TY - JOUR
T1 - Reach outcomes and costs of different physician referral strategies for a weight management program among rural primary care patients
T2 - Type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial
AU - Porter, Gwenndolyn
AU - Michaud, Tzeyu L.
AU - Schwab, Robert J.
AU - Hill, Jennie L.
AU - Estabrooks, Paul A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021. KJMIR Publications Inc.. All right reserved.
PY - 2021/10
Y1 - 2021/10
N2 - Background: Rural residents are at high risk for obesity; however, little resources exist to address this disproportional burden of disease. Primary care may provide an opportunity to connect primary care patients with overweight and obesity to effective weight management programming. Objective: The purpose of this study is to examine the utility of different physician referral and engagement processes for improving the reach of an evidence-based and technology-delivered weight management program with counseling support for rural primary care patients. Methods: A total of 5 rural primary care physicians were randomly assigned a sequence of four referral strategies: point-of-care (POC) referral with active telephone follow-up (ATF); POC referral, no ATF; a population health registry-derived letter referral with ATF; and letter referral, no ATF. For registry-derived referrals, physicians screened a list of patients with BMI ϵ25 and approved patients for participation to receive a personalized referral letter via mail. Results: Out of a potential 991 referrals, 573 (57.8%) referrals were made over 16 weeks, and 98 (9.9%) patients were enrolled in the program (58/98, 59.2% female). Differences based on letter (485/991, 48.9%) versus POC (506/991, 51.1%) referrals were identified for completion (100% vs 7%; P<.001) and for proportion screened (36% vs 12%; P<.001) but not for proportion enrolled (12% vs 8%; P=.10). Patients receiving ATF were more likely to be screened (47% vs 7%; P<.001) and enrolled (15% vs 7%; P<.001) than those not receiving ATF. On the basis of the number of referrals made in each condition, we found variations in the proportion and number of enrollees (POC with ATF: 27/190, 50%; POC no ATF: 14/316, 41%; letter ATF: 30/199; 15.1%; letter no ATF: 27/286, 9.4%). Across all conditions, participants were representative of the racial and ethnic characteristics of the region (60% female, P=.15; 94% White individuals, P=.60; 94% non-Hispanic, P=.19). Recruitment costs totaled US $6192, and the overall recruitment cost per enrolled participant was US $63. Cost per enrolled participant ranged from POC with ATF (US $47), registry-derived letter without ATF (US $52), and POC without ATF (US $56) to registry-derived letter with ATF (US $91). Conclusions: Letter referral with ATF appears to be the best option for enrolling a large number of patients in a digitally delivered weight management program; however, POC with ATF and letters without ATF yielded similar numbers at a lower cost. The best referral option is likely dependent on the best fit with clinical resources.
AB - Background: Rural residents are at high risk for obesity; however, little resources exist to address this disproportional burden of disease. Primary care may provide an opportunity to connect primary care patients with overweight and obesity to effective weight management programming. Objective: The purpose of this study is to examine the utility of different physician referral and engagement processes for improving the reach of an evidence-based and technology-delivered weight management program with counseling support for rural primary care patients. Methods: A total of 5 rural primary care physicians were randomly assigned a sequence of four referral strategies: point-of-care (POC) referral with active telephone follow-up (ATF); POC referral, no ATF; a population health registry-derived letter referral with ATF; and letter referral, no ATF. For registry-derived referrals, physicians screened a list of patients with BMI ϵ25 and approved patients for participation to receive a personalized referral letter via mail. Results: Out of a potential 991 referrals, 573 (57.8%) referrals were made over 16 weeks, and 98 (9.9%) patients were enrolled in the program (58/98, 59.2% female). Differences based on letter (485/991, 48.9%) versus POC (506/991, 51.1%) referrals were identified for completion (100% vs 7%; P<.001) and for proportion screened (36% vs 12%; P<.001) but not for proportion enrolled (12% vs 8%; P=.10). Patients receiving ATF were more likely to be screened (47% vs 7%; P<.001) and enrolled (15% vs 7%; P<.001) than those not receiving ATF. On the basis of the number of referrals made in each condition, we found variations in the proportion and number of enrollees (POC with ATF: 27/190, 50%; POC no ATF: 14/316, 41%; letter ATF: 30/199; 15.1%; letter no ATF: 27/286, 9.4%). Across all conditions, participants were representative of the racial and ethnic characteristics of the region (60% female, P=.15; 94% White individuals, P=.60; 94% non-Hispanic, P=.19). Recruitment costs totaled US $6192, and the overall recruitment cost per enrolled participant was US $63. Cost per enrolled participant ranged from POC with ATF (US $47), registry-derived letter without ATF (US $52), and POC without ATF (US $56) to registry-derived letter with ATF (US $91). Conclusions: Letter referral with ATF appears to be the best option for enrolling a large number of patients in a digitally delivered weight management program; however, POC with ATF and letters without ATF yielded similar numbers at a lower cost. The best referral option is likely dependent on the best fit with clinical resources.
KW - Digital health
KW - Health technology
KW - Hybrid effectiveness-implementation
KW - Mobile phone
KW - Obesity
KW - Physicians
KW - Primary care
KW - RE-AIM
KW - Rural
KW - Weight management
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85117794102&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85117794102&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2196/28622
DO - 10.2196/28622
M3 - Article
C2 - 34668873
AN - SCOPUS:85117794102
SN - 2561-326X
VL - 5
JO - JMIR Formative Research
JF - JMIR Formative Research
IS - 10
M1 - e28622
ER -