Boehmer, Kasey R.

Abstract Background Women remain underrepresented in alcohol use disorder (AUD) research despite sex- and gender-specific health disparities and barriers to treatment. Community-engaged approaches can identify opportunities for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (CER) that reflect women’s lived experiences. The WomenWise project used community engaged, bi-directional, partnered learning sessions (PLS) to qualitatively explore women’s perspectives on alcohol misuse, treatment barriers, and priorities for future CER. Methods In 2025, we conducted five 90-minute PLSs via Zoom with attendees who were aged ≥ 18 years, self-identified as a woman, reported lived experience of alcohol misuse, were a family member/caregiver of a woman with AUD, and were affiliated with a WomenWise partner organization or a healthcare provider treating AUD. Moderated PLSs focused on bi-directional knowledge exchange and sharing of experiences. Audio transcripts, Zoom chat content, and one asynchronous online discussion thread were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Suggested future CER topics generated during sessions were presented to the WomenWise community advisory board (CAB), which ranked priority topics by vote. Results In total, 51 attendees shared their experiences. The major themes centered on a sense of shame and stigma unique to women, with many attendees mentioning gendered norms, “mom culture,” “quiet drinking,” and caregiver role strain. Barriers to treatment included structural challenges, poor healthcare provider communication, the need for trauma-informed care, and concerns about privacy particularly in rural areas. Six future CER topics emerged, of which the CAB selected three priorities: (1) harm reduction/moderation versus abstinence-only approaches, (2) trauma-focused care versus standard AUD treatment, and (3) care access and engagement strategies. Conclusions These bidirectional, co-learning sessions identified patient-centered, community-informed priorities for future AUD research in women. The findings highlight the importance of addressing stigma, trauma, structural barriers, and provider communication when designing future women-centered treatment studies and care models.

Abstract Background Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death, and the most common cancer diagnosed globally. Approximately 85% of lung cancer cases are non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). After initial surgical treatment, adjuvant therapy with conventional or targeted chemotherapy can help optimize survival. These treatments, however, must be tailored to each patients’ problematic situation, including cancer characteristics and goals of care. Shared decision making (SDM) is a method of care by which patients and clinicians work together to form plans of care that advance the patient’s problematic human situation. This method often requires evaluating alternative options, “trying them on” for fit given their practical demands and favorable and unfavorable effects. Tools used within the encounter can facilitate and support SDM conversations, yet none exist for considering care post-surgical treatment of NSCLC. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel encounter tool for SDM, NSCLC Choice, compared to usual care at improving SDM and reducing decisional conflict for patients with resected early-stage NSCLC considering adjuvant treatment. Methods We will conduct a parallel, patient-level randomized trial comparing NSCLC Choice with usual care. Patients will be eligible if they are adults with stage >1B NSCLC eligible for postsurgical adjuvant chemotherapy. Allocation will be central and post-consent. Patients will be blinded to our trial hypothesis, instead of being invited to evaluate an educational intervention. Our primary outcome is SDM quality, which we will assess using participant reported measures (patient SDM-Q-9) obtained immediately post-encounter and an observer measure estimated from video recording of trial encounters in both arms (OPTION12). With resources to conduct a 100-patient trial, we will have >80% power to detect a 12-point medium difference between arms in patient-reported SDM-Q-9. We will also assess the secondary outcomes of knowledge about the disease and the features of treatment options using an ad hoc questionnaire, decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale, and patient and clinician satisfaction using the metrics used in prior SDM intervention trials. We will also determine encounter length using video recordings. Discussion In testing NSCLC Choice, we seek to determine the extent to which this intervention can improve care for patients with NSCLC considering adjuvant therapy after surgery. In addition, we expect to determine whether this intervention is satisfactory to participants and feasible in practice. If successful, this study will result in an evidence-based tool for promoting patient-centered conversations around NSCLC and cancer care those fits. Trial Registration: NCT06122064 ClinicalTrials.gov

Abstract Alcohol misuse among women has risen compared to men. Women experience barriers to engaging in patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (CER) that, in turn, limits the evidence base for addressing alcohol misuse in this population. In this manuscript, we describe WomenWise, a community-partnered project and outline how we co-developed community focused CER training curriculum and collaboratively planned future partnered learning sessions (PLSs) with Community Advisory Board (CAB) feedback. Through this approach we aim to empower women to contribute to future patient-centered CER and enhance the stakeholder capacity for future patient-centered research.

Abstract Aims Congenital heart disease (CHD) presents lifelong challenges that require effective self-management skills, particularly for youth transitioning to adulthood. This systematic review evaluates the impact of self-management interventions, grounded in self-efficacy, on both health and patient-reported outcomes in youths with CHD. Methods and results Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and registered the protocol in PROSPERO. We included interventional studies targeting youth aged 15–24 years with CHD that employed self-management interventions based on self-efficacy. Comprehensive searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from January 1973 to March 2024, with an update to include studies published until December 2024. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, resolving disagreements by consensus. Data extraction followed Template for Intervention Description and Replication guidelines, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions and Risk of Bias 2 tools. Out of 54 potential studies, 4 met the eligibility criteria, representing 150 patients aged 16–19 years. The studies reported improvements in condition-related knowledge, self-management skills, and social support, although data on clinical health outcomes were limited. A narrative synthesis of the selected interventions was performed. Conclusion Self-management interventions using self-efficacy frameworks show promise for improving patient-reported outcomes among youth with CHD. However, there is a scarcity of data on their impact on health outcomes. Further research is needed to develop and implement interventions tailored to this population, potentially improving both self-management and clinical outcomes. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42024499008

Key Points Patient-centered care in an interdisciplinary CKD clinic addresses complex needs and supports comprehensive CKD management. Implementation of an interdisciplinary CKD clinic reduced hospital admissions by 26%, emergency department visits by 30%, and increased nephrology consultations. Comprehensive care models with integrated registries enhance tailored interventions, leading to improved CKD management outcomes. Background CKD is a significant public health issue globally. Its progressive nature calls for innovative care models to mitigate disease progression and enhance patient outcomes. An interdisciplinary clinic model may offer comprehensive care tailored to the needs of patients with CKD. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an interdisciplinary CKD clinic on disease progression, health care utilization, and social determinants of health (SDOH). Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. The study included 534 patients enrolled in the CKD clinic between March 5, 2021, and May 31, 2022, excluding those who opted out of research. The intervention involved a clinical registry and an interdisciplinary team delivering evidence-based care pathways, patient education, shared decision making, and care coordination. The primary outcomes assessed were CKD progression and health care utilization, while secondary outcomes examined the effect of SDOH. Results At entry, the median age was 73 (interquartile range, 64–79) years, with 60% at stage 4 or lower. Clinic implementation correlated with a 26% decrease in hospital admissions (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P = 0.004) and a 30% reduction in emergency visits (IRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.87; P = 0.001). Nephrology consultations increased by 46% (IRR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.34 to 1.60; P < 0.001), reflecting enhanced specialized care. Lower exercise frequency and unemployment were linked to increased CKD progression and health care usage. Conclusions An interdisciplinary CKD clinic supported by a registry can potentially reduce health care utilization among patients with CKD, with SDOH playing a critical role in disease management.

This article reports on a study to assess the feasibility of research procedures and acceptability of QBSAFE, a set of conversation cards focused on quality of life, treatment burden, safety, and avoidance of future events in people with type 2 diabetes. The study enrolled 84 patients and 7 clinicians. Of the 58 patients who completed questionnaires, 64% agreed that the QBSAFE agenda-setting kit (ASK) helped them discuss their situation, 78% agreed that others could benefit from it, and 38% said they would use it again. Most clinicians felt confident responding to issues (in 89% of encounters) and said they would use the kit again (78%) and recommend it to colleagues (82%). The QBSAFE ASK can be feasibly implemented and holds promise in facilitating discussion and collaborative problem-solving.

Introduction Advancements in vascularized composite allotransplantation have made hand transplants possible for persons living with upper limb loss. Hand transplantation is not a life-saving procedure, but rather a quality-of-life enhancing procedure; hence the risk of morbidity and mortality must be weighed against improvements in function and appearance. This study explored the decision-making process of patients evaluated for hand transplantation. Methods/Approach A qualitative case series study using retrospective chart data of evaluations was conducted between January 1, 2011 and February 28, 2020. Notes were extracted and read by three reviewers. Each case was summarized noting similarities and differences. Findings Nine patients underwent evaluation. Eight were no longer under evaluation and did not receive transplant; one was still undergoing evaluation. Patient motivations for evaluation were dissatisfaction with prostheses or self-image, chronic pain, performing activities of daily living, occupation, burden placed on caregivers, and concerns about overuse of non-affected limbs. Patients chose not to pursue transplantation due to rehabilitation time, immunosuppression, alternative treatments, and social and financial challenges. The clinical team discontinued evaluations due to unmet evaluation requirements, medical contraindications, or treatment alternatives. Different modes of shared decision-making were present depending on the party most heavily featured in the charts as driving decisions. Discussion This was an examination of shared decision-making with hand transplant candidates who did not proceed to transplant. Reasons for choosing alternative strategies for management were multifactorial. Lessons learned regarding patient motivations and shared decision-making can inform future interventions to better support patients.

AbstractDespite the known benefits of supportive work environments for promoting patient quality and safety and healthcare worker retention, there is no clear mandate for improving work environments within Learning Health Systems (LHS) nor an LHS wellness competency. Striking rises in burnout levels among healthcare workers provide urgency for this topic.MethodsWe brought three experts on moral injury, burnout prevention, and ethics to a recurring, interactive LHS training program “Design Shop” session, harnessing scholars’ ideas prior to the meeting. Generally following SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines, we evaluated the prework and discussion via informal content analysis to develop a set of pathways for developing moral injury and burnout prevention programs. Along these lines, we developed a new competency for moral injury and burnout prevention within LHS training programs.ResultsIn preparation for the session, scholars differentiated moral injury from burnout, highlighted the profound impact of COVID‐19 on moral injury, and proposed testable interventions to reduce injury. Scholar and expert input was then merged into developing the new competency in moral injury and burnout prevention. In particular, the competency focuses on preparing scholars to (1) demonstrate knowledge of moral injury and burnout, (2) measure burnout, moral injury, and their remediable predictors, (3) use methods for improving burnout, (4) structure training programs with supportive work environments, and (5) embed burnout and moral injury prevention into LHS structures.ConclusionsBurnout and moral injury prevention have been largely omitted in LHS training. A competency related to burnout and moral injury reduction can potentially bring sustainable work lives for scholars and their colleagues, better incorporation of their science into clinical practice, and better outcomes for patients.