Rutten, Lila J. Finney

Background Prior reports indicate that living in a rural area may be associated with worse health outcomes. However, data on rurality and heart failure (HF) outcomes are scarce. Methods and Results Residents from 6 southeastern Minnesota counties with a first‐ever code for HF ( International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ ICD‐9 ], code 428, and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision [ ICD‐10 ] code I50) between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016, were identified. Resident address was classified according to the rural‐urban commuting area codes. Rurality was defined as living in a nonmetropolitan area. Cox regression was used to analyze the association between living in a rural versus urban area and death; Andersen‐Gill models were used for hospitalization and emergency department visits. Among 6003 patients with HF (mean age 74 years, 48% women), 43% lived in a rural area. Rural patients were older and had a lower educational attainment and less comorbidity compared with patients living in urban areas ( P <0.001). After a mean (SD) follow‐up of 2.8 (1.7) years, 2440 deaths, 20 506 emergency department visits, and 11 311 hospitalizations occurred. After adjustment, rurality was independently associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09–1.29) and a reduced risk of emergency department visits (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82–0.97) and hospitalizations (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73–0.84). Conclusions Among patients with HF, living in a rural area is associated with an increased risk of death and fewer emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Further study to identify and address the mechanisms through which rural residence influences mortality and healthcare utilization in HF is needed in order to reduce disparities in rural health.

27 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most deadly and fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer in the United States. Early detection can improve CRC outcomes, but overall screening rates (62%) remain below the 80% goal set by the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Multiple options are endorsed for average-risk CRC screening, including the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, which includes patient and provider navigation support. Cross-sectional adherence with the mt-sDNA test was previously reported in a large Medicare population (71%). In the current study we investigated cross-sectional adherence with the mt-sDNA test in a broader, national sample of insured patients. Methods: Aggregate data from Exact Sciences Laboratories LLC (ESL; Madison, WI) were retrospectively analyzed in compliance with HIPAA requirements. Study participants included individuals ages 50 years and older who were covered by commercial insurance or Medicare, had a valid mt-sDNA test order placed between January 1–December 31, 2018, and received a test kit shipped from ESL. Cross-sectional adherence, defined as successful completion and return of the test kit within 365 days of the shipment date, was assessed overall and by patient- and provider-level factors. Results: In total, 1,420,460 participants met the study criteria (61.2% women; mean age 65.7 years). Overall cross-sectional adherence was 66.8%. Adherence was 72.1% in participants with Traditional Medicare, 69.1% in participants with Medicare Advantage, and 61.9% in participants with commercial insurance (p<0.001). Adherence increased by participant age (p<0.001): 60.8% for ages 50-64, 71.3% for ages 65-75, and 74.7% for ages 76+ years. For Traditional Medicare patients, ages 65-75, adherence was 73.6%. Participants with mt-sDNA tests ordered placed by gastroenterologists had a higher adherence rate (78.3%) than those with orders placed by primary care clinicians (67.2%) (p<0.001). Adherence rates were highest among patients with ordering providers in the Pacific region (71.4%) and West North Central region (70.1%), and lowest in the Mid-Atlantic region (65.7%), New England (65.2%), West South Central region (64.6%), and Puerto Rico and US territories (60.7%). Conclusions: Novel data from this large, national sample of insured patients demonstrate high cross-sectional adherence with the mt-sDNA test (66.8%), supporting the substantial contribution this guideline-endorsed option plays in average-risk CRC screening. At the patient-level, adherence increased with patient age, and was highest in those covered by Traditional Medicare. Provider-level stratification showed the highest adherence for mt-sDNA tests ordered by gastroenterologists. This study adds to data regarding the impact of accompanying navigation support and at-home convenience of mt-sDNA on screening completion rates.

We conducted a survey of primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists (n = 938) between 11/06/19–12/06/19 to assess knowledge and attitudes regarding colorectal cancer screening. We assessed clinicians’ attitudes toward lowering the colorectal cancer screening initiation age to 45 years, a topic of current debate. We also evaluated provider and practice characteristics associated with agreement. Only 38.1% of primary care clinicians endorsed colorectal cancer screening initiation at age 45 years, compared to 75.5% of gastroenterologists (p < .0001). Gastroenterologists were over 5 times more likely than primary care clinicians to endorse lowering the screening initiation age (OR = 5.30, 3.54-7.93). Other factors found to be independently associated with agreement with colorectal cancer screening initiation at age 45 years included seeing more than 25 patients per day (vs. fewer) and suburban (vs. urban) location. Results emphasize the need for collaboration between primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists to ensure that patients receive consistent messaging and evidence-based care.

Abstract In 2016, we established the year-long Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) Mid-Career Leadership Institute. Individuals are often selected for leadership positions without intentional training in needed leadership skills, including strategic planning, building collaborative teams, goal setting, negotiation, and communication. The purpose of the Leadership Institute is to: (a) provide opportunities for mid-career professionals to build and sustain their leadership capacity; (b) create cohorts of connected fellows in behavioral medicine fields, disciplines, and institutions, who can support one another throughout their professional careers; and (c) enhance specific skills needed to navigate the challenges of mid-career. Over the first 4 years of the Institute, 139 fellows have participated, representing 35 states. Most of the fellows hold PhDs (93%) as a terminal degree. This special issue is dedicated to the leadership experiences of fellows, faculty, senior SBM mentors, peer mentors, and executive coaches.

Abstract In 2015, the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) created the Mid-Career Leadership Institute. The initial model that motivated the creation of the institute came from my participation in the Hedwig van Ameringen Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM) program, specifically designed to enhance the leadership skills of senior female faculty in the health sciences. My participation in ELAM was transformative. It led me to run for president of SBM in 2014, to consider how behavioral scientists could similarly benefit from mid-career leadership training, and ultimately to work with the SBM Executive Director, the SBM Leadership Institute Steering Committee, and leadership training professionals to launch the Leadership Institute in 2016. The overarching goal of the SBM Leadership Institute is to train mid-career behavioral scientists engaged in academic and health care settings to develop essential skills needed to navigate the unique challenges of mid-career. Central to this goal is a focus on integrating diversity, equity, and inclusion into their emerging leadership roles through participation in training exercises, lectures, and dynamic group discussions. To optimize the Leadership Institute experience, opportunities were developed, including mentoring from SBM seasoned members, peer mentoring through the creation of “learning communities,” career coaching, and additional networking opportunities. The purpose of this brief commentary is to summarize lessons learned by highlighting program evaluation, describing key changes over the initial 4 years, and sharing future plans for leadership training.