Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Systematic reviews provide evidence for clinical questions, however the literature suggests they are not used regularly by physicians for decision-making. A shortened systematic review format is proposed as one possible solution to address barriers, such as lack of time, experienced by busy clinicians. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development process of two shortened formats for a systematic review intended for use by primary care physicians as an information tool for clinical decision-making.Methods
We developed prototypes for two formats (case-based and evidence-expertise) that represent a summary of a full-length systematic review before seeking input from end-users. The process was composed of the following four phases: 1) selection of a systematic review and creation of initial prototypes that represent a shortened version of the systematic review; 2) a mapping exercise to identify obstacles described by clinicians in using clinical evidence in decision-making; 3) a heuristic evaluation (a usability inspection method); and 4) a review of the clinical content in the prototypes.Results
After the initial prototypes were created (Phase 1), the mapping exercise (Phase 2) identified components that prompted modifications. Similarly, the heuristic evaluation and the clinical content review (Phase 3 and Phase 4) uncovered necessary changes. Revisions were made to the prototypes based on the results.Conclusions
Documentation of the processes for developing products or tools provides essential information about how they are tailored for the intended user. One step has been described that we hope will increase usability and uptake of these documents to end-users.
SUBMITTER: Perrier L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3691647 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians.
Perrier Laure L Persaud Nav N Ko Anita A Kastner Monika M Grimshaw Jeremy J McKibbon K Ann KA Straus Sharon E SE
Implementation science : IS 20130614
<h4>Background</h4>Systematic reviews provide evidence for clinical questions, however the literature suggests they are not used regularly by physicians for decision-making. A shortened systematic review format is proposed as one possible solution to address barriers, such as lack of time, experienced by busy clinicians. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development process of two shortened formats for a systematic review intended for use by primary care physicians as an information t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the usability of two formats of a shortened systematic review for clinicians.Materials and methodsUsability of the prototypes was assessed using three cycles of iterative testing. 10 participants were asked to complete tasks of locating information or items within two prototypes and 'think aloud' while being audio taped. Interviews were also audio recorded and participants completed a systematic usability scale.ResultsRevisions were made between each iteration in order to address issues identified by participants. Finding information relating to the number of studies in the meta-analysis, and locating the number of studies in the entire systematic review were revealed as areas needing attention during the usability evaluation.ConclusionsIterative testing combined with a multifaceted approach to usability testing offered essential insight into aspects of the prototypes that required modifications. Alterations were made in order to create finalised versions of the two shortened systematic review formats.
| S-EPMC4275680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo conduct a series of focus groups with primary care physicians to determine the optimal format of a shortened, focused systematic review.Materials and methodsPrototypes for two formats of a shortened systematic review were developed and presented to participants during focus group sessions. Focus groups were conducted with primary care physicians who were in full- or part-time practice. An iterative process was used so that the information learned from the first set of focus groups (Round 1) influenced the material presented to the second set of focus groups (Round 2). The focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed.ResultsEach of the two rounds of testing included three focus groups. A total of 32 physicians participated (Round 1:16 participants; Round 2:16 participants). Analysis of the transcripts from Round 1 identified three themes including ease of use, clarity, and implementation. Changes were made to the prototypes based on the results so that the revised prototypes could be presented and discussed in the second round of focus groups. After analysis of transcripts from Round 2, four themes were identified, including ease of use, clarity, brevity, and implementation. Revisions were made to the prototypes based on the results.ConclusionsPrimary care physicians provided input on the refinement of two prototypes of a shortened systematic review for clinicians. Their feedback guided changes to the format, presentation, and layout of these prototypes in order to increase usability and uptake for end-users.
| S-EPMC4173187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has been extensively used in a range of medical fields to promote therapeutic development. The development of diverse AI techniques has also contributed to early detections, disease diagnoses, and referral management. However, concerns about the value of advanced AI in disease diagnosis have been raised by health care professionals, medical service providers, and health policy decision makers.ObjectiveThis review aimed to systematically examine the literature, in particular, focusing on the performance comparison between advanced AI and human clinicians to provide an up-to-date summary regarding the extent of the application of AI to disease diagnoses. By doing so, this review discussed the relationship between the current advanced AI development and clinicians with respect to disease diagnosis and thus therapeutic development in the long run.MethodsWe systematically searched articles published between January 2000 and March 2019 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis in the following databases: Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. According to the preset inclusion and exclusion criteria, only articles comparing the medical performance between advanced AI and human experts were considered.ResultsA total of 9 articles were identified. A convolutional neural network was the commonly applied advanced AI technology. Owing to the variation in medical fields, there is a distinction between individual studies in terms of classification, labeling, training process, dataset size, and algorithm validation of AI. Performance indices reported in articles included diagnostic accuracy, weighted errors, false-positive rate, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The results showed that the performance of AI was at par with that of clinicians and exceeded that of clinicians with less experience.ConclusionsCurrent AI development has a diagnostic performance that is comparable with medical experts, especially in image recognition-related fields. Further studies can be extended to other types of medical imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging and other medical practices unrelated to images. With the continued development of AI-assisted technologies, the clinical implications underpinned by clinicians' experience and guided by patient-centered health care principle should be constantly considered in future AI-related and other technology-based medical research.
| S-EPMC6716335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The application of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare domains has received much attention in recent years, yet significant questions remain about how these new tools integrate into frontline user workflow, and how their design will impact implementation. Lack of acceptance among clinicians is a major barrier to the translation of healthcare innovations into clinical practice. In this systematic review, we examine when and how clinicians are consulted about their needs and desires for clinical AI tools. Forty-five articles met criteria for inclusion, of which 24 were considered design studies. The design studies used a variety of methods to solicit and gather user feedback, with interviews, surveys, and user evaluations. Our findings show that tool designers consult clinicians at various but inconsistent points during the design process, and most typically at later stages in the design cycle (82%, 19/24 design studies). We also observed a smaller amount of studies adopting a human-centered approach and where clinician input was solicited throughout the design process (22%, 5/24). A third (15/45) of all studies reported on clinician trust in clinical AI algorithms and tools. The surveyed articles did not universally report validation against the "gold standard" of clinical expertise or provide detailed descriptions of the algorithms or computational methods used in their work. To realize the full potential of AI tools within healthcare settings, our review suggests there are opportunities to more thoroughly integrate frontline users' needs and feedback in the design process.
| S-EPMC9022040 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effectiveness of biologic therapies now means that remission or low disease activity are realistic targets for treatment. However, after achieving remission/low disease activity, the next steps remain unclear. The aim of this publication was to conduct a broad systematic literature review to evaluate dosing down of biologics. After screening papers and abstracts for relevance and application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, a structured extraction process was used to collect information on the included studies. Fifty-two papers were included in the analysis across rheumatic disease. In patients who discontinue therapy, remission is not typically sustained, with reported rates of relapse and flare across early RA (48-54%), established RA (2-84%), axial spondyloarthritis (11-53%) and PsA (44.9%). In many cases, an acceptable disease activity can be regained upon retreatment. More research is needed to understand the long-term impacts of these strategies on efficacy, safety and cost.
| S-EPMC5850865 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: With increasing restrictions placed on physician-industry interactions, industry marketing may target other health professionals. Recent health policy developments confer even greater importance on the decision making of non-physician clinicians. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the types and implications of non-physician clinician-industry interactions in clinical practice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched MEDLINE and Web of Science from January 1, 1946, through June 24, 2013, according to PRISMA guidelines. Non-physician clinicians eligible for inclusion were: Registered Nurses, nurse prescribers, Physician Assistants, pharmacists, dieticians, and physical or occupational therapists; trainee samples were excluded. Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Data were synthesized qualitatively into eight outcome domains: nature and frequency of industry interactions; attitudes toward industry; perceived ethical acceptability of interactions; perceived marketing influence; perceived reliability of industry information; preparation for industry interactions; reactions to industry relations policy; and management of industry interactions. Non-physician clinicians reported interacting with the pharmaceutical and infant formula industries. Clinicians across disciplines met with pharmaceutical representatives regularly and relied on them for practice information. Clinicians frequently received industry "information," attended sponsored "education," and acted as distributors for similar materials targeted at patients. Clinicians generally regarded this as an ethical use of industry resources, and felt they could detect "promotion" while benefiting from industry "information." Free samples were among the most approved and common ways that clinicians interacted with industry. Included studies were observational and of varying methodological rigor; thus, these findings may not be generalizable. This review is, however, the first to our knowledge to provide a descriptive analysis of this literature. CONCLUSIONS: Non-physician clinicians' generally positive attitudes toward industry interactions, despite their recognition of issues related to bias, suggest that industry interactions are normalized in clinical practice across non-physician disciplines. Industry relations policy should address all disciplines and be implemented consistently in order to mitigate conflicts of interest and address such interactions' potential to affect patient care. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
| S-EPMC3841103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This systematic literature review investigates factors impacting on clinicians' decisions to offer genetic tests in their practice, and maps them to a theoretical behaviour change framework. Better understanding of these factors will inform the design of effective interventions to integrate genomics tests into clinical care. We conducted a narrative synthesis of empirical research of medical specialists' perspectives on and experiences of offering genetic tests to their patients. This review was based upon the PRISMA statement and guidelines for reviewing qualitative research. Four electronic data sources were searched-MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed. Studies were independently assessed by two authors. Content analysis was applied to map the findings of included studies to a framework validated for behaviour and implementation research, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The TDF describes 14 factors known to influence behaviour and has been applied in diverse clinical settings to understand and/or modify health professional behaviour. Thirty-four studies published in 39 articles met inclusion and quality criteria. Most studies were published after 2011 (54%), Northern American (82%), quantitative in design (68%) and addressed familial cancer genetic tests (53%). Of the 14 TDF factors, 13 were identified. The three most common factors were: Environmental Context and Resources (n?=?33), Beliefs about Consequences (n?=?26), and Knowledge (n?=?23). To support the adoption of genomic tests beyond specialist services, nuanced interventions targeting considerations beyond clinician education are needed. For instance, interventions addressing organisational constraints which may restrict clinicians' ability to offer genomic tests are required alongside those targeting factors intrinsic to the clinician.
| S-EPMC6138746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImplementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of clinical research findings into routine clinical practice. Several interventions have been shown to be effective in changing health care professionals' behaviour, but heterogeneity within interventions, targeted behaviours, and study settings make generalisation difficult. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the 'active ingredients' in professional behaviour change strategies. Theories of human behaviour that feature an individual's "intention" to do something as the most immediate predictor of their behaviour have proved to be useful in non-clinical populations. As clinical practice is a form of human behaviour such theories may offer a basis for developing a scientific rationale for the choice of intervention to use in the implementation of new practice. The aim of this review was to explore the relationship between intention and behaviour in clinicians and how this compares to the intention-behaviour relationship in studies of non-clinicians.MethodsWe searched: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science/Social science citation index, Current contents (social & behavioural med/clinical med), ISI conference proceedings, and Index to Theses. The reference lists of all included papers were checked manually. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they had: examined a clinical behaviour within a clinical context, included measures of both intention and behaviour, measured behaviour after intention, and explored this relationship quantitatively. All titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching were screened independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by discussion.DiscussionTen studies were found that examined the relationship between intention and clinical behaviours in 1623 health professionals. The proportion of variance in behaviour explained by intention was of a similar magnitude to that found in the literature relating to non-health professionals. This was more consistently the case for studies in which intention-behaviour correspondence was good and behaviour was self-reported. Though firm conclusions are limited by a smaller literature, our findings are consistent with that of the non-health professional literature. This review, viewed in the context of the larger populations of studies, provides encouragement for the contention that there is a predictable relationship between the intentions of a health professional and their subsequent behaviour. However, there remain significant methodological challenges.
| S-EPMC1664582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine and compare preferences of knowledge users for two different formats of summarizing results from systematic reviews: infographics and critical appraisals.DesignCross-sectional.SettingAnnual members' meeting of a Network of Centres of Excellence in Knowledge Mobilization called TREKK (Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids). TREKK is a national network of researchers, clinicians, health consumers, and relevant organizations with the goal of mobilizing knowledge to improve emergency care for children.ParticipantsMembers of the TREKK Network attending the annual meeting in October 2013.Outcome measuresOverall preference for infographic vs. critical appraisal format. Members' rating of each format on a 10-point Likert scale for clarity, comprehensibility, and aesthetic appeal. Members' impressions of the appropriateness of the two formats for their professional role and for other audiences.ResultsAmong 64 attendees, 58 members provided feedback (91%). Overall, their preferred format was divided with 24/47 (51%) preferring the infographic to the critical appraisal. Preference varied by professional role, with 15/22 (68%) of physicians preferring the critical appraisal and 8/12 (67%) of nurses preferring the infographic. The critical appraisal was rated higher for clarity (mean 7.8 vs. 7.0; p = 0.03), while the infographic was rated higher for aesthetic appeal (mean 7.2 vs. 5.0; p<0.001). There was no difference between formats for comprehensibility (mean 7.6 critical appraisal vs. 7.1 infographic; p = 0.09). Respondents indicated the infographic would be most useful for patients and their caregivers, while the critical appraisal would be most useful for their professional roles.ConclusionsInfographics are considered more aesthetically appealing for summarizing evidence; however, critical appraisal formats are considered clearer and more comprehensible. Our findings show differences in terms of audience-specific preferences for presentation of research results. This study supports other research indicating that tools for knowledge dissemination and translation need to be targeted to specific end users' preferences and needs.
| S-EPMC4605679 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Poor recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a widespread problem. Provision of interventions aimed at supporting or incentivising clinicians may improve recruitment to RCTs. Objectives To quantify the effects of strategies aimed at improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in RCTs, complemented with a synthesis of qualitative evidence related to clinicians' attitudes towards recruiting to RCTs. Data sources A systematic review of English and non-English articles identified from: The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ebsco CINAHL, Index to Theses and Open SIGLE from 2001 to March 2011. Additional reports were identified through citation searches of included articles. Study eligibility criteria Quantitative studies were included if they evaluated interventions aimed at improving the recruitment activity of clinicians or compared recruitment by different groups of clinicians. Information about host trial, study design, participants, interventions, outcomes and host RCT was extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using a standardised tool, the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Qualitative studies were included if they investigated clinicians' attitudes to recruiting patients to RCTs. All results/findings were extracted, and content analysis was carried out. Overarching themes were abstracted, followed by a metasummary analysis. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist. Data extraction Data extraction was carried out by one researcher using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators, and verified by another. Results Eight quantitative studies were included describing four interventions and a comparison of recruiting clinicians. One study was rated as strong, one as moderate and the remaining six as weak when assessed for quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Effective interventions included the use of qualitative research to identify and overcome barriers to recruitment, reduction of the clinical workload associated with participation in RCTs and the provision of extra training and protected research time. Eleven qualitative studies were identified, and eight themes were abstracted from the data: understanding of research, communication, perceived patient barriers, patient-clinician relationship, effect on patients, effect on clinical practice, individual benefits for clinicians and methods associated with successful recruitment. Metasummary analysis identified the most frequently reported subthemes to be: difficulty communicating trial methods, poor understanding of research and priority given to patient well-being. Overall, the qualitative studies were found to be of good quality when assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Conclusions There were few high-quality trials that tested interventions to improve clinicians' recruitment activity in RCTs. The most promising intervention was the use of qualitative methods to identify and overcome barriers to clinician recruitment activity. More good quality studies of interventions are needed to add to the evidence base. The metasummary of qualitative findings identified understanding and communicating RCT methods as a key target for future interventions to improve recruitment. Reinforcement of the potential benefits, both for clinicians and for their patients, could also be a successful factor in improving recruitment. A bias was found towards investigating barriers to recruitment, so future work should also encompass a focus on successfully recruiting trials.
| S-EPMC3253423 | biostudies-literature