Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29743224›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM

Implementation of Health Insurance Support Tools in Community Health Centers.

Nathalie Huguet, Brigit Hatch, Aleksandra Sumic, Carrie Tillotson, Elizabeth Hicks, Joan Nelson, Jennifer E DeVoe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nathalie HuguetFrom Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (NH, BH, EH, JED); OCHIN, Inc, Portland (BH, AS, CT, JN, JED).
Brigit HatchFrom Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (NH, BH, EH, JED); OCHIN, Inc, Portland (BH, AS, CT, JN, JED). adamusb@ohsu.edu.
Aleksandra SumicFrom Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (NH, BH, EH, JED); OCHIN, Inc, Portland (BH, AS, CT, JN, JED).
Carrie TillotsonFrom Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (NH, BH, EH, JED); OCHIN, Inc, Portland (BH, AS, CT, JN, JED).
Elizabeth HicksFrom Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (NH, BH, EH, JED); OCHIN, Inc, Portland (BH, AS, CT, JN, JED).
Joan NelsonFrom Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (NH, BH, EH, JED); OCHIN, Inc, Portland (BH, AS, CT, JN, JED).
Jennifer E DeVoeFrom Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (NH, BH, EH, JED); OCHIN, Inc, Portland (BH, AS, CT, JN, JED).

Funding

Community-based HIT Tools for Cancer Screening and Health Insurance PromotionR01CA181452 · NCI · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI DEVOE, JENNIFER E · 2014 to 2018
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA181452
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth information technology (HIT) provides new opportunities for primary care clinics to support patients with health insurance enrollment and maintenance. We present strategies, early findings, and clinic reflections on the development and implementation of HIT tools designed to streamline and improve health insurance tracking at community health centers.

methodsWe are conducting a hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial to assess novel health insurance enrollment and support tools in primary care clinics. Twenty-three clinics in 7 health centers from the OCHIN practice-based research network are participating in the implementation component of the trial. Participating health centers were randomized to 1 of 2 levels of implementation support, including arm 1 (n = 4 health centers, 11 clinic sites) that received HIT tools and educational materials and arm 2 (n = 3 health centers, 12 clinic sites) that received HIT tools, educational materials, and individualized implementation support with a practice coach. We used mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) to assess tool use rates and facilitators and barriers to implementation in the first 6 months.

resultsClinics reported favorable attitudes toward the HIT tools, which replace less efficient and more cumbersome processes, and reflect on the importance of clinic engagement in tool development and refinement. Five of 7 health centers are now regularly using the tools and are actively working to increase tool use. Six months after formal implementation, arm 2 clinics demonstrated higher rates of tool use, compared with arm 1. DISCUSSION: These results highlight the value of early clinic input in tool development, the potential benefit of practice coaching during HIT tool development and implementation, and a novel method for coupling a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design with principles of improvement science in primary care research.

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceCommunity Health CentersInsurance, HealthMedical InformaticsPatient Protection and Affordable Care ActPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchUnited StatesCommunity Health CentersHealth InsuranceImplementation ScienceMedical InformaticsMentoringPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID29743224
PMCPMC6201700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.