Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Oct 20;5(10):e28622.
doi: 10.2196/28622.

Reach Outcomes and Costs of Different Physician Referral Strategies for a Weight Management Program Among Rural Primary Care Patients: Type 3 Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trial

Affiliations

Reach Outcomes and Costs of Different Physician Referral Strategies for a Weight Management Program Among Rural Primary Care Patients: Type 3 Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trial

Gwenndolyn Porter et al. JMIR Form Res. .

Abstract

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 ≥25 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.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03690557; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03690557.

Keywords: RE-AIM; digital health; health technology; hybrid effectiveness-implementation; mobile phone; obesity; physicians; primary care; rural; weight management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Befort C, Nazir N, Perri M. Prevalence of obesity among adults from rural and urban areas of the United States: findings from NHANES (2005-2008) J Rural Health. 2012;28(4):392–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2012.00411.x. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23083085 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Phillips CD, McLeroy KR. Health in rural America: remembering the importance of place. Am J Public Health. 2004 Oct;94(10):1661–3. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.10.1661.94/10/1661 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Befort CA, VanWormer JJ, DeSouza C, Ellerbeck EF, Kimminau KS, Greiner A, Gajewski B, Huang T, Perri MG, Fazzino TL, Christifano D, Eiland L, Drincic A. Protocol for the Rural Engagement in Primary Care for Optimizing Weight Reduction (RE-POWER) trial: comparing three obesity treatment models in rural primary care. Contemp Clin Trials. 2016 Mar;47:304–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2016.02.006.S1551-7144(16)30020-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Phillips SM, Glasgow RE, Bello G, Ory MG, Glenn BA, Sheinfeld-Gorin SN, Sabo RT, Heurtin-Roberts S, Johnson SB, Krist AH, MOHR Study Group Frequency and prioritization of patient health risks from a structured health risk assessment. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):505–13. doi: 10.1370/afm.1717. http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=25384812 12/6/505 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Estabrooks P, You W, Hedrick V, Reinholt M, Dohm E, Zoellner J. A pragmatic examination of active and passive recruitment methods to improve the reach of community lifestyle programs: The Talking Health Trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Jan 19;14(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0462-6. https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-017-0462-6 10.1186/s12966-017-0462-6 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Associated data