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.

BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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).
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Two chemists employed a three-device rapid screening \"toolkit\" consisting of a handheld Raman spectrometer, transportable mass spectrometer, and portable Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectrometer at an international mail facility (IMF) satellite laboratory to examine unknown (unlabeled/mislabeled) products for the presence of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). Phase I of this project previously demonstrated that this toolkit was the most effective collection of instruments for identifying APIs in product types collected at IMFs during a nationwide mail blitz and Phase II of this project previously demonstrated that results generated using the toolkit during a satellite laboratory pilot program were as reliable as those generated by a full-service library when two or more of these instruments identify an API. This study (Phase III) described the results of the satellite laboratory toolkit during production mode and encompassed the period ranging from June 2021 through December 2022. During this study, a total of 858 products were examined on-site at the IMF. The satellite laboratory yielded conclusive results for 726 (84.6%) products, which were used to support regulatory action, and identified 132 (15.4%) products that required additional full-service laboratory analyses due to inconclusive results. The satellite and full-service laboratory verified/confirmed at least one API/related substance in 617 (71.9%) products. A total of 709 APIs/related substances were found in the 617 products, and 202 of these 709 compounds were unique/different. Overall, during Phases I through III of this program, 350 different substances have been identified in products collected at IMFs.

UNASSIGNED: Before 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration required mifepristone to be dispensed in person, limiting access to medication abortion.
UNASSIGNED: To estimate the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of dispensing mifepristone for medication abortion using a mail-order pharmacy.
UNASSIGNED: This prospective cohort study was conducted from January 2020 to May 2022 and included 11 clinics in 7 states (5 abortion clinics and 6 primary care sites, 4 of which were new to abortion provision). Eligible participants were seeking medication abortion at 63 or fewer days\' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, were age 15 years or older, and were willing to take misoprostol buccally. After assessing eligibility for medication abortion through an in-person screening, mifepristone and misoprostol were prescribed using a mail-order pharmacy. Patients had standard follow-up care with the clinic. Clinical information was collected from medical records. Consenting participants completed online surveys about their experiences 3 and 14 days after enrolling. A total of 540 participants were enrolled; 10 withdrew or did not take medication. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to December 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Mifepristone, 200 mg, and misoprostol, 800 µg, prescribed to a mail-order pharmacy and mailed to participants instead of dispensed in person.
UNASSIGNED: Proportion of patients with a complete abortion with medications only, reporting satisfaction with the medication abortion, and reporting timely delivery of medications.
UNASSIGNED: Clinical outcome information was obtained and analyzed for 510 abortions (96.2%) among 506 participants (median [IQR] age, 27 [23-31] years; 506 [100%] female; 194 [38.3%] Black, 88 [17.4%] Hispanic, 141 [27.9%] White, and 45 [8.9%] multiracial/other individuals). Of these, 436 participants (85.5%; 95% CI, 82.2%-88.4%) received medications within 3 days. Complete abortion occurred after medication use in 499 cases (97.8%; 95% CI, 96.2%-98.9%). There were 24 adverse events (4.7%) for which care was sought for medication abortion symptoms; 3 patients (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%) experienced serious adverse events requiring hospitalization (1 with blood transfusion); however, no adverse events were associated with mail-order dispensing. Of 477 participants, 431 (90.4%; 95% CI, 87.3%-92.9%) indicated that they would use mail-order dispensing again for abortion care, and 435 participants (91.2%; 95% CI, 88.3%-93.6%) reported satisfaction with the medication abortion. Findings were similar to those of other published studies of medication abortion with in-person dispensing.
UNASSIGNED: The findings of this cohort study indicate that mail-order pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion was effective, acceptable to patients, and feasible, with a low prevalence of serious adverse events. This care model should be expanded to improve access to medication abortion services.

This Viewpoint discusses the controversy over mail-order mifepristone prescribed by primary care clinicians for first-trimester abortion as it relates to the history of initial approval, the Supreme Court case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v US Food and Drug Administration, and available clinical research.