Dataset Information

Exposure to and experiences with a computerized decision support intervention in primary care: results from a process evaluation.

ABSTRACT: Trials evaluating the effects of interventions usually provide little insight into the factors responsible for (lack of) changes in desired outcomes. A process evaluation alongside a trial can shed light on the mechanisms responsible for the outcomes of a trial. The aim of this study was to investigate exposure to and experiences with a computerized decision support system (CDSS) intervention, in order to gain insight into the intervention's impact and to provide suggestions for improvement.A process evaluation was conducted as part of a large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of the CDSS NHGDoc on quality of care. Data on exposure to and experiences with the intervention were collected during the trial period among participants in both the intervention and control group - whenever applicable - by means of the NHGDoc server and an electronic questionnaire. Multiple data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.Ninety-nine percent (n?=?229) of the included practices generated data for the NHGDoc server and 50 % (n?=?116) responded to the questionnaire: both general practitioners (GPs; n?=?112; 49 %) and practice nurses (PNs; n?=?52; 37 %) participated. The actual exposure to the NHGDoc system and specific heart failure module was limited with 52 % of the GPs and 42 % of the PNs reporting to either never or rarely use the system. Overall, users had a positive attitude towards CDSSs. The most perceived barriers to using NHGDoc were a lack of learning capacity of the system, the additional time and work it requires to use the CDSS, irrelevant alerts, too high intensity of alerts and insufficient knowledge regarding the system.Several types of barriers may have negatively affected the impact of the intervention. Although users are generally positive about CDSSs, a large share of them is insufficiently aware of the functions of NHGDoc and, finds the decision support not always useful or relevant and difficult to integrate into daily practice. In designing CDSS interventions we suggest to more intensely involve the end-users and increase the system's flexibility and learning capacity. To improve implementation a proper introduction of a CDSS among its target group including adequate training is advocated.Clinical trials NCT01773057 .

SUBMITTER: Lugtenberg M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4608282 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exposure to and experiences with a computerized decision support intervention in primary care: results from a process evaluation.

Lugtenberg Marjolein M Pasveer Dennis D van der Weijden Trudy T Westert Gert P GP Kool Rudolf B RB

BMC family practice 20151016

<h4>Background</h4>Trials evaluating the effects of interventions usually provide little insight into the factors responsible for (lack of) changes in desired outcomes. A process evaluation alongside a trial can shed light on the mechanisms responsible for the outcomes of a trial. The aim of this study was to investigate exposure to and experiences with a computerized decision support system (CDSS) intervention, in order to gain insight into the intervention's impact and to provide suggestions f ...[more]

PMID: 26474603

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are claimed to improve processes and outcomes of primary preventive care (PPC), but their effects, safety, and acceptance must be confirmed. We updated our previous systematic reviews of CCDSSs and integrated a knowledge translation approach in the process. The objective was to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CCDSSs for PPC on process of care, patient outcomes, harms, and costs.MethodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews Database, Inspec, and other databases, as well as reference lists through January 2010. We contacted authors to confirm data or provide additional information. We included RCTs that assessed the effect of a CCDSS for PPC on process of care and patient outcomes compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.ResultsWe added 17 new RCTs to our 2005 review for a total of 41 studies. RCT quality improved over time. CCDSSs improved process of care in 25 of 40 (63%) RCTs. Cumulative scientifically strong evidence supports the effectiveness of CCDSSs for screening and management of dyslipidaemia in primary care. There is mixed evidence for effectiveness in screening for cancer and mental health conditions, multiple preventive care activities, vaccination, and other preventive care interventions. Fourteen (34%) trials assessed patient outcomes, and four (29%) reported improvements with the CCDSS. Most trials were not powered to evaluate patient-important outcomes. CCDSS costs and adverse events were reported in only six (15%) and two (5%) trials, respectively. Information on study duration was often missing, limiting our ability to assess sustainability of CCDSS effects.ConclusionsEvidence supports the effectiveness of CCDSSs for screening and treatment of dyslipidaemia in primary care with less consistent evidence for CCDSSs used in screening for cancer and mental health-related conditions, vaccinations, and other preventive care. CCDSS effects on patient outcomes, safety, costs of care, and provider satisfaction remain poorly supported.

Project description:BackgroundThe Bridging the Age Gap in Breast Cancer research programme sought to improve treatment decision-making for older women with breast cancer by developing and testing, in a cluster randomised trial (n = 1339 patients), two decision support interventions (DESIs). Both DESIs were used in the intervention arm and each comprised an online risk prediction model, brief decision aid and information booklet. One DESI supported the decision to have either primary endocrine therapy (PET) or surgery with adjuvant therapies and the second supported the decision to have adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery or not.MethodsSixteen sites were randomly selected to take part in the process evaluation. Multiple methods of data collection were used. Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for the evaluation of complex interventions were used.ResultsEighty-two patients, mean age 75.5 (range 70-93), provided data for the process evaluation. Seventy-three interviews were completed with patients. Ten clinicians from six intervention sites took part in telephone interviews. Dose: Ninety-one members of staff in the intervention arm received intervention training. Reach: The online tool was accessed on 324 occasions by 27 clinicians. Reasons for non-use of the online tool were commonly that the patient had already made a decision or that there was no online access in the clinic. Of the 32 women for whom there were data available, fifteen from the intervention arm and six from the usual care arm were offered a choice of treatment. Fidelity: Clinicians used the online tool in different ways, with some using it during the consultation and others checking the online survival estimates before the consultation. Adaptation: There was evidence of adaptation when using the DESIs. A lack of infrastructure, e.g. internet access, was a barrier to the use of the online tool. The brief decision aid was rarely used. Mediators: Shared decision-making: Most patients felt able to contribute to decision-making and expressed high levels of satisfaction with the process. Participants' responses to intervention: Six patients reported the DESIs to be very useful, one somewhat useful and two moderately useful.ConclusionsClinicians who participated were mainly supportive of the interventions and had attempted some adaptations to make the interventions applicable, but there were practical and engagement barriers that led to sub-optimal adoption in routine practice.Trial registrationISRCTN46099296 . Registered on 11 August 2016-retrospectively registered.

Project description:Background: Medication adherence can prevent health risks, but many patients do not adhere to their prescribed treatment. Our recent trial found that a digital intervention was effective at improving medication adherence in non-adherent patients with Hypertension or Type 2 Diabetes; but we do not know how it brought about behavioural changes. This research is a post-trial process evaluation of the mechanism by which the intervention achieved its intended effects. Methods: A mixed methods design with quantitative and qualitative evidence synthesis was employed. Data was generated by two studies. Study 1 used questionnaires to measure the underlying mechanisms of and the medication adherence behaviour, and digital logfiles to objectively capture intervention effects on the process of behaviour change. Multilevel regression analysis on 57 complete intervention group cases tested the effects of the intervention at modifying the mechanism of behaviour change and in turn at improving medication adherence. Study 2 used in depth interviews with a subsample of 20 intervention patients, and eight practise nurses. Thematic analysis provided evidence about the overarching intervention functions and recommendations to improve intervention reach and impact in primary care. Results: Study 1 found that intervention effectiveness was significantly associated with positive changes in the underlying mechanisms of behaviour change (R 2 = 0.26, SE = 0.98, P = 0.00); and this effect was heightened twofold when the tailored intervention content and reporting on medication taking (R 2 = 0.59, SE = 0.74, P = 0.00) was interested into the regression model. Study 2 suggested that the intervention supported motivation and ability to adherence, although clinically meaningful effects would require very brief medication adherence risk appraisal and signposting to ongoing digitally delivered behavioural support during clinical consultations. Conclusion: This post trial process evaluation used objective methods to capture the intervention effect on the mechanisms of behaviour change to explain intervention effectiveness, and subjective accounts to explore the circumstances under which these effects were achieved. The results of this process evaluation will inform a large scale randomised controlled trial in primary care.

Dataset Information

Exposure to and experiences with a computerized decision support intervention in primary care: results from a process evaluation.

Publications

Exposure to and experiences with a computerized decision support intervention in primary care: results from a process evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets