Browsing by Author "Gravely, Amy"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Communicating with providers about racial healthcare disparities: The role of providers’ prior beliefs on their receptivity to different narrative frames
    (Elsevier, 2018) Burgess, Diana J.; Bokhour, Barbara G.; Cunningham, Brooke A.; Do, Tam; Eliacin, Johanne; Gordon, Howard S.; Gravely, Amy; Jones, Dina M.; Partin, Melissa R.; Pope, Charlene; Saha, Somnath; Taylor, Brent C.; Gollust, Sarah E.; Psychology, School of Science
    Objective Evaluate narratives aimed at motivating providers with different pre-existing beliefs to address racial healthcare disparities. Methods Survey experiment with 280 providers. Providers were classified as high or low in attributing disparities to providers (HPA versus LPA) and were randomly assigned to a non-narrative control or 1 of 2 narratives: “Provider Success” (provider successfully resolved problem involving Black patient) and “Provider Bias” (Black patient experienced racial bias, which remained unresolved). Participants' reactions to narratives (including identification with narrative) and likelihood of participating in disparities-reduction activities were immediately assessed. Four weeks later, participation in those activities was assessed, including self-reported participation in a disparities-reduction training course (primary outcome). Results Participation in training was higher among providers randomized to the Provider Success narrative compared to Provider Bias or Control. LPA participants had higher identification with Provider Success than Provider Bias narratives, whereas among HPA participants, differences in identification between the narratives were not significant. Conclusions Provider Success narratives led to greater participation in training than Provider Bias narratives, although providers’ pre-existing beliefs influenced the narrative they identified with. Practice implications Provider Success narratives may be more effective at motivating providers to address disparities than Provider Bias narratives, though more research is needed.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Contribution of patient, physician, and environmental factors to demographic and health variation in colonoscopy follow-up for abnormal colorectal cancer screening test results
    (Wiley, 2017-09-15) Partin, Melissa R.; Gravely, Amy; Burgess, James F., Jr.; Haggstrom, David; Lillie, Sarah E.; Nelson, David B.; Nugent, Sean; Shaukat, Aasma; Sultan, Shahnaz; Walter, Louise C.; Burgess, Diana J.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    BACKGROUND: Patient, physician, and environmental factors were identified, and the authors examined the contribution of these factors to demographic and health variation in colonoscopy follow-up after a positive fecal occult blood test/fecal immunochemical test (FOBT/FIT) screening. METHODS: In total, 76,243 FOBT/FIT-positive patients were identified from 120 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities between August 16, 2009 and March 20, 2011 and were followed for 6 months. Patient demographic (race/ethnicity, sex, age, marital status) and health characteristics (comorbidities), physician characteristics (training level, whether primary care provider) and behaviors (inappropriate FOBT/FIT screening), and environmental factors (geographic access, facility type) were identified from VHA administrative records. Patient behaviors (refusal, private sector colonoscopy use) were estimated with statistical text mining conducted on clinic notes, and follow-up predictors and adjusted rates were estimated using hierarchical logistic regression. RESULTS: Roughly 50% of individuals completed a colonoscopy at a VHA facility within 6 months. Age and comorbidity score were negatively associated with follow-up. Blacks were more likely to receive follow-up than whites. Environmental factors attenuated but did not fully account for these differences. Patient behaviors (refusal, private sector colonoscopy use) and physician behaviors (inappropriate screening) fully accounted for the small reverse race disparity and attenuated variation by age and comorbidity score. Patient behaviors (refusal and private sector colonoscopy use) contributed more to variation in follow-up rates than physician behaviors (inappropriate screening). CONCLUSIONS: In the VHA, blacks are more likely to receive colonoscopy follow-up for positive FOBT/FIT results than whites, and follow-up rates markedly decline with advancing age and comorbidity burden. Patient and physician behaviors explain race variation in follow-up rates and contribute to variation by age and comorbidity burden. Cancer 2017;123:3502-12. Published 2017. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Design, recruitment outcomes, and sample characteristics of the Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE) trial
    (Elsevier, 2017-11) Krebs, Erin E.; Jensen, Agnes C.; Nugent, Sean; DeRonne, Beth; Rutks, Indulis; Leverty, David; Gravely, Amy; Noorbaloochi, Siamak; Bair, Matthew J.; Kroenke, Kurt; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine
    This manuscript describes the study protocol, recruitment outcomes, and baseline participant characteristics for the Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE) trial. SPACE is a pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial conducted in multiple VA primary care clinics within one VA health care system. The objective was to compare benefits and harms of opioid therapy versus non-opioid medication therapy over 12 months among patients with moderate-to-severe chronic back pain or hip/knee osteoarthritis pain despite analgesic therapy; patients already receiving regular opioid therapy were excluded. Key design features include comparing two clinically-relevant medication interventions, pragmatic eligibility criteria, and flexible treat-to-target interventions. Screening, recruitment and study enrollment were conducted over 31 months. A total of 4491 patients were contacted for eligibility screening; 53.1% were ineligible, 41.0% refused, and 5.9% enrolled. The most common reasons for ineligibility were not meeting pain location and severity criteria. The most common study-specific reasons for refusal were preference for no opioid use and preference for no pain medications. Of 265 enrolled patients, 25 withdrew before randomization. Of 240 randomized patients, 87.9% were male, 84.1% were white, and age range was 21–80 years. Past-year mental health diagnoses were 28.3% depression, 17% anxiety, 9.4% PTSD, 7.9% alcohol use disorder, and 2.6% drug use disorder. In conclusion, although recruitment for this trial was challenging, characteristics of enrolled participants suggest we were successful in recruiting patients similar to those prescribed opioid therapy in usual care.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effect of Opioid vs Nonopioid Medications on Pain-Related Function in Patients With Chronic Back Pain or Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis Pain
    (American Medical Association, 2018-03-06) Krebs, Erin E.; Gravely, Amy; Nugent, Sean; Jensen, Agnes C.; DeRonne, Beth; Goldsmith, Elizabeth S.; Kroenke, Kurt; Bair, Matthew J.; Noorbalochi, Simak; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Importance: Limited evidence is available regarding long-term outcomes of opioids compared with nonopioid medications for chronic pain. Objective: To compare opioid vs nonopioid medications over 12 months on pain-related function, pain intensity, and adverse effects. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, 12-month, randomized trial with masked outcome assessment. Patients were recruited from Veterans Affairs primary care clinics from June 2013 through December 2015; follow-up was completed December 2016. Eligible patients had moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain despite analgesic use. Of 265 patients enrolled, 25 withdrew prior to randomization and 240 were randomized. Interventions: Both interventions (opioid and nonopioid medication therapy) followed a treat-to-target strategy aiming for improved pain and function. Each intervention had its own prescribing strategy that included multiple medication options in 3 steps. In the opioid group, the first step was immediate-release morphine, oxycodone, or hydrocodone/acetaminophen. For the nonopioid group, the first step was acetaminophen (paracetamol) or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Medications were changed, added, or adjusted within the assigned treatment group according to individual patient response. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain-related function (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] interference scale) over 12 months and the main secondary outcome was pain intensity (BPI severity scale). For both BPI scales (range, 0-10; higher scores = worse function or pain intensity), a 1-point improvement was clinically important. The primary adverse outcome was medication-related symptoms (patient-reported checklist; range, 0-19). Results: Among 240 randomized patients (mean age, 58.3 years; women, 32 [13.0%]), 234 (97.5%) completed the trial. Groups did not significantly differ on pain-related function over 12 months (overall P = .58); mean 12-month BPI interference was 3.4 for the opioid group and 3.3 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7]). Pain intensity was significantly better in the nonopioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean 12-month BPI severity was 4.0 for the opioid group and 3.5 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.0]). Adverse medication-related symptoms were significantly more common in the opioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean medication-related symptoms at 12 months were 1.8 in the opioid group and 0.9 in the nonopioid group (difference, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]). Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with opioids was not superior to treatment with nonopioid medications for improving pain-related function over 12 months. Results do not support initiation of opioid therapy for moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Sleep Disturbance Predicts Less Improvement in Pain Outcomes: Secondary Analysis of the SPACE Randomized Clinical Trial
    (Oxford, 2019-09-14) Koffel, Erin; Kats, Allyson M.; Kroenke, Kurt; Bair, Matthew J.; Gravely, Amy; DeRonne, Beth; Donaldson, Melvin T.; Goldsmith, Elizabeth S.; Noorbaloochi, Siamak; Krebs, Erin E.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Objective Sleep disturbance may limit improvement in pain outcomes if not directly addressed in treatment. Moreover, sleep problems may be exacerbated by opioid therapy. This study examined the effects of baseline sleep disturbance on improvement in pain outcomes using data from the Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE) trial, a pragmatic 12-month randomized trial of opioid vs nonopioid medication therapy. Design Participants with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain were randomized to either opioid therapy (N = 120) or nonopioid medication therapy (N = 120). Methods We used mixed models for repeated measures to 1) test whether baseline sleep disturbance scores modified the effect of opioid vs nonopioid treatment on pain outcomes and 2) test baseline sleep disturbance scores as a predictor of less improvement in pain outcomes across both treatment groups. Results The tests for interaction of sleep disturbance by treatment group were not significant. Higher sleep disturbance scores at baseline predicted less improvement in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) interference (β = 0.058, P = 0.0002) and BPI severity (β = 0.026, P = 0.0164). Conclusions Baseline sleep disturbance adversely affects pain response to treatment regardless of analgesic regimen. Recognition and treatment of sleep impairments that frequently co-occur with pain may optimize outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Veterans Affairs Providers' Beliefs About the Contributors to and Responsibility for Reducing Racial and Ethnic Health Care Disparities
    (Mary Ann Liebert, 2019-08-23) Eliacin, Johanne; Cunningham, Brooke; Partin, Melissa R.; Gravely, Amy; Taylor, Brent C.; Gordon, Howard S.; Saha, Somnath; Burgess, Diana J.; Psychology, School of Science
    Purpose: Providers' beliefs about the causes of disparities and the entities responsible for addressing these disparities are important in designing disparity-reduction interventions aimed at providers. This secondary analysis of a larger study is aimed at evaluating perceptions of providers regarding the underlying causes of racial health care disparities and their views of who is responsible for reducing them. Methods: We surveyed 232 providers at 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers. Results: Sixty-nine percent of participants believed that minority patients in the United States receive lower quality health care. Most participants (64%) attributed differences in quality of care for minority patients in the VA health care system primarily to patients' socioeconomic status, followed by patient behavior (43%) and provider behaviors (33%). In contrast, most participants believed that the VA and other health care organizations (75%) and providers (70%) bear the responsibility for reducing disparities, while less than half (45%) believed that patients were responsible. Among provider-level contributors to disparities, providers' poor communication was the most widely endorsed (48%), while differences in prescribing of medications (13%) and in provision of specialty referrals (12%) were the least endorsed. Conclusions: Although most providers in the study did not believe that providers contribute to disparities, they do believe that they, along with health care organizations, have the responsibility to help reduce them. Interventions might focus on directly offering providers concrete ways that they can help reduce disparities, rather than focusing on simply raising awareness about disparities and their contributions to them.