Comparing different forms of structured follow-up support in the treatment of multiple health risks for chronic disease: a randomized controlled trial protocol
- 1Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz
- 2Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz
- 3Kaiser Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado
Abstract
Background Primary care clinics need effective, low-cost tools to screen for and address multiple health risks — and technology can provide important efficiencies. My Own Health Report (MOHR) is a web-based intervention with 3 core functions: (1) risk flagging; (2) goal-setting for patient-prioritized risks; and (3) providing resources. A prior randomized trial in primary care settings showed that MOHR was feasible and effective. However, we identified two key gaps: a need for a flexible menu of delivery options to adopt and sustain MOHR and a pragmatic way to provide structured follow-up. Methods/design We developed and pilot-tested two distinct primary implementation strategies to provide structured follow-up: the first primary strategy, termed “Reminder-Resource message (R 2 message),” involves automated motivational text message nudges to remind patients of their MOHR goal and point to resources. The second, “R 2 navigation,” involves personal support - community health worker phone calls to deliver reminders and resources. Each primary strategy is paired with additional secondary strategies that together address the contextual determinants of successful implementation and sustainment identified using our Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). We engaged clinic staff, patients, and community partners to finalize the R2 message and R2 navigation strategies and secondary strategies. This individually randomized, type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial will enroll 1,000 adult patients with at least two cancer risks (including both insufficient physical activity and fruit/vegetable intake). We will evaluate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of R2 message and R2 navigation alone or in combination in 12 primary care clinics including both (a) large metropolitan health system and (b) rural-serving clinics. Expected outcomes include: (1) improvement in behavioral risk factors; (2) implementation outcomes – including representative engagement with R2 message and R2 navigation, and cost; and (3) improvement in practice value outcomes, including patient experience ratings. Based on the trial findings, we will co-develop an implementation, adaptation and sustainment guide for the most cost-effective implementation strategy. Conclusions We expect the implementation strategies compared will produce different levels of representative engagement, behavior change, cost, and practice value. These findings will inform pragmatic ways to improve outcomes important to patients, primary care, and society. Trial Registration# at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT07569224 (Registration date: 04/29/2026).
Related
- A double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing intranasal dexmedetomidine with and without fentanyl for pediatric premedication
- EFFECT OF DIFFERENT BALANCE TRAINING PROGRAMS ON POSTURAL CONTROL IN CHRONIC ANKLE INSTABILITY: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
- Effects of different exercise types on visceral adipose tissue and glycemic parameters in adults with stage 1 cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Protocol of the PANEM trial: A randomized, phase III, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multi-center superiority trial comparing PANcreatic EnzyMes versus placebo in adults after gastrectomy
- Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Trial Comparing Immediate Effects of Components of Complex Decongestive Therapy in Lower-limb Lymphedema Patients.
BibTeX
@article{dunston2026comparing,
title = {{Comparing different forms of structured follow-up support in the treatment of multiple health risks for chronic disease: a randomized controlled trial protocol}},
author = {Emily R. Dunston and Amy G. Huebschmann and Ermyas Birru and Michaela Brtnikova and Bryan S. Ford and Rebekah Gomes and Kiana A. White and Andrea Nederveld and Demetria M. Bolden and Monica Perez Jolles and Elena T. Broaddus-Shea and Katy E. Trinkley and Debra P. Ritzwoller and Liza M. Creel and Jun Ying and Allison J. L’Hotta and Russell E. Glasgow},
journal = {Implementation Science},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s13012-026-01527-x},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-026-01527-x},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparing different forms of structured follow-up support in the treatment of multiple health risks for chronic disease: a randomized controlled trial protocol
AU - Emily R. Dunston
AU - Amy G. Huebschmann
AU - Ermyas Birru
AU - Michaela Brtnikova
AU - Bryan S. Ford
AU - Rebekah Gomes
AU - Kiana A. White
AU - Andrea Nederveld
AU - Demetria M. Bolden
AU - Monica Perez Jolles
AU - Elena T. Broaddus-Shea
AU - Katy E. Trinkley
AU - Debra P. Ritzwoller
AU - Liza M. Creel
AU - Jun Ying
AU - Allison J. L’Hotta
AU - Russell E. Glasgow
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - Implementation Science
DO - 10.1186/s13012-026-01527-x
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-026-01527-x
AB - Background Primary care clinics need effective, low-cost tools to screen for and address multiple health risks — and technology can provide important efficiencies. My Own Health Report (MOHR) is a web-based intervention with 3 core functions: (1) risk flagging; (2) goal-setting for patient-prioritized risks; and (3) providing resources. A prior randomized trial in primary care settings showed that MOHR was feasible and effective. However, we identified two key gaps: a need for a flexible menu of delivery options to adopt and sustain MOHR and a pragmatic way to provide structured follow-up. Methods/design We developed and pilot-tested two distinct primary implementation strategies to provide structured follow-up: the first primary strategy, termed “Reminder-Resource message (R 2 message),” involves automated motivational text message nudges to remind patients of their MOHR goal and point to resources. The second, “R 2 navigation,” involves personal support - community health worker phone calls to deliver reminders and resources. Each primary strategy is paired with additional secondary strategies that together address the contextual determinants of successful implementation and sustainment identified using our Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). We engaged clinic staff, patients, and community partners to finalize the R2 message and R2 navigation strategies and secondary strategies. This individually randomized, type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial will enroll 1,000 adult patients with at least two cancer risks (including both insufficient physical activity and fruit/vegetable intake). We will evaluate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of R2 message and R2 navigation alone or in combination in 12 primary care clinics including both (a) large metropolitan health system and (b) rural-serving clinics. Expected outcomes include: (1) improvement in behavioral risk factors; (2) implementation outcomes – including representative engagement with R2 message and R2 navigation, and cost; and (3) improvement in practice value outcomes, including patient experience ratings. Based on the trial findings, we will co-develop an implementation, adaptation and sustainment guide for the most cost-effective implementation strategy. Conclusions We expect the implementation strategies compared will produce different levels of representative engagement, behavior change, cost, and practice value. These findings will inform pragmatic ways to improve outcomes important to patients, primary care, and society. Trial Registration# at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT07569224 (Registration date: 04/29/2026).
SN - 1748-5908
ER -