Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 143
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 143
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 209
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 994
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3134
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Little is known about how to promote cost-of-care conversations in health care settings.
Objective: To develop and evaluate community-designed messages promoting cost-of-care conversations.
Design: Focus groups and point-of-care surveys.
Setting: Three pediatric clinics, a family community health clinic, and a community health worker (promotora) program serving predominately low-income, Latino populations in Adams County, Colorado.
Participants: Focus groups included staff (n = 22) and patients or community members (n = 15). At baseline, 107 patients and 9 providers completed surveys, and 111 patients and 11 providers did so postintervention.
Intervention: Setting-specific, community-designed messages about cost-of-care conversations delivered to patients on fliers.
Measurements: Qualitative themes about the frequency and nature of cost-of-care conversations, and frequencies of patient- and provider-reported cost-of-care conversations before and after the intervention.
Results: Five themes emerged from the focus groups, and the groups reported more discussion of costs after distribution of the messaging interventions than before in the clinical but not the community setting. Lack of transparent pricing tools was a barrier, and consideration of incidental costs was important. In cross-sectional, point-of-care surveys, fewer patients reported talking about costs with providers at baseline (44.4%) than after the messaging intervention (73.7%). Providers reported similar frequency of talking about costs with patients before (41.0%) and after (44.9%) the intervention. Nearly one third of patient and provider reports were discordant regarding whether costs were discussed.
Limitations: The response rate was low, cost-of-care conversations were self-reported, generalizability of the findings to other settings is uncertain, and the sample was small. The survey proved infeasible in the promotora setting.
Conclusion: Participants reported some favorable perceptions of cost-of-care conversations after implementation of community-designed messages, suggesting promise for this approach to promoting conversations about costs of care in settings serving low-income, uninsured Latino populations.
Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M18-2140 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!