Publications

Tobacco use is increasingly concentrated within marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ young adults. Developing tailored interventions to reduce tobacco-related health disparities requires understanding the mechanisms linking individual and contextual factors associated with tobacco use to behavior. This paper presents an in-depth exploration of three cases from a novel mixed method study designed to identify the situational factors and place-based practices of substance use among high-risk individuals. We combined geographically explicit ecological momentary assessment (GEMA) with an adapted travel diary-interview method. Participants (young adult bisexual smokers, ages 18-26) reported on non-smoking and smoking situations for 30 days with a smartphone app. GEMA surveys captured internal and external situational factors (e.g., craving intensity, location type, seeing others smoking). Continuous locational data was collected via smartphone GPS. Subsequently, participants completed in-depth interviews reviewing maps of their own GEMA data. GEMA data and transcripts were analyzed separately and integrated at the case level in a matrix. Using GEMA maps to guide the interview grounded discussion in participants' everyday smoking situations and routines. Interviews clarified participant interpretation of GEMA measures and revealed experiences and meanings of smoking locations and practices. The GEMA method identified the most frequent smoking locations/times for each participant (e.g., afternoons at university). Interviews provided description of associated situational factors and perceptions of smoking contexts (e.g., peer rejection of bisexual identity) and the roles of smoking therein (e.g., physically escape uncomfortable environments). In conclusion, this mixed method contributes to advancing qualitative GIS and other hypothesis-generating approaches working to reveal the richness of individuals' experiences of the everyday contexts of health behavior, while also providing reliable measures of situational predictors of behaviors of interest, such as substance use. Limitations of and future directions for the method are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Although traditional patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are effective for patients with complex needs, it is unclear whether homeless-tailored PCMHs work better for homeless veterans. We examined the impact of enrollment in a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) homeless-tailored PCMH on health services use, cost, and satisfaction compared with enrollment in a traditional, nontailored PCMH.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, quasi-experimental, single-blinded study at 2 VHA medical centers to assess health services use, cost, and satisfaction during 12 months among 2 groups of homeless veterans: 1) veterans receiving VHA homeless-tailored primary care (Homeless-Patient Aligned Care Team [H-PACT]) and 2) veterans receiving traditional primary care services (PACT). A cohort of 266 homeless veterans enrolled from June 2012 through January 2014.

RESULTS

Compared with PACT patients, H-PACT patients had more social work visits (4.6 vs 2.7 visits) and fewer emergency department (ED) visits for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (0 vs 0.2 visits); a significantly smaller percentage of veterans in H-PACT were hospitalized (23.1% vs 35.4%) or had mental health-related ED visits (34.1% vs 47.6%). We found significant differences in primary care provider-specific visits (H-PACT, 5.1 vs PACT, 3.6 visits), mental health care visits (H-PACT, 8.8 vs PACT, 13.4 visits), 30-day prescription drug fills (H-PACT, 40.5 vs PACT, 58.8 fills), and use of group therapy (H-PACT, 40.1% vs PACT, 53.7%). Annual costs per patient were significantly higher in the PACT group than the H-PACT group ($37,415 vs $28,036). In logistic regression model of acute care use, assignment to the H-PACT model was protective as was rating health "good" or better.

CONCLUSION

Homeless veterans enrolled in the population-tailored primary care approach used less acute care and costs were lower. Tailored-care models have implications for care coordination in the US Department of Veterans Affairs VA and community health systems.

INTRODUCTION

Exposure to nature may reduce stress in low-income parents. This prospective randomized trial compares the effect of a physician's counseling about nature with or without facilitated group outings on stress and other outcomes among low-income parents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Parents of patients aged 4-18 years at a clinic serving low-income families were randomized to a supported park prescription versus independent park prescription in a 2:1 ratio. Parents in both groups received physician counseling about nature, maps of local parks, a journal, and pedometer. The supported group received additional phone and text reminders to attend three weekly family nature outings with free transportation, food, and programming. Outcomes measured in parents at baseline, one month and three months post-enrollment included: stress (using the 40-point Perceived Stress Scale [PSS10]); park visits per week (self-report and journaling); loneliness (modified UCLA-Loneliness Scale); physical activity (self-report, journaling, pedometry); physiologic stress (salivary cortisol); and nature affinity (validated scale).

RESULTS

We enrolled 78 parents, 50 in the supported and 28 in the independent group. One-month follow-up was available for 60 (77%) participants and three-month follow up for 65 (83%). Overall stress decreased by 1.71 points (95% CI, -3.15, -0.26). The improvement in stress did not differ significantly by group assignment, although the independent group had more park visits per week (mean difference 1.75; 95% CI [0.46, 3.04], p = 0.0085). In multivariable analysis, each unit increase in park visits per week was associated with a significant and incremental decrease in stress (change in PSS10-0.53; 95% CI [-0.89, -0.16]; p = 0.005) at three months.

CONCLUSION

While we were unable to demonstrate the additional benefit of group park visits, we observed an overall decrease in parental stress both overall and as a function of numbers of park visits per week. Paradoxically the park prescription without group park visits led to a greater increase in weekly park visits than the group visits. To understand the benefits of this intervention, larger trials are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02623855.