Publications
1.
Charlson, Mary E.; Mittleman, Ilana; Ramos, Rosio; Cassells, Andrea; Lin, T. J.; Eggleston, Alice; Wells, Marin T.; Hollenberg, James; Pirraglia, Paul; Winston, Ginger; Tobin, Jonathan N.
Preventing "tipping points" in high comorbidity patients: A lifeline from health coaches - rationale, design and methods Journal Article
In: Contemporary Clinical Trials, vol. 152, pp. 107865, 2025.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: chronic diseases, federally qualified health centers, practice-based research networks
@article{nokey,
title = {Preventing "tipping points" in high comorbidity patients: A lifeline from health coaches - rationale, design and methods},
author = {Mary E. Charlson and Ilana Mittleman and Rosio Ramos and Andrea Cassells and T.J. Lin and Alice Eggleston and Marin T. Wells and James Hollenberg and Paul Pirraglia and Ginger Winston and Jonathan N. Tobin},
doi = {10.1016/j.cct.2025.107865},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-02-28},
journal = {Contemporary Clinical Trials},
volume = {152},
pages = {107865},
abstract = {Background: This paper describes an innovative cluster randomized controlled trial design to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of two approaches to preventing significant destabilization, leading to unplanned hospitalization and increased disability for patients with high comorbidity, that is, multiple chronic diseases defined by an enhanced Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥4.
Methods: A total of 1974 patients were randomized in four waves at each of the sixteen Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in four health systems -two in New York and two in Chicago. The two interventions compared 1) Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) as implemented by the FQHCs (usual care control); or 2) PCMH plus a coaching intervention delivered by Health Coaches (experimental) helping patients identify life goals to encourage self-management enhanced by a positive affect/self-affirmation strategy. The two primary patient-centered clinical outcomes are 1) Unplanned hospitalizations; and 2) Within-patient changes in quality of life and disability, as measured by the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2 (WHODAS 2.0). The hypotheses are: 1) intervention patients will have a 5 % relative reduction in unplanned hospitalizations as compared to control patients; and 2) reduced disability measured by WHODAS2.0; 3) destabilization or 'tipping points' leading to hospitalization will be more often triggered by psychosocial issues than by medical Issues.
Conclusion: This cluster RCT has the potential to transform the care for patients with high comorbidity by helping motivate patients to engage in self-management and to successfully navigate the barriers, challenges, and stresses leading to destabilization, hospitalization, and increased disability.},
keywords = {chronic diseases, federally qualified health centers, practice-based research networks},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Background: This paper describes an innovative cluster randomized controlled trial design to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of two approaches to preventing significant destabilization, leading to unplanned hospitalization and increased disability for patients with high comorbidity, that is, multiple chronic diseases defined by an enhanced Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥4.
Methods: A total of 1974 patients were randomized in four waves at each of the sixteen Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in four health systems -two in New York and two in Chicago. The two interventions compared 1) Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) as implemented by the FQHCs (usual care control); or 2) PCMH plus a coaching intervention delivered by Health Coaches (experimental) helping patients identify life goals to encourage self-management enhanced by a positive affect/self-affirmation strategy. The two primary patient-centered clinical outcomes are 1) Unplanned hospitalizations; and 2) Within-patient changes in quality of life and disability, as measured by the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2 (WHODAS 2.0). The hypotheses are: 1) intervention patients will have a 5 % relative reduction in unplanned hospitalizations as compared to control patients; and 2) reduced disability measured by WHODAS2.0; 3) destabilization or 'tipping points' leading to hospitalization will be more often triggered by psychosocial issues than by medical Issues.
Conclusion: This cluster RCT has the potential to transform the care for patients with high comorbidity by helping motivate patients to engage in self-management and to successfully navigate the barriers, challenges, and stresses leading to destabilization, hospitalization, and increased disability.
Methods: A total of 1974 patients were randomized in four waves at each of the sixteen Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in four health systems -two in New York and two in Chicago. The two interventions compared 1) Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) as implemented by the FQHCs (usual care control); or 2) PCMH plus a coaching intervention delivered by Health Coaches (experimental) helping patients identify life goals to encourage self-management enhanced by a positive affect/self-affirmation strategy. The two primary patient-centered clinical outcomes are 1) Unplanned hospitalizations; and 2) Within-patient changes in quality of life and disability, as measured by the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2 (WHODAS 2.0). The hypotheses are: 1) intervention patients will have a 5 % relative reduction in unplanned hospitalizations as compared to control patients; and 2) reduced disability measured by WHODAS2.0; 3) destabilization or 'tipping points' leading to hospitalization will be more often triggered by psychosocial issues than by medical Issues.
Conclusion: This cluster RCT has the potential to transform the care for patients with high comorbidity by helping motivate patients to engage in self-management and to successfully navigate the barriers, challenges, and stresses leading to destabilization, hospitalization, and increased disability.
2.
Charlson, Mary E.; Wells, Martin T.; Hollenberg, James; Ramos, Rosio; Martinez, Guillerma Maritza; Gerard, Martin J.; Cassells, Andrea; Lin, T. J.; Mittleman, Ilana; Eggleston, Alice; Tobin, Jonathan N.
In: Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, vol. 8, iss. 1, pp. e191, 2024.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: federally qualified health centers, social determinants of health
@article{nokey,
title = {Examining Individual vs. Population Level Social Determinants of Health in a Cluster Randomized Trial of Health Coaches for Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions},
author = {Mary E. Charlson and Martin T. Wells and James Hollenberg and Rosio Ramos and Guillerma Maritza Martinez and Martin J. Gerard and Andrea Cassells and T.J. Lin and Ilana Mittleman and Alice Eggleston and Jonathan N. Tobin},
doi = {10.1017/cts.2024.598},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-11-06},
journal = {Journal of Clinical and Translational Science},
volume = {8},
issue = {1},
pages = {e191},
abstract = {Introduction: Social determinants of health (SDOH) are an important contributor to health status and health outcomes. In this analysis, we compare SDOH measured both at the individual and population levels in patients with high comorbidity who receive primary care at Federally Qualified Health Centers in New York and Chicago and enrolled in the Tipping Points trial.
Methods: We analyzed individual- and population-level measures of SDOH in 1,488 patients with high comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 4) enrolled in Tipping Points. At the individual level, we used a standardized patient-reported questionnaire. At the population level, we employed patient addresses to calculate the Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and Area Deprivation Index. Multivariable regressions were conducted in addition to qualitative feedback from stakeholders.
Results: Individual-level SDOH are distinct from population-level measures. Significant component predictors of population SDI are being unhoused, unable to pay for utilities, and difficulty accessing medical transportation. Qualitative findings mirrored these results. High comorbidity patients report significant SDOH challenges at the individual level. Fitting a binomial generalized linear model, the comorbidity score is significantly predicted by the composite individual SDOH index (p < 0.0001) controlling for age and race/ethnicity.
Conclusions: Individual- and population-level SDOH measures provide different risk assessments. The use of community-level SDI data is informative in the aggregate but should not be used to identify patients with individual unmet social needs. Health systems should implement a standardized individualized assessment of unmet SDOH needs and build strong, enduring partnerships with community-based organizations that can provide those services.},
keywords = {federally qualified health centers, social determinants of health},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Introduction: Social determinants of health (SDOH) are an important contributor to health status and health outcomes. In this analysis, we compare SDOH measured both at the individual and population levels in patients with high comorbidity who receive primary care at Federally Qualified Health Centers in New York and Chicago and enrolled in the Tipping Points trial.
Methods: We analyzed individual- and population-level measures of SDOH in 1,488 patients with high comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 4) enrolled in Tipping Points. At the individual level, we used a standardized patient-reported questionnaire. At the population level, we employed patient addresses to calculate the Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and Area Deprivation Index. Multivariable regressions were conducted in addition to qualitative feedback from stakeholders.
Results: Individual-level SDOH are distinct from population-level measures. Significant component predictors of population SDI are being unhoused, unable to pay for utilities, and difficulty accessing medical transportation. Qualitative findings mirrored these results. High comorbidity patients report significant SDOH challenges at the individual level. Fitting a binomial generalized linear model, the comorbidity score is significantly predicted by the composite individual SDOH index (p < 0.0001) controlling for age and race/ethnicity.
Conclusions: Individual- and population-level SDOH measures provide different risk assessments. The use of community-level SDI data is informative in the aggregate but should not be used to identify patients with individual unmet social needs. Health systems should implement a standardized individualized assessment of unmet SDOH needs and build strong, enduring partnerships with community-based organizations that can provide those services.
Methods: We analyzed individual- and population-level measures of SDOH in 1,488 patients with high comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 4) enrolled in Tipping Points. At the individual level, we used a standardized patient-reported questionnaire. At the population level, we employed patient addresses to calculate the Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and Area Deprivation Index. Multivariable regressions were conducted in addition to qualitative feedback from stakeholders.
Results: Individual-level SDOH are distinct from population-level measures. Significant component predictors of population SDI are being unhoused, unable to pay for utilities, and difficulty accessing medical transportation. Qualitative findings mirrored these results. High comorbidity patients report significant SDOH challenges at the individual level. Fitting a binomial generalized linear model, the comorbidity score is significantly predicted by the composite individual SDOH index (p < 0.0001) controlling for age and race/ethnicity.
Conclusions: Individual- and population-level SDOH measures provide different risk assessments. The use of community-level SDI data is informative in the aggregate but should not be used to identify patients with individual unmet social needs. Health systems should implement a standardized individualized assessment of unmet SDOH needs and build strong, enduring partnerships with community-based organizations that can provide those services.