ReportWire

Tag: most effective way

  • The Return of Measles

    The Return of Measles

    [ad_1]

    Measles seems poised to make a comeback in America. Two adults and two children staying at a migrant shelter in Chicago have gotten sick with the disease. A sick kid in Sacramento, California, may have exposed hundreds of people to the virus at the hospital. Three other people were diagnosed in Michigan, along with seven from the same elementary school in Florida. As of Thursday, 17 states have reported cases to the CDC since the start of the year. (For comparison, that total was 19, plus the District of Columbia, for all of 2023, and just 6 for 2022.) “We’ve got this pile of firewood,” Matthew Ferrari, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Penn State, told me, “and the more outbreaks that keep happening, the more matches we’re throwing at it.”

    Who’s holding the matchbook? There’s an easy answer to who’s at fault. One of the nation’s political parties, and not the other, turned against vaccines to some extent during the pandemic, leading to voter disparities in death rates. One party, and not the other, has a presumptive presidential candidate who threatens to punish any school that infringes on parental rights by requiring immunizations. And one party, but not the other, appointed a vaccine-skeptical surgeon general in Florida who recently sidestepped standard public-health advice in the middle of an outbreak. The message from Republicans, as The Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri joked in a recent column, can sound like this: “We want measles in the schools and books out of them!”

    But the politics of vaccination, however grotesque it may be in 2024, obscures what’s really going on. It’s true that vaccine attitudes have become more polarized. Conservative parents in particular may be opting out of school vaccine requirements in higher numbers than they were before. In the blood-red state of Idaho, for example, more than 12 percent of kindergartners received exemptions from the rules for the 2022–23 school year, a staggering rate of refusal that is up by half from where it was just a few years ago. Politicized recalcitrance is unfortunate, to say the least, and it can be deadly. Even so, America’s political divides are simply not the cause of any recent measles outbreak. The virus has returned amid a swirl of global health inequities. Any foothold that it finds in the U.S. will be where hyperlocal social norms, not culture-war debates, are causing gaps in vaccine access and acceptance. The more this fact is overlooked, the more we’re all at risk.

    Consider where the latest measles cases have been sprouting up: By and large, the recent outbreaks have been a blue-state phenomenon. (Idaho has so far been untouched; the same is true for Utah, with the nation’s third-highest school-vaccine-exemption rate.) Zoom into the county level, and you’ll find that the pattern is repeated: Measles isn’t picking on Republican communities; if anything, it seems to be avoiding them. The recent outbreak in Florida unfolded not in a conservative area such as Sarasota, where vaccination coverage has been lagging, but rather in Biden-friendly Broward County, at a school where 97 percent of the students have received at least one MMR shot. Similarly, the recent cases in Michigan turned up not in any of the state’s MAGA-voting, vaccine-forgoing areas but among the diverse and relatively left-wing populations in and around Ann Arbor and Detroit.

    Stepping back to look at the country as a whole, one can’t even find a strong connection—or, really, any consistent link at all—between U.S. measles outbreaks, year to year, and U.S. children’s vaccination rates. Sure, the past three years for which we have student-immunization data might seem to show a pattern: Starting in the fall of 2020, the average rate of MMR coverage for incoming kindergarteners did drop, if only by a little bit, from 93.9 to 93.1 percent; at the same time, the annual number of reported measles cases went up almost tenfold, from 13 to 121. But stretch that window back one more year, and the relationship appears to be reversed. In 2019, America was doing great in terms of measles vaccination—across the country, 95.2 percent of kindergartners were getting immunized, according to the CDC—and yet, in spite of this fantastic progress, measles cases were exploding. More than 1,200 Americans got sick with the disease that year, as measles took its greatest toll in a generation.

    It’s not that our high measles-vaccination coverage didn’t matter then or that our slightly lower coverage doesn’t matter now. Vaccination rates should be higher; this is always true. In the face of such a contagious disease, 95 percent would be good; 99 percent much better. When fewer people are protected, more people can get sick. In Matthew Ferrari’s terms, a dropping immunization rate means the piles of firewood are getting bigger. If and when the flames do ignite, they could end up reaching farther, and burning longer, than they would have just a year or two ago. In the midst of any outbreak large enough, where thousands are affected, children will die.

    Despite America’s fevered national conversation about vaccines, however, rates of uptake simply haven’t changed that much. Even with the recent divot in our national vaccine rates, the country remains in broad agreement on the value of immunity: 93 percent of America’s kindergartners are getting measles shots, a rate that has barely budged for decades. The sheer resilience of this norm should not be downplayed or ignored or, even worse, reimagined as a state of grace from which we’ve fallen. Our protection remains strong. In Florida, the surgeon general’s lackadaisical response to the crisis at the Broward County elementary school did not produce a single extra case of the disease, in spite of grim predictions to the contrary, almost certainly thanks to how many kids are already vaccinated.

    At the same time, however, measles has been thriving overseas. Its reemergence in America is not a function of the nation’s political divides, but of the disease’s global prevalence. Europe had almost 60,000 cases last year, up from about 900 in 2022. The World Health Organization reports that the number of reported cases around the world surged to 306,000, after having dropped to a record low of 123,000 in 2021. As the pandemic has made apparent, our world is connected via pathogens: Large outbreaks in other countries, where vaccination coverage may be low, have a tendency to seed tiny outbreaks in the U.S., where coverage has been pretty high, but narrow and persistent cracks in our defenses still remain. (In 2022, more than half of the world’s unvaccinated infants were concentrated in just 10 countries; some of these are measles hotspots at this moment.) This also helps explain why so many Americans got measles in 2019. That was a catastrophic year for measles around the world, with 873,000 reported cases in total, the most since 1994. We had pretty good protection then, but the virus was everywhere—and so, the virus was here.

    In high-income countries such as the U.S., Ferrari told me, “clustering of risk” tends to be the source of measles outbreaks more than minor changes in vaccine coverage overall. Even in 2019, when more than 95 percent of American kindergarteners were getting immunized, we still had pockets of exposure where protection happened to be weakest. By far the biggest outbreak from that year occurred among Hasidic Jewish populations in New York State. Measles was imported via Israel from the hot spot of Ukraine, and took off within a group whose vaccination rates were much, much lower than their neighbors’. In the end, more than 1,100 people were infected during that outbreak, which began in October 2018 and lasted for nearly a year. “A national vaccination rate has one kind of meaning, but all outbreaks are local outbreaks,” Noel Brewer, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a member of the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, told me. “They happen on a specific street in a specific group of houses, where a group of people live and interact with each other. And those rates of vaccination in that specific place can drop well below the rate of coverage that will forestall an outbreak.”

    We’ve seen this time and time again over the past decade. When bigger outbreaks do occur in the U.S., they tend to happen in tight-knit communities, where immunization norms are radically out of sync with those of the rest of American society, politics aside. In 2014, when an outbreak of nearly 400 cases took hold in Ohio, almost entirely within the Amish community, the local vaccination rate was estimated to be about 14 percent. (The statewide number for young children at that time was more than 95 percent.) In 2011 and 2017, measles broke out among the large Somali American community in Minnesota, where anti-vaccine messaging has been intense, and where immunization rates for 2-year-olds dropped from 92 percent 20 years ago to 35 percent in 2021. An outbreak from the end of 2022, affecting 85 people in and around Columbus, Ohio, may well be linked to the nation’s second-biggest community of Somalis.

    Care must be taken in how these outbreaks are discussed. In Minnesota, for example, state health officials have avoided calling out the Somali community, for fear of stigmatizing. But another sort of trouble may arise when Americans overlook exactly who’s at risk, and exactly why. Experts broadly agree that the most effective way to deal with local outbreaks is with local interventions. Brewer pointed out that during the 2019 outbreak in New York, for example, nurses who belonged to local Jewish congregations took on the role of vaccine advocates. In Minnesota, the Department of Health has brought on more Somali staff, who coordinate with local Somali radio and TV stations to share its message. Yet these efforts can be obscured by news coverage of the crisis that points to a growing anti-science movement and parents giving up on vaccination all across the land. When measles spread among New York’s orthodox Jews, The New York Times reported on “an anti-vaccine fervor on the left that is increasingly worrying health authorities.” When the virus hit Columbus, NBC News noted that it was “happening as resistance to school vaccination requirements is spreading across the country.”

    Two different public-health responses can be undertaken in concert, the experts told me: You treat the problem at its source, and you also take the chance to highlight broader trends. A spate of measles cases in one community becomes an opportunity for pushing vaccination everywhere. “That’s always an important thing for us to do,” Ferrari said. Even so, the impulse to nationalize the problem will have its own, infelicitous effects. First, it’s meaningfully misleading. By catastrophizing subtle shifts in vaccination rates, we frighten many parents for no reason. By insisting that every tiny outbreak is a product of our national politics, we distract attention from the smaller measures that can and should be taken—well ahead of any upsurge of disease—to address hyperlocal vaccination crises. And by exaggerating the scale of our divisions—by asserting that we’ve seen a dangerous shift on a massive scale, or an anti-vaccine takeover of the Republican Party—we may end up worsening the very problem that worries us the most.

    We are a highly vaccinated nation, our politics notwithstanding. Telling people otherwise only fosters more division; it feeds the feeling that taking or refusing measles shots is an important mode of self-expression. It further polarizes health behavior, which can only widen the cracks in our defenses. “We have become quite militant and moralistic about vaccination,” Brewer told me, “and we probably would do well to be less absolute.” Measles outbreaks overseas are growing; measles outbreaks here will follow. Their specific causes ought not be ignored.

    [ad_2]

    Daniel Engber

    Source link

  • A Simple Marketing Technique Could Make America Healthier

    A Simple Marketing Technique Could Make America Healthier

    [ad_1]

    This article was originally published in Knowable Magazine.

    Death from colorectal cancer can be prevented by regular screenings. Controlling high blood pressure could prolong the lives of the nearly 500,000 Americans who die from this disease each year. Vaccinations help prevent tetanus, which could otherwise be lethal.

    Clearly, preventive medicine can make a big difference to health.

    And yet most people don’t get the preventive care that could save their lives. Indeed, as of 2015, only 8 percent of U.S. adults 35 and older had received all immunizations, cancer screenings, and other high-priority services recommended for them.

    Researchers seeking to change that are borrowing a page from Facebook, Google, and other tech companies. By rapidly comparing small differences in how they communicate with patients—a process known as A/B testing—health-care workers can quickly learn what works and what doesn’t. The approach has already delivered several actionable improvements, though not everyone is convinced of its value.

    Tech-oriented companies use A/B testing to make decisions about marketing slogans, web-page colors, and lots of other options. The key is randomization, meaning that people are randomly assigned to see different versions of whatever is being tested. Does a bigger “Subscribe” button on a website generate more clicks than a smaller one? Does one headline over a story capture more readers than another?

    Leora Horwitz, an internist and a health-services researcher at NYU Langone Health, and her colleagues adopted this technique—which they call rapid randomized controlled trials—to learn how to improve the delivery of health-care services. Randomized controlled trials, or RCTs, are widely used in medicine, typically to test new drugs or other disease treatments. For example, patients may be randomly assigned to receive either a new drug or the current standard treatment, then followed for months or years to assess whether the new drug works better. But those trials are slow and expensive, in part because researchers have to recruit people willing to be in a medical experiment.

    Rapid RCTs, by contrast, are not used to study new treatments, so nobody has to be recruited to participate. Rather, Horwitz’s goal is to improve health-care delivery through quick trials in which one can repeatedly test and fine-tune changes to health-care delivery based on what researchers learn from each test.

    “We are randomizing what we’re doing so that we can quickly and accurately assess whether what we are doing is working,” says Horwitz, who wrote about the approach in the 2023 Annual Review of Public Health.

    For example, Horwitz and her colleagues wanted to figure out how to get patients to book appointments to address care gaps—preventive services that are overdue. Because of the huge number of patients, physicians’ offices can’t contact everyone by telephone or through the online portal that NYU Langone uses to communicate with patients. So the health system needed to understand what type of reminders were most effective.

    In the A/B test, patients with care gaps were divided into two sets: those who had signed up for an online-portal account and those who had not. Patients in each set were then sorted into different groups based on their health-care history. Patients who, based on past behavior, were unlikely to initiate appointments on their own were put in higher-risk groups; those who had eventually booked their own appointments in the past were assigned to lower-risk groups.

    In one part of the test, several thousand patients who had no portal account were randomized so that some received a telephone-call reminder and others did not. Patients who received a phone call booked appointments to address 6.2 percent of the care gaps, compared with just 0.5 percent among those who were not called.

    In another part of the test, some patients with portal accounts received a reminder message through that channel, while others did not. Of those who received the message, 13 percent scheduled the needed services, compared with 1.1 percent of those who were not contacted.

    Importantly, the experiments revealed that a phone-call reminder was the most effective way to reach the subgroups of patients who were high-risk and the least likely to get their preventive services without a nudge. Shortly after the test results were known, NYU Langone prioritized all of its highest-risk patients to receive telephone reminders and greatly expanded its capacity for sending messages through the patient portal.

    “When we learn something, we apply that to all of our messaging quickly,” Horwitz says. That immediately extends what they’ve learned to tens of thousands of people. “That’s gratifying.”

    NYU Langone’s A/B testing is why many of the medical center’s female patients are now receiving short messages to remind them to schedule their mammograms. The researchers used rapid RCTs to test the wording on reminders sent through the online portal: Would shorter messages get better results? Indeed, patients who received a 78-word reminder scheduled nearly twice as many mammograms as those who received the old 155-word message.

    In another investigation, to find out how to boost vaccination rates among very young children, Horwitz and her team turned to rapid randomized tests that compared one-text and two-text reminders to parents against no text reminder at all. Only the two-text reminder—one sent at 6 p.m., the other sent at noon two days later—made a difference, tripling the number of appointments scheduled. Most appointments were made after the second text, suggesting that this booster reminder was what triggered the parents to act.

    Though it’s still new to the health-care sector, the idea of rapid RCTs is catching on. One research team—an economist, a physician, and a public-policy expert, none of whom was affiliated with Horwitz’s group—used the technique to learn how to increase the use of preventive-care services by Black men, the U.S. demographic group with the lowest life expectancy.

    They recruited more than 1,300 Black men from Oakland, California–area barbershops and flea markets, asked them to fill out a health questionnaire, and gave them a coupon for a free health screening. A pop-up clinic, staffed with 14 Black and non-Black male doctors, was set up to provide the screenings, and the participating men were randomly assigned to a Black or a non-Black doctor. The result: Black men assigned to Black physicians were more likely to get diabetes screenings, flu vaccinations, and other preventive services than those assigned to non-Black doctors.

    Some experts doubt that rapid A/B testing will ever become commonplace in health care. Darren DeWalt, a physician who directs the Institute for Healthcare Quality Improvement at the University of North Carolina, likes the concept, but he thinks most health-care organizations will avoid it for ethical reasons, possibly because people tend to disapprove of randomization, even in the context of something as innocuous as appointment reminders. “People in this country don’t like the idea that they are randomly allocated to something, even something as simple as that,” DeWalt says. “There’s a lot of suspicion around researchers in health care.”

    Others criticize A/B testing as tinkering at the margins. Pierre Barker, the chief scientific officer for the nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Boston, believes that significant improvements in health-care delivery require an in-depth analysis of the problem to be solved, which may require many changes to the system. By contrast, rapid randomized controlled trials focus on a single, discrete change—say, the words used in a telephone script—rather than a broader effort to understand why patients don’t get preventive services and what can be done to change that.

    “The attractiveness is how fast it can move, more than the size of the impact,” he says. “I remain to be convinced that you can get more than a small incremental change” from rapid randomized controlled trials.

    It is true that the majority of NYU Langone’s care gaps were not resolved by the new reminders, says Horwitz, but the tests did provide information that led to hundreds of potentially lifesaving services being performed. That is what convinces her that the health-care industry should embrace rapid randomized trials.

    “If you were working for a web company or an airline or any other industry, you would randomize as a matter of course—this is the standard practice,” she says. “But it is still very foreign in health care, and it shouldn’t be.”

    [ad_2]

    Lola Butcher

    Source link