Jiang Li

Background/Objectives: National guidelines include recommendations for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, but gaps in prevention still exist. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools may be an avenue for delivering preventive care. The goal of this project was to understand how clinicians approach primary prevention of CVD and to determine barriers and facilitators in delivery of primary preventive care with and beyond a CDS tool. Methods: A user-centered design approach including a cross-sectional survey and qualitative interviews was deployed in a health system in Central and Northern California. Clinician responses to the survey in addition to clinician interviews about perspectives on CVD were analyzed. Results: A total of 62 primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and nurse practitioners completed surveys, and 7 primary care clinicians participated in interviews. Primary care clinicians generally agree that preventive care would be more efficient with team-based care. Physician-centered care and CVD preventive care were constricted by limited time, the highly varied nature of primary care, and a lack of standardized and personalized CDS tools. Once patients at risk of CVD are identified, there is also a lack of clarity around resources available to support downstream care for patients. Conclusions: The results highlight the challenges in providing CVD prevention for primary care clinicians. A team-based approach, supported by digital CDS tools, can be more effective for ensuring the necessary CVD prevention communication and coordination takes place.

Background: Little is known about clinical and sociodemographic factors affecting coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke incidence in single‐race and multiracial American Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander subgroups. As the US population becomes more diverse, it is important to characterize differences in risks for CHD and stroke, and their contributing factors, in these populations. Methods and Results: The study population included 303 958 patients from Kaiser Permanente Hawaii and Palo Alto Medical Foundation in California. Self‐reported race and ethnicity were derived from electronic health records and 12 mutually exclusive single‐race and multiracial groups were created for analyses. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare CHD and stroke incidence. Unadjusted models were compared with models adjusted for age, income, education, body mass index, smoking, and comorbidities. We found up to a 4‐fold variation in CHD and stroke rates among American Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander subgroups. Multiracial subgroups had higher rates than single‐race groups. While most single‐race American Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander groups had lower CHD and stroke risks, middle‐aged Asian Indian men and Native Hawaiian women had higher stroke risks than non‐Hispanic White controls. Income, education, body mass index, smoking, and comorbidities contributed significantly to risks in all groups, especially in Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and multiracial groups. Conclusions: Risks for CHD and stroke vary by racial and ethnic subgroups, demonstrating the need to unmask risks by disaggregating racial and ethnic subgroups. Multiracial American Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander groups had higher risks that were only partially explained by modifiable risk factors. Future studies should further explore lifestyle, psychosocial, and sociocultural factors.

Background: Asian and multiracial individuals represent the 2 fastest growing racial and ethnic groups in the United States, yet most prior studies report Asian American and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander as a single racial group, with limited data on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevalence among subgroups. We sought to evaluate temporal trends in CVD burden among disaggregated Asian subgroups. Methods and Results: Patients with CVD based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision ( ICD‐9 and ICD‐10 ) coding who received care from a mixed‐payer health care organization in California between 2008 and 2018 were classified into self‐identified racial and ethnic subgroups (non‐Hispanic White [NHW], Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and multiracial groups). Adjusted trends in CVD prevalence over time by subgroup were compared using logistic regression. Among 3 494 071 patient‐years, prevalence of CVD increased faster among all subgroups except Japanese and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients ( P P P P P <0.05 for each, reference: NHW). Conclusions: The increasing prevalence of CVD among disaggregated Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and multiracial subgroups over time highlights the importance of tailored approaches to addressing CVD in these diverse subpopulations.

Background: Lung cancer has been the leading cause of American deaths from cancer. Although Medicare started covering lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in 2015, the uptake of LDCT-LCS remains low. This study examines the changes in adherence to provider referrals for LDCT-LCS and the factors at patient, provider, and health system levels that influence the completion rate of LDCT-LCS orders before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Our study examined electronic health record data (December 2013 - December 2020) from a large, community-based clinical healthcare delivery system in California. We plotted monthly trends in the frequency of LDCT-LCS orders and completion rate and compared the annual LDCT-LCS completion rate between LCS-eligible, LCS-ineligible, and unknown eligibility groups. We then explored multilevel factors associated with the completion of LDCT-LCS orders using hierarchical generalized linear models. Results: There was an increase in LDCT-LCS orders (N = 12,469) from 2013 to 2019, followed by a sharp decline in March 2020 due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, LDCT-LCS orders slowly increased again in June 2020. The completion rate of LDCT-LCS increased from 0% in December 2013 to approximately 70% in 2018–2019 but declined to 50–60% in 2020 during the pandemic. Ineligible patients had lower completion rates of LDCT-LCS. Patients who were new to the healthcare system, Black, received the LDCT-LCS order in the first few years after Medicare coverage (2016 or 2017), during the pandemic, had major comorbidities, and smoked less than 30 pack-years were less likely to complete an order. Patients were more likely to complete LDCT-LCS orders if they were younger, received the LDCT-LCS order from a physician (vs. nonphysician provider), from family medicine or other specialties (vs. internal medicine), or saw a provider with more experience in LDCT-LCS. Conclusions: The beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic largely decreased the volume of LDCT-LCS orders, but rates have since been slowing recovering. Future interventions to improve lung cancer screening should consider doing more targeted outreach to new patients and Black patients as well as providing additional education to nonphysician practitioners and those providers with lower rates of LDCT-LCS referral orders.

Background Lung cancer has been the leading cause of American deaths from cancer. Although Medicare started covering lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in 2015, the uptake of LDCT-LCS remains low. This study examines the changes in adherence to provider referrals for LDCT-LCS and the factors at patient, provider, and health system levels that influence the completion rate of LDCT-LCS orders before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods Our study examined electronic health record data (December 2013 - December 2020) from a large, community-based clinical healthcare delivery system in California. We plotted monthly trends in the frequency of LDCT-LCS orders and completion rate and compared the annual LDCT-LCS completion rate between LCS-eligible and LCS-ineligible groups. We then explored multilevel factors associated with the completion of LDCT-LCS orders using hierarchical generalized linear models.Results There was an increase in LDCT-LCS orders (N = 12,469) from 2013 to 2019, followed by a sharp decline in March 2020 due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, LDCT-LCS orders slowly increased again in June 2020. The completion rate of LDCT-LCS increased from 0% in December 2013 to approximately 70% in 2018–2019 but declined to 50–60% in 2020 during the pandemic. Ineligible patients had lower completion rates of LDCT-LCS. Patients who were new to the healthcare system, Black, received the LDCT-LCS order in the first few years after Medicare coverage (2016 or 2017), during the pandemic, had major comorbidities, and smoked less than 30 pack-years were less likely to complete an order. Patients were more likely to complete LDCT-LCS orders if they were younger, received the LDCT-LCS order from a physician (vs. nonphysician provider), from family medicine or other specialties (vs. internal medicine), or saw a provider with more experience in LDCT-LCS.Conclusions The beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic largely decreased the volume of LDCT-LCS orders, but rates have since been slowing recovering. Future interventions to improve lung cancer screening should consider doing more targeted outreach to new patients and Black patients as well as providing additional education to nonphysician practitioners and those providers with lower rates of LDCT-LCS referral orders.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted racial and ethnic minorities in the United States, including Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (Asian Americans and NH/PIs). However, few studies have highlighted nor disaggregated these disparities by Asian Americans and NH/PIs ethnic subgroups. Methods: This retrospective, cross-sectional observational study aimed to assess variation of Asian Americans and NH/PIs COVID-19 testing and outcomes compared to non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). The study utilized data from the electronic health records (EHR) and the COVID-19 Universal Registry for Vital Evaluations (CURVE) from all patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 556,690) at a large, health system in Northern and Central California between February 20, 2020 and March 31, 2021. Chi-square tests were used for testing differences in the severity of COVID-19 (hospitalization, ICU admission, death) and patient demographic and clinical characteristics across the Asian Americans and NH/PIs subgroups and NHW. Unadjusted and adjusted Odds Ratios (ORs) were estimated for measuring effect of race ethnicity on severity of COVID-19 using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of the entire tested population, 70,564/556,690 (12.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 positivity of Asian subgroups varied from 4% in the Chinese and Korean populations, to 11.2%, 13.5%, and 12.5% for Asian Indian, Filipino, and “other Asian” populations respectively. Pacific Islanders had the greatest subgroup test positivity at 20.1%. Among Asian Americans and NH/PIs patients with COVID-19 disease, Vietnamese (OR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.30–3.25), “Other Asian” (OR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.79–2.54), Filipino (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.34–2.23), Japanese (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.10–2.88), and Chinese (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.34–2.23) subgroups had almost double the odds of hospitalization compared to NHW. Pacific Islander (OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.19–2.10) and mixed race subgroups (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.10–2.20) had more than one and a half times odds of hospitalization compared to NHW. Adjusted odds of ICU admission or death among hospitalized patients by different Asian subgroups varied but were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Variation of COVID-19 testing and hospitalization by Asian subgroups was striking in our study. A focus on the Asian Americans and NH/PIs population with disaggregation of subgroups is crucial to understand nuances of health access, utilization, and outcomes among subgroups to create health equity for these underrepresented populations.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths for both men and women in the U.S., yet uptake of preventive cancer screening for people with a heavy smoking history remains low. This qualitative interview study of patients and providers from a large ambulatory healthcare system in northern and central California reevaluated perceptions of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LCS-LDCT) 5 years after Medicare coverage. We hypothesized that initial attitudes and barriers within the LCS-LDCT discussion and process have likely persisted with little change since Medicare coverage and we sought to understand how these attitudes continue to impact effective implementation and uptake of screening with the goal of identifying opportunities for improvement. Between 2019 and 2020, interviews were conducted with 10 primary care physicians and 30 patients using semi-structured interview guides. Providers and patients expressed that they were both aware and supportive of LCS-LDCT, a change from earlier studies, but continued to report little to no shared decision making nor use of a decision aid despite being Medicare requirements. Creation and incorporation of a single-page, graphic heavy decision aid may help address many of the persistent barriers around implementation for both providers and patients. Given recently expanded guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for LCS-LDCT screening and their coverage by Medicare, it is important for healthcare systems to understand provider and patient perceptions to further improve the implementation of LCS-LDCT to ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality.