Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Factors Related to Implementation and Reach of a Pragmatic Multisite Trial: The My Own Health Report (MOHR) Study

Bijal A. Balasubramanian, Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts, Sarah Krasny, Catherine L. Rohweder, Kayla Fair, Tanya T. Olmos-Ochoa, Kurt C. Stange and Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2017, 30 (3) 337-349; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2017.03.160151
Bijal A. Balasubramanian
From the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics & Environmental Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Dallas (BAB); the Implementation Science Team, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville MD (SH-R); Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (SK); UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (CLR); the Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, Texas A&M University School of Public Health, Oklahoma City, OK (KF); the Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (TTO-O); the Departments of Family Medicine & Community Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Sociology, and Oncology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS); and New York Physicians against Cancer (NYPAC), New York (SSG).
MBBS, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts
From the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics & Environmental Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Dallas (BAB); the Implementation Science Team, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville MD (SH-R); Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (SK); UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (CLR); the Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, Texas A&M University School of Public Health, Oklahoma City, OK (KF); the Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (TTO-O); the Departments of Family Medicine & Community Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Sociology, and Oncology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS); and New York Physicians against Cancer (NYPAC), New York (SSG).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Krasny
From the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics & Environmental Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Dallas (BAB); the Implementation Science Team, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville MD (SH-R); Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (SK); UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (CLR); the Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, Texas A&M University School of Public Health, Oklahoma City, OK (KF); the Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (TTO-O); the Departments of Family Medicine & Community Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Sociology, and Oncology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS); and New York Physicians against Cancer (NYPAC), New York (SSG).
BA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine L. Rohweder
From the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics & Environmental Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Dallas (BAB); the Implementation Science Team, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville MD (SH-R); Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (SK); UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (CLR); the Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, Texas A&M University School of Public Health, Oklahoma City, OK (KF); the Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (TTO-O); the Departments of Family Medicine & Community Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Sociology, and Oncology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS); and New York Physicians against Cancer (NYPAC), New York (SSG).
Dr.PH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kayla Fair
From the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics & Environmental Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Dallas (BAB); the Implementation Science Team, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville MD (SH-R); Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (SK); UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (CLR); the Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, Texas A&M University School of Public Health, Oklahoma City, OK (KF); the Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (TTO-O); the Departments of Family Medicine & Community Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Sociology, and Oncology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS); and New York Physicians against Cancer (NYPAC), New York (SSG).
RN, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tanya T. Olmos-Ochoa
From the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics & Environmental Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Dallas (BAB); the Implementation Science Team, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville MD (SH-R); Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (SK); UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (CLR); the Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, Texas A&M University School of Public Health, Oklahoma City, OK (KF); the Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (TTO-O); the Departments of Family Medicine & Community Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Sociology, and Oncology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS); and New York Physicians against Cancer (NYPAC), New York (SSG).
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kurt C. Stange
From the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics & Environmental Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Dallas (BAB); the Implementation Science Team, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville MD (SH-R); Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (SK); UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (CLR); the Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, Texas A&M University School of Public Health, Oklahoma City, OK (KF); the Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (TTO-O); the Departments of Family Medicine & Community Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Sociology, and Oncology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS); and New York Physicians against Cancer (NYPAC), New York (SSG).
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin
From the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics & Environmental Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Dallas (BAB); the Implementation Science Team, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville MD (SH-R); Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (SK); UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (CLR); the Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, Texas A&M University School of Public Health, Oklahoma City, OK (KF); the Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (TTO-O); the Departments of Family Medicine & Community Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Sociology, and Oncology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS); and New York Physicians against Cancer (NYPAC), New York (SSG).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Descriptive Characteristics of the My Own Health Report Primary Care Practices (March-December 2013)

    Site 1Site 2Site 3Site 4Site 5Site 6Site 7Site 8Site 9
    StateVAVAVACAVTNCCATXTX
    Location*SuburbanRuralUrbanRuralRuralRuralUrbanRuralUrban
    Practice ownershipPrivateFederally qualified health centerHealth systemFederally qualified health centerHealth systemFederally qualified health centerFederally qualified health centerFederally qualified health centerFederally qualified health center
    Patients seen each year (n)1,5002,5004,7703,5009,50012,8002,1804,8002,518
    Patient ethnicity/race (%)
        Latino2011312754867
        Black1049171560252313
    Insurance type (%)
        Medicare91226131349523
        Medicaid01423110451522
        None149171510503869
    Implementation strategy†MailPaperMail/PhoneMailMailWebWebWebWeb
    Patient reach‡ (%)33.743.92.6/64.2§31.745.694.469.976.156.8
    • ↵* Location was self-reported by practices as urban, rural, or suburban.

    • ↵† “Mail”: staff mailed patients an invitation to complete the My Own Health Report (MOHR) online; “paper”: patients completed the MOHR on paper in the office; “phone”: staff called patients and completed the MOHR over the phone; “web”: staff assisted patients completing the MOHR online while in the office.

    • ↵‡ Patient reach is defined as the number of patients who filled out the MOHR assessment divided by the number of patients offered the MOHR.

    • ↵§ During study weeks 4–16, site 3 mailed MOHR invitations to patients. During study weeks 14–19, site 3 phoned patients to complete the MOHR.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Contextual Factors Related to Implementation and Patient Reach* of the My Own Health Report Health Risk Assessment

    Contextual FactorHow Factor Influenced Implementation and ReachIllustrative Quote(s)
    Factors internal to a practice
        Practice members' motivationsPractice leaders perceived added value of the MOHR in identifying at-risk patients“The MOHR fits right in to what we are trying to do. Nowadays, we are all about prevention and getting our patients to take better care of themselves. I like how it asks about eating fast food.” (site 3, time point 1)
    Patient and provider reports helped identify problem behaviors and streamlined goal-setting process“She [the clinic's director of initiatives] is hoping to tie the MOHR project into the clinic's patient-centered medical home initiative goals that address providing patients with support in self-management, self-efficacy, and behavior change by providing self-management tools.” (site 8, time point 1)
    MOHR could help with reporting requirements to external agencies“MOHR also addresses the [patient-centered medical home] initiative goals related to documenting self-management plans and goals and counseling patients to adopt healthy behaviors.” (site 8, time point 1)
    Added time burden on clinicians and staff and disrupted workflowThe CEO, COO, and site supervisor described the resistance that they were getting from providers and MAs to actually administer the MOHR survey. The MAs were under too much time pressure to field the survey (taking about 15–20 min). (site 9, time point 2)
    Created redundancy with existing health risk assessment questionsWhile the director of initiatives is the project's biggest champion, she expresses concern about the length of time and duplication of the questions in other assessments. (site 8, time point 2)
        Practice staff capacityPractice staff took on additional responsibilities to help patients complete MOHR, further adding to time burden and disruptions in workflowThroughout the course of the study, more practice leaders assisted with coordination and became hands-on with the project. For instance, the clinic practice manager and the manager of the nurse operators were heavily involved with tracking MOHR completions and monitoring the process. By the end of the study, E-mail and phone communication between the clinic staff, the calling center manager, and study coordinator occurred multiple times throughout the week. (site 3, time point 3)
    The MAs were under too much time pressure to field the survey (taking about 15–20 min), and the provider was actually instructing the MAs to stop fielding the survey if they were falling too far behind schedule. (site 9, time point 2)
    Research staff assisted with implementation when practice staff lacked capacityThe graduate assistant and student worker (research staff) assist the staff with MOHR completions 3 half-days a week. Although the research team has agreed to help with patient recruitment, the clinic staff prefer to approach the patient first and obtain verbal consent. The research staff then enter the exam room while the patient is reading/signing the consent form, provides the patient with any additional information needed, and assists with completing the MOHR assessment. (site 8, time point 3)
        Practice information system capacityDelays in printing or faxing patient and provider reports hindered goal-setting discussionsPhysician enthusiasm and use of summaries have been mixed. Because of the modest frequency of missing physician summaries, certain physicians have diminished enthusiasm and participation. There is a clear feeling that they do not want paper summaries and want the activities integrated into EHR. There is also a concern that without a more clearly available pathway for initiating practice support, use will remain inadequate. (site 3, midpoint)
    Changes in existing health information technology infrastructure hindered consistent implementation and reach“The practice does have an online patient portal, but it is underutilized at the moment …”; this trend may support the ease of adoption for the online patient portal. (site 9, time point 1)
    Factors external to a practice
        Linkages with the larger health systemAccess to information technology and human resources of health systems that practices were affiliated with fostered implementation and reachSite 4 (health system) has done considerable work to make it easy for us to get, review, and use the health reports. This work included activities related to getting patients to initially complete the MOHR assessment (eg, mailing them invitations) and conducting the research study (eg, mailing and coordinating the Patient Experience Survey). Site 4 (health system) has a very sophisticated research workshop with extensive experience that made this process smooth and easy for the practice. (site 4, time point 1)
    Sharing details and challenges with MOHR completion at the program meeting for a weight-loss project led to the suggestion to engage the health care system's nurse operators with the project. The nurse operators are comfortable with conducting surveys and asking patients sensitive health questions. To date, the operators' experience and capacity for making calls has proven beneficial to the project. (site 3, time point 2)
    Competing demands from other initiatives on health system resources could pose a barrier to implementation“There was developing concern that a large, emerging, cross-system primary care initiative would put the project [MOHR] at risk. Because of increasing demands of [the] office manager the responsibility for organizing and distributing physician feedback, changed to a line staff member which improved efficiency, and decreased overall amount of time.” (site 5, time point 2)
        Linkages with community resourcesLack of community resources to refer patients for additional counseling influenced goal settingThe practice is located in a rural community and it is difficult to reach the practice without a long drive. The community does not have many resources for health behavior change. (site 4, time point 1)
    There were a significant number of mental health issues and not a very robust referral system to outside resources (one counselor at the delayed site who saw 1 patient per week, but the position was unfilled for about a month during the study period). (site 9, endpoint)
    Lack of a systematic referral process for more intensive counseling reduced clinician enthusiasm for MOHRNurse operators did not feel prepared when a patient responded positively to having suicidal thoughts and/having a desire to harm himself. Once the team received this comment, a study co-investigator and the medical director outlined a protocol for instant transfer to the health care system's Connect hotline. Before transfer, the patient was provided the crisis line's toll-free number and instructed to seek medical attention. The clinic also received notation from the manager of the nurse operators for patient follow-up. (site 3, time point 3)
        Fit of implementation strategy with patientsSome patient subgroups (eg, older patients, those with low literacy) required more resources to administer the MOHRThe MAs will be administering the MOHR to patients since there was a concern that the level of literacy among patients is too low for self-reported measures. (site 9, time point 1)
    It is easier for most patients to do the paper version (particularly elderly patients). (site 6, time point 2)
    • ↵* Patient reach is defined as the number, proportion, and representativeness of eligible patients offered and completing the My Own Health Report (MOHR) assessment.28 Patient reach was calculated by dividing the number of patients who completed the MOHR assessment by the number of patients offered MOHR.15

    • EHR, electronic health record; MA, medical assistant.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 30 (3)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 30, Issue 3
May-June 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Factors Related to Implementation and Reach of a Pragmatic Multisite Trial: The My Own Health Report (MOHR) Study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Factors Related to Implementation and Reach of a Pragmatic Multisite Trial: The My Own Health Report (MOHR) Study
Bijal A. Balasubramanian, Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts, Sarah Krasny, Catherine L. Rohweder, Kayla Fair, Tanya T. Olmos-Ochoa, Kurt C. Stange, Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2017, 30 (3) 337-349; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2017.03.160151

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Factors Related to Implementation and Reach of a Pragmatic Multisite Trial: The My Own Health Report (MOHR) Study
Bijal A. Balasubramanian, Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts, Sarah Krasny, Catherine L. Rohweder, Kayla Fair, Tanya T. Olmos-Ochoa, Kurt C. Stange, Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2017, 30 (3) 337-349; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2017.03.160151
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Appendix
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Dissemination and Implementation Science in Primary Care Research and Practice: Contributions and Opportunities
  • In This Issue: Community Health, Clinical Care, and Clinician Calling
  • Research on Clinical Decisions Made Daily in Family Medicine
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
  • A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application
  • Associations Between Modifiable Preconception Care Indicators and Pregnancy Outcomes
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Delivery of Health Care
  • Health Resources
  • Patient Care Team
  • Primary Health Care
  • Quality Improvement

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire