IU Indianapolis ScholarWorks :: Browsing by Author "Harle, Christopher A."

Browsing by Author "Harle, Christopher A."

Now showing 1 - 10 of 38

A framework for a consistent and reproducible evaluation of manual review for patient matching algorithms
(Oxford University Press, 2022) Gupta, Agrayan K.; Kasthurirathne, Suranga N.; Xu, Huiping; Li, Xiaochun; Ruppert, Matthew M.; Harle, Christopher A.; Grannis, Shaun J.; Medicine, School of Medicine
Healthcare systems are hampered by incomplete and fragmented patient health records. Record linkage is widely accepted as a solution to improve the quality and completeness of patient records. However, there does not exist a systematic approach for manually reviewing patient records to create gold standard record linkage data sets. We propose a robust framework for creating and evaluating manually reviewed gold standard data sets for measuring the performance of patient matching algorithms. Our 8-point approach covers data preprocessing, blocking, record adjudication, linkage evaluation, and reviewer characteristics. This framework can help record linkage method developers provide necessary transparency when creating and validating gold standard reference matching data sets. In turn, this transparency will support both the internal and external validity of recording linkage studies and improve the robustness of new record linkage strategies.
Acceptance of Automated Social Risk Scoring in the Emergency Department: Clinician, Staff, and Patient Perspectives
(University of California, 2024) Mazurenko, Olena; Hirsh, Adam T.; Harle, Christopher A.; McNamee, Cassidy; Vest, Joshua R.; Health Policy and Management, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health
Introduction: Healthcare organizations are under increasing pressure from policymakers, payers, and advocates to screen for and address patients' health-related social needs (HRSN). The emergency department (ED) presents several challenges to HRSN screening, and patients are frequently not screened for HRSNs. Predictive modeling using machine learning and artificial intelligence, approaches may address some pragmatic HRSN screening challenges in the ED. Because predictive modeling represents a substantial change from current approaches, in this study we explored the acceptability of HRSN predictive modeling in the ED. Methods: Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patient perspectives on the acceptability and usage of predictive modeling for HRSNs in the ED were obtained through in-depth semi-structured interviews (eight per group, total 24). All participants practiced at or had received care from an urban, Midwest, safety-net hospital system. We analyzed interview transcripts using a modified thematic analysis approach with consensus coding. Results: Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patients agreed that HRSN predictive modeling must lead to actionable responses and positive patient outcomes. Opinions about using predictive modeling results to initiate automatic referrals to HRSN services were mixed. Emergency clinicians and staff wanted transparency on data inputs and usage, demanded high performance, and expressed concern for unforeseen consequences. While accepting, patients were concerned that prediction models can miss individuals who required services and might perpetuate biases. Conclusion: Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patients expressed mostly positive views about using predictive modeling for HRSNs. Yet, clinicians, staff, and patients listed several contingent factors impacting the acceptance and implementation of HRSN prediction models in the ED.
Accuracy of Electronic Health Record Food Insecurity, Housing Instability, and Financial Strain Screening in Adult Primary Care
(American Medical Association, 2023) Harle, Christopher A.; Wu, Wei; Vest, Joshua R.; Psychology, School of Science
Analgesic Management of Pain in Elite Athletes: A Systematic Review
(Wolters Kluwer, 2018-09) Harle, Christopher A.; Danielson, Elizabeth C.; Derman, Wayne; Stuart, Mark; Dvorak, Jiri; Smith, Lisa; Hainline, Brian; Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health
Objective: To identify the prevalence, frequency of use, and effects of analgesic pain management strategies used in elite athletes. Design: Systematic literature review. Data Sources: Six databases: Ovid/Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Empirical studies involving elite athletes and focused on the use or effects of medications used for pain or painful injury. Studies involving recreational sportspeople or those that undertake general exercise were excluded. Main Results: Of 70 articles found, the majority examined the frequency with which elite athletes use pain medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, anesthetics, and opioids. A smaller set of studies assessed the effect of medications on outcomes such as pain, function, and adverse effects. Oral NSAIDs are reported to be the most common medication, being used in some international sporting events by over 50% of athletes. Studies examining the effects of pain medications on elite athletes typically involved small samples and lacked control groups against which treated athletes were compared. Conclusions: Existing empirical research does not provide a sufficient body of evidence to guide athletes and healthcare professionals in making analgesic medication treatment decisions. Based on the relatively robust evidence regarding the widespread use of NSAIDs, clinicians and policymakers should carefully assess their current recommendations for NSAID use and adhere to a more unified consensus-based strategy for multidisciplinary pain management in elite athletes. In the future, we hope to see more rigorous, prospective studies of various pain management strategies in elite athletes, thus enabling a shift from consensus-based recommendations to evidence-based recommendations.
An Analysis of Primary Care Clinician Communication About Risk, Benefits, and Goals Related to Chronic Opioid Therapy
(SAGE Publications, 2019-12-10) Danielson, Elizabeth C.; Mazurenko, Olena; Andraka-Christou, Barbara T.; DiIulio, Julie; Downs, Sarah M.; Hurley, Robert W.; Harle, Christopher A.; Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health
Background. Safe opioid prescribing and effective pain care are particularly important issues in the United States, where decades of widespread opioid prescribing have contributed to high rates of opioid use disorder. Because of the importance of clinician-patient communication in effective pain care and recent initiatives to curb rising opioid overdose deaths, this study sought to understand how clinicians and patients communicate about the risks, benefits, and goals of opioid therapy during primary care visits. Methods. We recruited clinicians and patients from six primary care clinics across three health systems in the Midwest United States. We audio-recorded 30 unique patients currently receiving opioids for chronic noncancer pain from 12 clinicians. We systematically analyzed transcribed, clinic visits to identify emergent themes. Results. Twenty of the 30 patient participants were females. Several patients had multiple pain diagnoses, with the most common diagnoses being osteoarthritis (n = 10), spondylosis (n = 6), and low back pain (n = 5). We identified five themes: 1) communication about individual-level and population-level risks, 2) communication about policies or clinical guidelines related to opioids, 3) communication about the limited effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain conditions, 4) communication about nonopioid therapies for chronic pain, and 5) communication about the goal of the opioid tapering. Conclusions. Clinicians discuss opioid-related risks in varying ways during patient visits, which may differentially affect patient experiences. Our findings may inform the development and use of more standardized approaches to discussing opioids during primary care visits.
Assessing the use of a clinical decision support tool for pain management in primary care
(Oxford University Press, 2022-09-15) Apathy, Nate C.; Sanner, Lindsey; Adams, Meredith C.B.; Mamlin, Burke W.; Grout, Randall W.; Fortin, Saura; Hillstrom, Jennifer; Saha, Amit; Teal, Evgenia; Vest, Joshua R.; Menachemi, Nir; Hurley, Robert W.; Harle, Christopher A.; Mazurenko, Olena; Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health
Objective: Given time constraints, poorly organized information, and complex patients, primary care providers (PCPs) can benefit from clinical decision support (CDS) tools that aggregate and synthesize problem-specific patient information. First, this article describes the design and functionality of a CDS tool for chronic noncancer pain in primary care. Second, we report on the retrospective analysis of real-world usage of the tool in the context of a pragmatic trial. Materials and methods: The tool known as OneSheet was developed using user-centered principles and built in the Epic electronic health record (EHR) of 2 health systems. For each relevant patient, OneSheet presents pertinent information in a single EHR view to assist PCPs in completing guideline-recommended opioid risk mitigation tasks, review previous and current patient treatments, view patient-reported pain, physical function, and pain-related goals. Results: Overall, 69 PCPs accessed OneSheet 2411 times (since November 2020). PCP use of OneSheet varied significantly by provider and was highly skewed (site 1: median accesses per provider: 17 [interquartile range (IQR) 9-32]; site 2: median: 8 [IQR 5-16]). Seven "power users" accounted for 70% of the overall access instances across both sites. OneSheet has been accessed an average of 20 times weekly between the 2 sites. Discussion: Modest OneSheet use was observed relative to the number of eligible patients seen with chronic pain. Conclusions: Organizations implementing CDS tools are likely to see considerable provider-level variation in usage, suggesting that CDS tools may vary in their utility across PCPs, even for the same condition, because of differences in provider and care team workflows.
The benefits of health information exchange: an updated systematic review
(Oxford Academic, 2018-09) Menachemi, Nir; Rahurkar, Saurabh; Harle, Christopher A.; Vest, Joshua R.; Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health
Objective Widespread health information exchange (HIE) is a national objective motivated by the promise of improved care and a reduction in costs. Previous reviews have found little rigorous evidence that HIE positively affects these anticipated benefits. However, early studies of HIE were methodologically limited. The purpose of the current study is to review the recent literature on the impact of HIE. Methods We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to conduct our systematic review. PubMed and Scopus databases were used to identify empirical articles that evaluated HIE in the context of a health care outcome. Results Our search strategy identified 24 articles that included 63 individual analyses. The majority of the studies were from the United States representing 9 states; and about 40% of the included analyses occurred in a handful of HIEs from the state of New York. Seven of the 24 studies used designs suitable for causal inference and all reported some beneficial effect from HIE; none reported adverse effects. Conclusions The current systematic review found that studies with more rigorous designs all reported benefits from HIE. Such benefits include fewer duplicated procedures, reduced imaging, lower costs, and improved patient safety. We also found that studies evaluating community HIEs were more likely to find benefits than studies that evaluated enterprise HIEs or vendor-mediated exchanges. Overall, these finding bode well for the HIEs ability to deliver on anticipated improvements in care delivery and reduction in costs.
Characterizing variability in state-level regulations governing opioid treatment programs
(Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2020-04-24) Jackson, Joanna R.; Harle, Christopher A.; Silverman, Ross D.; Simon, Kosali; Menachemi, Nir
Abstract Introduction: The opioid use crisis has left nearly 1 million people in need of treatment. States have focused primarily on policies aimed at decreasing the prevalence of opioid use disorder. However, opioid treatment programs (OTPs), an evidence-based modality which can prevent and decrease opioid-related mortality and morbidity, remain highly complex with variation in treatment by state. A focus on evidence-based state-level regulation of OTPs may help improve the unmet need for treatment. This study characterized the variability in state laws that regulate OTPs and examines how this variability is associated with state characteristics. These data provides an opportunity for policymakers to consider regulations that increase access to care and retention in OTPs, which could improve population health. Materials and Methods: Utilizing legal mapping techniques, we identified all regulations governing OTPs in effect on January 1, 2017 and determined whether the most common regulations were consistent with best practices. We then examined how the number and type of regulations were associated with state characteristics. All legal mapping research was conducted between November 2017 and March 2019. Results: We identified 89 different regulations, the most common of which exists in fewer than half of all states; and most exist in less than 25% of states. Eighteen of the 30 most common regulations were inconsistent with best practice recommendations. Overall, variability in the number and type of OTP regulations was related to geographic location as opposed to state size or political leanings. Conclusions: Wide-ranging variability in the regulations of OTPs exists across the U.S. The majority of state OTP regulations are not congruent with best practices.
Clinical perspectives on hospitals’ role in the opioid epidemic
(BioMed Central, 2020-06-08) Mazurenko, Olena; Andraka-Christou, Barbara T.; Bair, Matthew J.; Kara, Areeba Y.; Harle, Christopher A.; Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health
Policymakers, legislators, and clinicians have raised concerns that hospital-based clinicians may be incentivized to inappropriately prescribe and administer opioids when addressing pain care needs of their patients, thus potentially contributing to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. Given the need to involve all healthcare settings, including hospitals, in joint efforts to curb the opioid epidemic, it is essential to understand if clinicians perceive hospitals as contributors to the problem. Therefore, we examined clinical perspectives on the role of hospitals in the opioid epidemic.
Comparative effectiveness of dual-action versus single-action antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people living with HIV/AIDS
(Elsevier, 2017-06) Mills, Jon C.; Harman, Jeffrey S.; Cook, Robert L.; Marlow, Nicole M.; Harle, Christopher A.; Duncan, R. Paul; Bengston, Angela M.; Pence, Brian W.; Department of Health Policy and Management, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health
Background Depression is the most common psychiatric comorbidity among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). Little is known about the comparative effectiveness between different types of antidepressants used to treat depression in this population. We compared the effectiveness of dual-action and single-action antidepressants in PLWHA for achieving remission from depression. Methods We used data from the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinic Systems to identify 1175 new user dual-action or single-action antidepressant treatment episodes occurring from 2005 to 2014 for PLWHA diagnosed with depression. The primary outcome was remission from depression defined as a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score <5. Mean difference in PHQ-9 depressive symptom severity was a secondary outcome. The main approach was an intent-to-treat (ITT) evaluation complemented with a per protocol (PP) sensitivity analysis. Generalized linear models were fitted to estimate treatment effects. Results In ITT analysis, 32% of the episodes ended in remission for both dual-action and single-action antidepressants. The odds ratio (OR) of remission was 1.02 (95%CI=0.63,1.67). In PP analysis, 40% of dual-action episodes ended in remission compared to 32% in single-action episodes. Dual-action episodes had 1.33 times the odds of remission (95%CI=0.55,3.21), however the result was not statistically significant. Non-significant differences were also observed for depressive symptom severity. Limitations Missing data was common but was addressed with inverse probability weights. Conclusions Results suggest that single-action and dual-action antidepressants are equally effective in PLWHA. Remission was uncommon highlighting the need to identify health service delivery strategies that aid HIV providers in achieving full remission of their patients’ depression.

Browsing by Author "Harle, Christopher A."

Results Per Page

Sort Options