No abstract

No abstract

Background The primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events is often less intense in persons at higher CV risk and vice versa. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that clinicians and patients use shared decision making (SDM) to arrive at an effective and feasible prevention plan that is congruent with each person’s CV risk and informed preferences. However, SDM does not routinely happen in practice. This study aims to integrate into routine care an SDM decision tool (CV Prevention Choice) at three diverse healthcare systems in the USA and study strategies that foster its adoption and routine use. Methods This is a mixed method, hybrid type III stepped wedge cluster randomized study to estimate (a) the effectiveness of implementation strategies on SDM uptake and utilization and (b) the extent to which SDM results in prevention plans that are risk-congruent. Formative evaluation methods, including clinician and stakeholder interviews and surveys, will identify factors likely to impact feasibility, acceptability, and adoption of CV Prevention Choice as well as normalization of CV Prevention Choice in routine care. Implementation facilitation will be used to tailor implementation strategies to local needs, and implementation strategies will be systematically adjusted and tracked for assessment and refinement. Electronic health record data will be used to assess implementation and effectiveness outcomes, including CV Prevention Choice reach, adoption, implementation, maintenance, and effectiveness (measured as risk-concordant care plans). A sample of video-recorded clinical encounters and patient surveys will be used to assess fidelity. The study employs three theoretical approaches: a determinant framework that calls attention to categories of factors that may foster or inhibit implementation outcomes (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), an implementation theory that guides explanation or understanding of causal influences on implementation outcomes (Normalization Process Theory), and an evaluation framework (RE-AIM). Discussion By the project’s end, we expect to have (a) identified the most effective implementation strategies to embed SDM in routine practice and (b) estimated the effectiveness of SDM to achieve feasible and risk-concordant CV prevention in primary care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04450914. Posted June 30, 2020 Trial status This study received ethics approval on April 17, 2020. The current trial protocol is version 2 (approved February 17, 2021). The first subject had not yet been enrolled at the time of submission.

Background Diabetes care has been traditionally focused on targeting certain levels of glycemic control. This narrow emphasis may impose burdens on patients, including high treatment costs, illness-related work, or side effects from medications, while leaving other patient needs and goals under-addressed. The authors aim to shift the paradigm of care for people with diabetes, to focus on quality of life, burden of treatment, safety, and avoidance of future events: the QBSAfe domains. Methods We describe a single-arm pilot study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of using the QBSAfe agenda setting kit (ASK) during routine clinical visits. The set of 14 conversation aid cards was co-developed with patients, family caregivers, and clinicians. The ASK will be used in the context of a clinic visit, which will be recorded by members of the study team to identify patterns of clinician-patient conversations. Feasibility will be measured by the number of participants recruited, time to goal accrual, and completeness of data collection; acceptability will be assessed using post-visit surveys of patients and clinicians. A subgroup of patients will be invited to participate in post-visit qualitative semi-structured interviews for additional feedback. This study will be conducted across three medical centers in the Midwest and East Coast of the USA. Discussion Current healthcare infrastructure and associated demands and pressures on clinicians make changes in care difficult. However, this intervention has the potential to shift conversations during clinical encounters so they can address and directly respond to patient needs, symptoms, and capacity. As part of the QBSAfe ASK, the authors are also actively collaborating with a variety of stakeholders to create tools to help clinicians respond more effectively to patient concerns as they are raised during the clinical encounters. Additional insights about the use of the QBSAfe approach in the virtual space will be gathered during the process of our study due to restrictions imposed upon face to face visit during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04514523. Registered 17 August 2020—retrospectively registered.

BackgroundCardiovascular disease in women often develops without conventional risk factors. Prenatal loss is a common pregnancy outcome that may result in physiological changes can increase the potential future risk of cardiovascular disease. Insufficient information exists regarding the impact of pregnancy loss on early markers of cardiovascular disease risk.Methods and ResultsCross‐sectional analysis of 1767 disease‐free women from the MTC (Mexican Teachers' Cohort) who had been pregnant was used to evaluate the relationship between pregnancy loss and carotid intima–media thickness (IMT). Participants responded to a questionnaire regarding their reproductive history, risk factors, and medical conditions. We defined pregnancy loss as history of miscarriage and/or stillbirth. Trained neurologists measured IMT using ultrasound. We log‐transformed IMT and defined subclinical carotid atherosclerosis (SCA) as IMT ≥0.8 mm and/or plaque. We used multivariable linear and logistic regression models to assess the relation of pregnancy loss, IMT, and SCA. The mean age of participants was 49.8±5.1 years. The prevalence of pregnancy loss was 22%, and we observed SCA in 23% of participants. Comparing participants who reported a pregnancy loss and those who did not, the multivariable‐adjusted odds ratio for SCA was 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.12–2.06). Women who experienced a stillbirth had 2.32 higher odds (95% confidence interval, 1.03–5.21) of SCA than those who did not. Mean IMT appeared to be higher in women who reported a pregnancy loss relative to those who did not; nevertheless, this was not statistically significant.ConclusionsPregnancy loss could be linked to cardiovascular disease later in life. The key findings of our study await confirmation and further investigation of the potential underlying mechanisms for this association is required.