Dominik Ose

Objective: Rural–urban disparities in cancer care are well documented. However, research on rural–urban disparities regarding patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) is still developing. This study analyzed rural–urban disparities in patients with cancer with respect to anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, and physical function.Methods: This study was conducted at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute. We integrated data from electronic health records, Cancer Registry, and PRO questionnaires. We assessed the association between rurality status (rural vs. urban) in patients with cancer and PRO scores using multiple linear regression models and t‐tests.Results: The cohort included 7271 patients. The mean age was 59.1 years at cancer diagnosis and 48.2% (n = 3505) were female. Across all cancer types, significant differences (Rural vs. Urban) were found for fatigue (53.6 vs. 54.1; p < 0.05) and physical function (45.5 vs. 45.1; p < 0.05). With respect to specific cancer types, there were differences in patients with oral cavity and pharynx cancer for depression (47.9 vs. 50.6; p < 0.01), fatigue (51.6 vs. 54.8; p < 0.05), pain interference (52.8 vs. 55.4; p < 0.05), and physical function (48.0 vs. 44.6; p < 0.01), colorectal cancer for fatigue (56.8 vs. 54.7; p < 0.05), pain interference (56.0 vs. 53.7; p < 0.05), and physical function (42.2 vs. 44.4; p < 0.05), uterus cancer for depression (47.5 vs. 50.5; p < 0.05) and fatigue (51.6 vs. 54.7; p < 0.05), and lung cancer for physical function (37.6 vs. 39.3; p < 0.05).Conclusions: Across all cancer types, as well as specific cancers, this study found mostly limited rural–urban differences regarding PROs. Except for colorectal and lung/bronchus cancer, patients living in rural areas reported similar or better PRO scores for all cancer types. Results support the hypothesis that improving access can help to level rural–urban disparities regarding cancer care outcomes, because all patients were treated in the same comprehensive cancer center, had similar access to care, and had similar PRO scores.

Black/African American individuals face twice the risk of hypertension compared to non-Hispanic Whites in the United States (US). A synergistic strategy integrating primary care with Electronic Health Records (EHR) and mobile health (mHealth) technologies may help address hypertension disparities. This unique strategy prioritizes early disease identification, improved care access, and self-management. However, limited research exists on how primary care can effectively integrate these components to reduce hypertension in Black/African American individuals. We aimed to (i) identify characteristics of Black/African American populations represented in EHR-driven mHealth interventions for hypertension management in primary care settings and (ii) identify the specific EHR-driven mHealth interventions. We used the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to identify studies conducted in the US. The included articles focused on (i) Black/African American individuals, (ii) EHR and mHealth integration; (iii) primary care setting, and (iv) hypertension or blood pressure as the outcome. We screened 749 studies and synthesized 14. Combined, Black/African American patients were female (61%), 52.6 years on average, with diabetes health comorbidity (35%). Included studies utilized health monitoring devices (n = 14), smartphone applications (n = 11), interactive messaging (n = 8), and patient portals (n = 3). These tools facilitated health monitoring (n = 14), social networking (n = 3), and lifestyle counseling (n = 14). EHR-mHealth technologies in primary care show promise to improve hypertension management in Black/African American populations. Current interventions focus on enhancing health education access, continuous health monitoring, patient–physician communication, and social engagement. Further research is needed to optimize integration into clinical workflow for hypertension management.

Objective: Current studies have indicated that diabetes mellitus (DM) is highly prevalent in patients with cancer, but there is little research on consequences on the well‐being of patients during cancer treatment. This analysis evaluates the relationship between DM and patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with cancer, using a large and well‐characterized cohort.Methods: This study utilized the Total Cancer Care protocol at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute. For this analysis, we integrated data from electronic health records, the Huntsman Cancer Registry, and routinely collected PRO questionnaires. We assessed the association between DM in patients with cancer and PRO scores for anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, and physical function using multiple linear regression and t‐tests.Results: The final cohort comprised 3512 patients with cancer, with a mean age of 57.8 years at cancer diagnosis. Of all patients, 49.1% (n = 1724) were female, with 82.0% (n = 2879) patients reporting PROs at least at one time point. Compared with patients who responded, nonresponders were more often female (p = 0.0035), less frequently non‐Hispanic White (p = 0.0058), and had a higher BMI (p = 0.0759). Patients with cancer and diabetes had worse PRO scores for anxiety (p = 0.0003), depression (p < 0.0001), fatigue (p < 0.0001), pain interference (p < 0.0001), and physical function (p < 0.0001) compared to patients with cancer without diabetes. Significant associations between diabetes and PRO scores were observed for anxiety (β ± SE: 1.27 ± 0.48; p = 0.0076), depression (β ± SE: 1.46 ± 0.45; p = 0.0011), fatigue (β ± SE: 2.11 ± 0.52; p < 0.0001), pain interference (β ± SE: 1.42 ± 0.50; p = 0.0046), and physical function (β ± SE: −2.74 ± 0.48; p < 0.0001).Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that patients with cancer and diabetes may be at greater risk for anxiety, depression, fatigue, higher pain interference, and reduced physical function. Strengthening diabetes management is imperative to address the negative impact of diabetes on PROs. In particular, this may be true for patients with skin, breast, prostate, and kidney cancer.

Background: Hypertension is a common heart condition in the United States (US) and severely impacts racial and ethnic minority populations. While the understanding of hypertension has grown considerably, there remain gaps in US healthcare research. Specifically, there is a lack of focus on undiagnosed and uncontrolled hypertension in primary care settings. Aim: The present study investigates factors associated with undiagnosed and uncontrolled hypertension in primary care patients with hypertension. The study also examines whether Black/African Americans are at higher odds of undiagnosed and uncontrolled hypertension compared to White patients. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using electronic health records (EHR) data from the University of Utah primary care health system. The study included for analysis 24,915 patients with hypertension who had a primary care visit from January 2020 to December 2020. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the odds of undiagnosed and uncontrolled hypertension. Results: Among 24,915 patients with hypertension, 28.6% (n = 7,124) were undiagnosed and 37.4% (n = 9,319) were uncontrolled. Factors associated with higher odds of undiagnosed hypertension included age 18–44 (2.05 [1.90–2.21]), Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (1.13 [1.03–1.23]), Medicaid (1.43 [1.29-1.58]) or self-pay (1.32 [1.13-1.53]) insurance, CCI 1-2 (1.79 [1.67-1.92]), and LDL-c ≥ 190 mg/dl (3.05 [1.41–6.59]). For uncontrolled hypertension, risk factors included age 65+ (1.11 [1.08–1.34]), male (1.24 [1.17–1.31]), Native-Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (1.32 [1.05-1.62]) or Black/African American race (1.24 [1.11-1.57]) , and self-pay insurance (1.11 [1.03-1.22]). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that undiagnosed and uncontrolled hypertension is prevalent in primary care. Critical risk factors for undiagnosed hypertension include younger age, Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, very high LDL-c, low comorbidity scores, and self-pay or medicaid insurance. For uncontrolled hypertension, geriatric populations, males, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, and Black/African Americans, continue to experience greater burdens than their counterparts. Substantial efforts are needed to strengthen hypertension diagnosis and to develop tailored hypertension management programs in primary care, focusing on these populations.

Background: Current research on post-COVID-19 conditions (PCC) has focused on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and often lacks a comparison group. This study assessed the prevalence of PCC in non-hospitalized COVID-19 primary care patients compared to primary care patients not diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: This cross-sectional, population-based study (n = 2539) analyzed and compared the prevalence of PCC in patients with a positive COVID-19 test (n = 1410) and patients with a negative COVID-19 test (n = 1129) never hospitalized for COVID-19 related conditions. Participants were identified using electronic health records and completed an electronic questionnaire, available in English and Spanish, including 54 potential post COVID-19 symptoms. Logistic regression was conducted to assess the association of PCC with COVID-19. Results: Post-COVID-19 conditions are prevalent in both groups, and significantly more prevalent in patients with COVID-19. Strong significant differences exist for the twenty most reported conditions, except for anxiety. Common conditions are fatigue (59.5% (COVID-19 positive) vs. 41.3% (COVID-19 negative); OR 2.15 [1.79–2.60]), difficulty sleeping (52.1% (positive) vs. 41.9% (negative); OR 1.42 [1.18–1.71]) and concentration problems (50.6% (positive) vs 28.5% (negative); OR 2.64 [2.17–3.22]). Similar disparities in prevalence are also observed after comparing two groups (positive vs. negative) by age, sex, time since testing, and race/ethnicity. Conclusions: PCC is highly prevalent in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients in primary care. However, it is important to note that PCC strongly overlaps with common health symptoms seen in primary care, including fatigue, difficulty sleeping, and headaches, which makes the diagnosis of PCC in primary care even more challenging.

Previous research has shown a discrepancy in incidences of knee injuries, stress fractures, and concussions between cisgender men and women. Little is known regarding the incidence of musculoskeletal injuries among patients on gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). This retrospective cohort study examines cumulative incidence of knee injuries, concussions, and stress fracture injuries among transgender patients on GAHT at one health system from 2011–2020. Using relevant ICD-9 and 10 codes, incidences of knee injury, concussion, and stress fracture were calculated. Cohorts included 1971 transgender and 3964 cisgender patients. Transgender patients had significantly higher incidence of all-cause knee injuries over the study period, 109 (5.5%) versus 175 (4.4%) (p < 0.001; OR: 2.14, 95% CI [1.17–3.92]). Subgroup analysis showed significantly higher incidence of knee injuries among cisgender men (5.6%) versus cisgender women (4.1%) (p = 0.042) and among transgender women (6.6%) versus cisgender women (4.1%) (p = 0.005). There were no significant differences between incidences of concussion and stress fracture between groups. This sample showed that patients on GAHT had increased cumulative incidences of all-cause knee injury compared to controls but similar cumulative incidences of concussion and bone-stress injuries. Transgender women on exogenous estrogen had significantly higher cumulative incidences of all-cause knee injuries compared to cisgender women.

Background: Managing hypertension in racial and ethnic minoritized groups (eg, African American/Black patients) in primary care is highly relevant. However, evidence on whether or how electronic health record (EHR)–driven approaches in primary care can help improve hypertension management for patients of racial and ethnic minoritized groups in the United States remains scarce. Objective: This review aims to examine the role of the EHR in supporting interventions in primary care to strengthen the hypertension management of racial and ethnic minoritized groups in the United States. Methods: A search strategy based on the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) guidelines was utilized to query and identify peer-reviewed articles on the Web of Science and PubMed databases. The search strategy was based on terms related to racial and ethnic minoritized groups, hypertension, primary care, and EHR-driven interventions. Articles were excluded if the focus was not hypertension management in racial and ethnic minoritized groups or if there was no mention of health record data utilization. Results: A total of 29 articles were included in this review. Regarding populations, Black/African American patients represented the largest population (26/29, 90%) followed by Hispanic/Latino (18/29, 62%), Asian American (7/29, 24%), and American Indian/Alaskan Native (2/29, 7%) patients. No study included patients who identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. The EHR was used to identify patients (25/29, 86%), drive the intervention (21/29, 72%), and monitor results and outcomes (7/29, 59%). Most often, EHR-driven approaches were used for health coaching interventions, disease management programs, clinical decision support (CDS) systems, and best practice alerts (BPAs). Regarding outcomes, out of 8 EHR-driven health coaching interventions, only 3 (38%) reported significant results. In contrast, all the included studies related to CDS and BPA applications reported some significant results with respect to improving hypertension management. Conclusions: This review identified several use cases for the integration of the EHR in supporting primary care interventions to strengthen hypertension management in racial and ethnic minoritized patients in the United States. Some clinical-based interventions implementing CDS and BPA applications showed promising results. However, more research is needed on community-based interventions, particularly those focusing on patients who are Asian American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. The developed taxonomy comprising “identifying patients,” “driving intervention,” and “monitoring results” to classify EHR-driven approaches can be a helpful tool to facilitate this.

Background: When a genie is freed from its bottle, things cannot be restored to the way they were before. At the beginning of the global COVID-19 pandemic, health care systems adjusted how they delivered care overnight. Primary care practices switched from seeing patients in person to virtual care applications, including video and phone visits, e-visits, e-consults, and messaging with clinicians. Prior to the pandemic, these applications were not as widely used, but discussions around their advantages and disadvantages in some settings were being explored. Emergency regulatory changes spurred by the pandemic freed this virtual care “genie” from its bottle. Wide-scale adoption of virtual care in family medicine has much potential, as primary care services are often a patient’s first point of contact with the health care system. Objective: This study aims to analyze family medicine providers’ experiences using virtual visits during the pandemic, perceived outcomes of the shift to virtual visits, and discusses its implications for the future of family medicine. Methods: This qualitative study took place at 3 academic primary care clinics between June and December 2020. Data were collected through one-on-one Zoom (version 5.2.1) interviews with family medicine clinical faculty who experienced the rapid transition of in-person visits to mostly “virtual” visits. The interviews were recorded, deidentified, and transcribed. We adopted a constructivist approach to qualitative content analysis to evaluate the results. Results: In total, 25 participants were eligible, and 20 individuals participated in this study (80% participation rate). The mean age was 43.4 years, and 85% (17/20) of the participants were female. We identified 3 main themes: the care process, patient engagement, and team-based care. Conclusions: This study highlights the transition from in-person to virtual visits during the pandemic from the perspective of family medicine providers. Generally, family medicine providers’ perceptions of the shift to virtual visits were positive, especially regarding team-based care. Challenges involved virtual inhibition, particularly for providers. Providers described ways they integrated virtual care with aspects of in-person care, creating a hybrid environment. The genie is out of the bottle—things will not be the same—but family medicine now has the opportunity to evolve.