pain impacts daily lives for GMV content optimization in a nonurban population. Nineteen participants age 18 to 65 years participated in semistructured phone interviews to generate a thematic analysis. Participants received their care from family practitioners at a suburban multiclinic academic medical group and were being prescribed at least 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) at the time of recruitment. Analysis generated two themes: (1) Participants expressed specific interest in GMVs with few barriers identified, and (2) Pain has a negative impact on mental health and most aspects daily life, creating a foundation for discussion in GMVs. Findings support significant patient interest in group medical visits for chronic pain, but careful planning is necessary to address patient needs, expectations, and barriers in order to ensure GMV sustainability.
Mortality from cervical and colorectal cancers can be reduced through routine screening, which can often be accessed through primary care. However, uptake of screening in the US remains suboptimal, with disparities observed across geographic characteristics, such as metropolitan status or level of racial residential segregation. Little is known about the interaction of metropolitan status and segregation in their relationship with cancer screening. We conducted a quantitative survey of 474 women aged 45-65 in central Pennsylvania. The survey collected county-level characteristics and participant-level demographics, beliefs, cancer screening barriers, and cervical and colorectal cancer screening. We used bivariate and multivariable logistic regression to analyze relationships between metropolitan status and segregation with screening. For cervical cancer screening, 82.8% of participants were up-to-date, which did not differ by county type in the final analysis. Higher healthcare trust, higher cancer fatalism, and reporting cost as a barrier were associated with cervical cancer screening. For colorectal cancer screening, 55.4% of participants were up-to-date, which differed by county type. In metropolitan counties, segregation was not associated with colorectal cancer screening, but in non-metropolitan counties, segregation was associated with greater colorectal cancer screening. The relationship between metropolitan status and being up-to-date with colorectal, but not cervical, cancer screening varied by segregation. Other important beliefs and barriers to screening varied by county type. This research can guide future cancer screening interventions in primary care settings in underserved communities. Keywords Metropolitan status • Racial residential segregation • Cancer screening • Cervical cancer • Colorectal cancer • Health behaviorWhile significant progress has been made in decreasing the rates of cervical cancer and colorectal cancer overall, there continues to be significant, unequal burden based on geography, race, and socioeconomic status [1-3]. For example, residents of rural communities in the U.S. have higher cancer mortality rates than their urban counterparts [4][5][6]. This disparity may be related to lower rates of screening and delays in diagnosis of cancer in rural compared to urban communities [7,8]. Primary care often serves as the access * Jennifer L. Moss
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.