BACKGROUND: Population mail-out bowel cancer screening programs save lives through prevention and early detection; however, their effectiveness is constrained by low participation rates. Many non-participants are \"intenders\"; that is, they intend to screen but fail to do so, often forgetting or procrastinating. This study aimed to co-design interventions to increase screening participation among intenders in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.
METHODS: Three semi-structured interviews, and one online cross-sectional survey, were conducted between August 2021 and December 2022. Interviews with people who had completed and returned their latest screening kit (\"completers\") were first conducted to identify the planning strategies they had used. Using survey data, logistic regressions were conducted to analyse strategies predictive of participants having returned their latest bowel cancer screening kit. Then, intenders were interviewed to explore their opinions of these strategies and worked with researchers to adapt these strategies into prototype interventions to facilitate screening participation. All interviews were analysed using the framework approach of codebook thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Interview participants who returned their kit shared their effective planning strategies, such as putting the kit in a visible place or by the toilet, planning a time at home to complete the kit, and using reminders. Survey participants who reported using such strategies were more likely to have completed their screening kit compared to those who did not. Prototype interventions developed and endorsed by intenders included providing a prompt to place the kit or a sticker near the toilet as a reminder, a deadline for kit return, the option to sign up for reminders, and a bag to store the sample in the fridge.
CONCLUSIONS: These novel, consumer-led interventions that are built upon the needs and experience of screening invitees provide potential solutions to improve participation in population bowel cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are a serious public health issue in many countries. Online postal self-sampling (OPSS) is increasingly used to test for STIs, a trend accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. There remains limited understanding of how service users experience OPSS and what leads them to access it over clinic-based services, or vice versa. This research seeks to address these gaps, by undertaking a large qualitative study which sits within the ASSIST study, a mixed-methods, realist evaluation of OPSS.
METHODS: Participants were recruited via clinic-based and online sexual health services in three case study areas in England. Purposive sampling was used to over-represent populations disproportionately affected by poor sexual health: young people; people of colour; men who have sex with men; and trans and non-binary people. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using Levesque\'s conceptual framework of access to healthcare.
RESULTS: We interviewed 100 service users. Participants typically became aware of OPSS from sexual health services, the internet or word of mouth. Acceptability of OPSS was facilitated by the perceived privacy it offered over clinic-based services, which some participants found embarrassing to access. OPSS also enabled participants to overcome barriers to reaching clinic-based services, such as a lack of appointment availability, although difficulty obtaining OPSS kits in some areas undermined this. As all services in our case study areas were free to use, affordability did not significantly shape access, although OPSS enabled some participants to avoid costs associated with travelling to clinic-based services. Participants were usually able to engage with OPSS, finding it easy to use and reliable, although blood self-sampling was challenging for most. Participants valued the support offered by clinic-based services beyond STI testing, including the opportunity to access contraception or ask staff questions, and felt this was more appropriate when they had specific concerns about their sexual health, such as STI symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings constitute one of the largest qualitative studies to have explored OPSS and offer valuable insights to providers. OPSS shapes access to STI testing in a number of ways, including facilitating access in many circumstances, but users also want to retain access to clinic-based services, particularly for when they believe they need support beyond STI testing.

BACKGROUND: Low response rates (RRs) can affect hospitals\' data collection costs for patient experience surveys and value-based purchasing eligibility. Most hospitals use single-mode approaches, even though sequential mixed mode (MM) yields higher RRs and perhaps better patient representativeness. Some hospitals may be reluctant to incur MM\'s potential additional cost and complexity without knowing how much RRs would increase.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the differences in RR and patient representation between MM and single-mode approaches and to identify hospital characteristics associated with the largest RR differences from MM of single-mode protocols (mail-only, phone-only).
METHODS: Patients were randomized within hospitals to one of 3 modes (mail-only, phone-only, MM).
METHODS: A total of 17,415 patients from the 51 nationally representative US hospitals participating in a randomized HCAHPS mode experiment.
RESULTS: Mail-only RRs were lowest for ages 18-24 (7%) and highest for ages 65+ (31%-35%). Phone-only RRs were 24% for ages 18-24, increasing to 37%-40% by ages 55+. MM RRs were 28% for ages 18-24, increasing to 50%-60% by ages 65-84. Lower hospital-level mail-only RRs strongly predicted greater gains from MM. For example, a hospital with a 15% mail-only RR has a predicted MM RR >40% (with >25% occurring in telephone follow-up).
CONCLUSIONS: MM increased representation of hard-to-reach (especially young adult) patients and hospital RRs in all mode experiment hospitals, especially in hospitals with low mail-only RRs.

According to this study.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment for clinical trials and large-scale studies is challenging, especially for patients with complex conditions like chronic pain. Email recruitment has the potential to increase efficiency, to reduce costs, and to improve access for underrepresented patient populations. The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness, efficiency, and equitability of email versus postal mail recruitment for the Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP) study, a three-site clinical trial of mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain.
METHODS: Patients with chronic pain diagnoses were recruited from three United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities using the VA electronic health record (EHR). Recruitment materials were sent using either postal mail (n = 7986) or email (n = 19,333). Patients in the email recruitment group were also mailed introductory postcards before any emails. Mailing addresses and email addresses were obtained from the EHR. Effectiveness was measured by the response rate of patients who logged into the secure LAMP study website. Efficiency was measured by the number of days from when the recruitment materials were sent to when patients logged into the LAMP portal as well as the estimated costs of each recruitment approach. To assess equitability, we examined whether email recruitment was less effective for underrepresented populations, based on demographic information from the EHR.
RESULTS: Effectiveness-unadjusted response rates were greater for email versus postal-mail recruitment (18.9% versus 6.3%), and adjusted response rates were over three times greater for email recruitment (RR = 3.5, 95% CI 3.1-3.8) based on a multivariable analysis controlling for age, gender, race, ethnicity, rurality, and site. Efficiency-email recruitment had a significantly lower mean response time (1 day versus 8 days) and a lower cost. Equity-email recruitment led to higher response rates for all subpopulations, including older, non-White, Hispanic, rural, and female Veterans.
CONCLUSIONS: Email recruitment is an effective, efficient, and equitable way to recruit VA patients to large-scale, chronic pain clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT04526158. Patient enrollment began on December 4, 2020.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative study aims to assess perspectives of clinicians and clinic staff on mail-order pharmacy dispensing for medication abortion.
METHODS: Participants included clinicians and staff involved in implementing a mail-order dispensing model for medication abortion at eleven clinics in seven states as part of a prospective cohort study, which began in January 2020 (before the FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone). From June 2021 to July 2022, we invited participants at the participating clinics, including six primary care and five abortion clinics, to complete a semi-structured video interview about their experiences. We then conducted qualitative thematic analysis of interview data, summarizing themes related to perceived benefits and concerns about the mail-order model, perceived patient interest, and potential barriers to larger-scale implementation.
RESULTS: We conducted 24 interviews in total with clinicians (13 physicians and one nurse practitioner) and clinic staff (n = 10). Participants highlighted perceived benefits of the mail-order model, including its potential to expand abortion services into primary care, increase patient autonomy and privacy, and to normalize abortion services. They also highlighted key logistical, clinical, and feasibility concerns about the mail-order model, and specific challenges related to integrating abortion into primary care.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and clinic staff working in primary care and abortion clinics were optimistic that mail-order dispensing of medication abortion can improve the ability of some providers to provide abortion and enable more patients to access services. The feasibility of mail-order pharmacy dispensing of medication abortion following the Supreme Court Dobbs decision is to be determined.
BACKGROUND: Registry: Clinicaltrials.gov.
BACKGROUND: NCT03913104. Date of registration: first submitted on April 3, 2019 and first posted on April 12, 2019.

People who use drugs (PWUD) are at increased risk for HIV infection. HIV self-testing (HIVST) is a promising method for identifying new infections, but optimal distribution strategies remain understudied.
To characterize PWUD by HIVST distribution strategy (peers vs. mail), we examined data from July 2022 to June 2023 collected from a real-world HIVST program led by the non-profit, Florida Harm Reduction Collective. We used descriptive statistics and Poisson regressions with robust error variance to compare those who received HIVST through peers or via mail by socio-demographics, Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) county designation, and HIV testing experience.
Among 728 participants, 78% received HIVST from peers, 47% identified as cisgender female, 48% as heterosexual, and 45% as non-White; 66% resided in an EHE county, and 55% had no HIV testing experience. Compared to those who received an HIV self-test from peers, those who received tests via mail were less likely to be cisgender male (vs. cisgender female; prevalence ratio [PR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43, 0.81), non-Hispanic Black (vs. non-Hispanic White; PR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.89) or from EHE counties (vs. non-EHE counties; PR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.44). Those who received tests via mail were also more likely to identify their sexual orientation as \"Other/Undisclosed\" (vs. straight/heterosexual; PR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.51, 2.66).
Our findings support the role of community-based HIVST distribution strategies in increasing HIV testing coverage among PWUD. Additional research could help inform the equitable reach of HIVST.

暂无摘要。

To evaluate whether providing family physicians with feedback on their antibiotic prescribing compared with that of their peers reduces antibiotic prescriptions. To also identify effects on antibiotic prescribing from case-mix adjusted feedback reports and messages emphasising antibiotic associated harms.
Pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial.
Primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All primary care physicians were randomly assigned a group if they were eligible and actively prescribing antibiotics to patients 65 years or older. Physicians were excluded if had already volunteered to receive antibiotic prescribing feedback from another agency, or had opted out of the trial.
A letter was mailed in January 2022 to physicians with peer comparison antibiotic prescribing feedback compared with the control group who did not receive a letter (4:1 allocation). The intervention group was further randomised in a 2x2 factorial trial to evaluate case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparators, and emphasis, or not, on harms of antibiotics.
Antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits for patients 65 years or older six months after intervention. Analysis was in the modified intention-to-treat population using Poisson regression.
5046 physicians were included and analysed: 1005 in control group and 4041 in intervention group (1016 case-mix adjusted data and harms messaging, 1006 with case-mix adjusted data and no harms messaging, 1006 unadjusted data and harms messaging, and 1013 unadjusted data and no harms messaging). At six months, mean antibiotic prescribing rate was 59.4 (standard deviation 42.0) in the control group and 56.0 (39.2) in the intervention group (relative rate 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.96). Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing (0.89 (0.86 to 0.92)), prolonged duration prescriptions defined as more than seven days (0.85 (0.83 to 0.87)), and broad spectrum prescribing (0.94 (0.92 to 0.95)) were also significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group. Results were consistent at 12 months post intervention. No significant effect was seen for including emphasis on harms messaging. A small increase in antibiotic prescribing with case-mix adjusted reports was noted (1.01 (1.00 to 1.03)).
Peer comparison audit and feedback letters significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing with no benefit of case-mix adjustment or harms messaging. Antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback is a scalable and effective intervention and should be a routine quality improvement initiative in primary care.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04594200.

BACKGROUND: Cataract waiting lists are growing globally. Pragmatic, cost-effective methods are required to prioritise the most urgent cases. Here we investigate the feasibility of using a third-party pen-and-paper contrast sensitivity, CS, test (SpotChecksTM), delivered by mail, and performed by patients at home unsupervised, to flag eyes requiring surgery.
METHODS: Pen-and-paper CS tests were mailed to 233 people waiting for a cataract assessment, along with a prepaid return envelope (cross-sectional study). Response rates were tabulated (stratified by age, sex and socioeconomic status), and test scores analysed to see how well the home tests predicted which eyes were listed subsequently for surgery. A subset of patients (N = 39) also underwent in-person follow-up testing, to confirm the accuracy of the home data.
RESULTS: Forty-six percent of patients responded (216 eyes). No gross differences were observed between respondents and non-respondents, either in terms of age, sex, socioeconomic status, or geographic location (all P > 0.05). The home-test CS scores predicted which eyes were subsequently listed for surgery, with an AUROC {±CI95%} of 0.69 {0.61-0.76}. Predictive performance was further-improved when machine learning was used to combine CS scores with letter acuity, extracted from patients\' medical records (AUROC {±CI95%} = 0.77 {0.70-0.83}). Among 39 patients who underwent follow-up testing, home CS scores were correlated with various measures made in clinic: biometry signal-to-noise (P = 0.032), LogMAR acuity, Pelli-Robson CS and SpotChecks CS (all P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Mailing patients pen-and-paper CS tests may be a feasible, \'low-tech\' way of prioritising patients on cataract waiting lists.