The purpose of this study was to explore patient perspectives of rapid and routine HIV-testing in an urgent care center at an urban public hospital. We conducted structured focus groups during a clinical trial comparing routinely offered rapid HIV-testing, routinely offered enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing, and conventional EIA testing. Participants of the six focus groups were 89% African American, 60% uninsured, and had a low educational status. Four independent coders analyzed the data using iterative content analysis. Rapid testing was preferred to EIA testing because it reduced the need for a return visit and stress of waiting for test results, though there were concerns about accuracy. Participants supported routinely offering testing, but there were concerns about privacy and cost. Fear and stigma were common reasons for refusing testing and not returning for results. Distrust and misconceptions about HIV, particularly regarding the importance of testing, were very common.

The effects of obesity on asthma diagnosis, control, and exacerbation severity are increasingly recognized; however, the underlying pathophysiology of this association is poorly understood. Mainstream clinical practice has yet to adopt aggressive management of obesity as a modifiable risk factor in asthma care, as is the case with a risk factor like tobacco or allergen exposure. This review summarizes existing data that support the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying the association between obesity and asthma, as well as the current and future state of treatment for the obese patient with asthma. Our review suggests that evidence of chronic inflammatory response linking obesity and asthma indicates a need to address obesity during asthma management, possibly using patient-centered approaches such as shared decision making. There is a need for research to better understand the mechanisms of asthma in the obese patient and to develop new therapies specifically targeted to this unique patient population.

ObjectiveTranslating research findings into clinical practice is a major challenge to improve the quality of healthcare delivery. Shared decision making (SDM) has been shown to be effective and has not yet been widely adopted by health providers. This paper describes the participatory approach used to adapt and implement an evidence-based asthma SDM intervention into primary care practices.MethodsA participatory research approach was initiated through partnership development between practice staff and researchers. The collaborative team worked together to adapt and implement a SDM toolkit. Using the RE-AIM framework and qualitative analysis, we evaluated both the implementation of the intervention into clinical practice, and the level of partnership that was established. Analysis included the number of adopting clinics and providers, the patients’ perception of the SDM approach, and the number of clinics willing to sustain the intervention delivery after 1 year.ResultsAll six clinics and physician champions implemented the intervention using half-day dedicated asthma clinics while 16% of all providers within the practices have participated in the intervention. Themes from the focus groups included the importance of being part the development process, belief that the intervention would benefit patients, and concerns around sustainability and productivity. One year after initiation, 100% of clinics have sustained the intervention, and 90% of participating patients reported a shared decision experience.ConclusionsUse of a participatory research process was central to the successful implementation of a SDM intervention in multiple practices with diverse patient populations.

No abstract

BackgroundAsthma is a common disease that affects people of all ages and has significant morbidity and mortality. Poor outcomes and health disparities related to asthma result in part from the difficulty of disseminating new evidence and care delivery methods such as shared decision making (SDM) into clinical practice.This 3-year study explores the ideal framework for rapid dissemination of an evidence-based SDM toolkit for asthma management. The study leverages a partnership between the North Carolina (NC) statewide Medicaid network and the NC Network Consortium of practice-based research networks (PBRNs).Methods/designThis non-blinded study will randomize 30 primary care clinics in NC stratified by four PBRNs. We will test dissemination across these practices using a facilitator-led participatory approach to dissemination (FLOW), a novel method of participatory dissemination involving key principles of community-based participatory research, and a more typical “lunch and learn” dissemination method. Specifically, we will use cluster randomization to assign each of the 30 practices to one of three arms: (1) control, no dissemination; (2) traditional dissemination, one didactic session a year and distribution of educational material; and (3) FLOW dissemination. We hypothesize that at the unit of randomization, the clinic, patients in the FLOW dissemination arm will be more likely to share in their treatment decisions compared to patients in the traditional dissemination or control arms. All outcomes will be measured at the level of the clinic. Adoption of the SDM approach will be evaluated by 1) asthma exacerbations, 2) level of patient involvement in the decision making process, and 3) qualitative assessments from patients and providers.The research question is: What dissemination strategy most effectively increases practice level adoption of a shared decision making approach to asthma management? This study will provide important data to support best practices in dissemination of an evidence-based toolkit and implementation of shared decision making into primary care practices.Trial registrationThe trial was registered on January 27, 2014 through the United States National Institutes of Health’s ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02047929 and funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).