Dataset Information

Clinicians' Role in the Adoption of an Oncology Decision Support App in Europe and Its Implications for Organizational Practices: Qualitative Case Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Despite the existence of adequate technological infrastructure and clearer policies, there are situations where users, mainly physicians, resist mobile health (mHealth) solutions. This is of particular concern, bearing in mind that several studies, both in developed and developing countries, showed that clinicians' adoption is the most influential factor in such solutions' success. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to focus on understanding clinicians' roles in the adoption of an oncology decision support app, the factors impacting this adoption, and its implications for organizational and social practices. METHODS:A qualitative case study of a decision support app in oncology, called ONCOassist, was conducted. The data were collected through 17 in-depth interviews with clinicians and nurses in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. RESULTS:This case demonstrates the affordances and constraints of mHealth technology at the workplace, its implications for the organization of work, and clinicians' role in its constant development and adoption. The research findings confirmed that factors such as app operation and stability, ease of use, usefulness, cost, and portability play a major role in the adoption decision; however, other social factors such as endorsement, neutrality of the content, attitude toward technology, existing workload, and internal organizational politics are also reported as key determinants of clinicians' adoption. Interoperability and cultural views of mobile usage at work are the key workflow disadvantages, whereas higher efficiency and performance, sharpened practice, and location flexibility are the main workflow advantages. CONCLUSIONS:Several organizational implications emerged, suggesting the need for some actions such as fostering a work culture that embraces new technologies and the creation of new digital roles for clinicians both on the hospitals or clinics and on the development sides but also more collaboration between health care organizations and digital health providers to enable electronic medical record integration and solving of any interoperability issues. From a theoretical perspective, we also suggest the addition of a fourth step to Leonardi's methodological guidance that accounts for user engagement; embedding the users in the continuous design and development processes ensures the understanding of user-specific affordances that can then be made more obvious to other users and increase the potential of such tools to go beyond their technological features and have a higher impact on workflow and the organizing process.

SUBMITTER: Jacob C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6524456 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinicians' Role in the Adoption of an Oncology Decision Support App in Europe and Its Implications for Organizational Practices: Qualitative Case Study.

Jacob Christine C Sanchez-Vazquez Antonio A Ivory Chris C

JMIR mHealth and uHealth 20190503 5

<h4>Background</h4>Despite the existence of adequate technological infrastructure and clearer policies, there are situations where users, mainly physicians, resist mobile health (mHealth) solutions. This is of particular concern, bearing in mind that several studies, both in developed and developing countries, showed that clinicians' adoption is the most influential factor in such solutions' success.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to focus on understanding clinicians' roles in the ad ...[more]

PMID: 31066710

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study uses the diffusion of innovations (DOI) theory to comprehensively understand the adoption of shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, specifically focusing on the 'knowledge' and 'persuasion' stages within DOI. We aim to understand the challenges and dynamics associated with SDM adoption, offering insights for more patient-centred decision-making in healthcare.DesignThis qualitative study employs a modified framework analysis approach, integrating ethnographic and interview data from prior research, along with additional interviews. The framework used is based on the DOI theory.Study setting and participantsThis study was conducted in the obstetrics and gynaecology department of a tertiary teaching hospital in the Eastern region of the Netherlands. It included interviews with 20 participants, including gynaecologists, obstetrics registrars and junior doctors currently practising in the department. Additionally, data from prior research conducted within the same department were incorporated, ensuring the maintenance of contextual consistency.ResultsFindings reveal a complex interplay between SDM's benefits and challenges. Clinicians value SDM for upholding patient autonomy and enhancing medical practice, viewing it as valuable for medical decision-making. Decision aids are seen as advantageous in supporting treatment decisions. Challenges include compatibility issues between patient and clinician preferences, perceptions of SDM as time-consuming and difficult and limitations imposed by the rapid pace of healthcare and its swift decisions. Additionally, perceived complexity varies by situation, influenced by colleagues' attitudes, with limited trialability and sparsely observed instances of SDM.ConclusionsClinicians' decision to adopt or reject SDM is multifaceted, shaped by beliefs, cognitive processes and contextual challenges. Cognitive dissonance is critical as clinicians reconcile their existing practices with the adoption of SDM. Practical strategies such as practice assessments, open discussions about SDM's utility and reflective practice through professional development initiatives empower clinicians to make the best informed decision to adopt or reject SDM.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is a growing body of evidence highlighting the potential of mobile health (mHealth) in reducing health care costs, enhancing access, and improving the quality of patient care. However, user acceptance and adoption are key prerequisites to harness this potential; hence, a deeper understanding of the factors impacting this adoption is crucial for its success. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this review was to systematically explore relevant published literature to synthesize the current understanding of the factors impacting clinicians' adoption of mHealth tools, not only from a technological perspective but also from social and organizational perspectives. METHODS:A structured search was carried out of MEDLINE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the SAGE database for studies published between January 2008 and July 2018 in the English language, yielding 4993 results, of which 171 met the inclusion criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines and the Cochrane handbook were followed to ensure a systematic process. RESULTS:The technological factors impacting clinicians' adoption of mHealth tools were categorized into eight key themes: usefulness, ease of use, design, compatibility, technical issues, content, personalization, and convenience, which were in turn divided into 14 subthemes altogether. Social and organizational factors were much more prevalent and were categorized into eight key themes: workflow related, patient related, policy and regulations, culture or attitude or social influence, monetary factors, evidence base, awareness, and user engagement. These were divided into 41 subthemes, highlighting the importance of considering these factors when addressing potential barriers to mHealth adoption and how to overcome them. CONCLUSIONS:The study results can help inform mHealth providers and policymakers regarding the key factors impacting mHealth adoption, guiding them into making educated decisions to foster this adoption and harness the potential benefits.

Project description:Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation decisions-for example, by using systematic evaluation-could help increase the economic value of surveillance efforts. Finally, a collaborative, international platform for exchange and learning on surveillance as well as co-design and dissemination of surveillance standards is recommended.

Project description:PURPOSE:Precision oncology is hindered by the lack of decision support for determining the functional and therapeutic significance of genomic alterations in tumors and relevant clinically available options. To bridge this knowledge gap, we established a Precision Oncology Decision Support (PODS) team that provides annotations at the alteration-level and subsequently determined if clinical decision-making was influenced. METHODS:Genomic alterations were annotated to determine actionability based on a variant's known or potential functional and/or therapeutic significance. The medical records of a subset of patients annotated in 2015 were manually reviewed to assess trial enrollment. A web-based survey was implemented to capture the reasons why genotype-matched therapies were not pursued. RESULTS:PODS processed 1,669 requests for annotation of 4,084 alterations (2,254 unique) across 49 tumor types for 1,197 patients. 2,444 annotations for 669 patients included an actionable variant call: 32.5% actionable, 9.4% potentially, 29.7% unknown, 28.4% non-actionable. 66% of patients had at least one actionable/potentially actionable alteration. 20.6% (110/535) patients annotated enrolled on a genotype-matched trial. Trial enrolment was significantly higher for patients with actionable/potentially actionable alterations (92/333, 27.6%) than those with unknown (16/136, 11.8%) and non-actionable (2/66, 3%) alterations (p=0.00004). Actionable alterations in PTEN, PIK3CA, and ERBB2 most frequently led to enrollment on genotype-matched trials. Clinicians cited a variety of reasons why patients with actionable alterations did not enroll on trials. CONCLUSION:Over half of alterations annotated were of unknown significance or non-actionable. Physicians were more likely to enroll a patient on a genotype-matched trial when an annotation supported actionability. Future studies are needed to demonstrate the impact of decision support on trial enrollment and oncologic outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) tools have shown promise in clinical photo and wound documentation for their potential to improve workflows, expand access to care, and improve the quality of patient care. However, some barriers to adoption persist.ObjectiveThis study aims to understand the social, organizational, and technical factors affecting clinicians' adoption of a clinical photo documentation mHealth app and its implications for clinical workflows and quality of care.MethodsA qualitative case study of a clinical photo and wound documentation app called imitoCam was conducted. The data were collected through 20 in-depth interviews with mHealth providers, clinicians, and medical informatics experts from 8 clinics and hospitals in Switzerland and Germany.ResultsAccording to the study participants, the use of mHealth in clinical photo and wound documentation provides numerous benefits such as time-saving and efficacy, better patient safety and quality of care, enhanced data security and validation, and better accessibility. The clinical workflow may also improve when the app is a good fit, resulting in better collaboration and transparency, streamlined daily work, clinician empowerment, and improved quality of care. The findings included important factors that may contribute to or hinder adoption. Factors may be related to the material nature of the tool, such as the perceived usefulness, ease of use, interoperability, cost, or security of the app, or social aspects such as personal experience, attitudes, awareness, or culture. Organizational and policy barriers include the available clinical practice infrastructure, workload and resources, the complexity of decision making, training, and ambiguity or lack of regulations. User engagement in the development and implementation process is a vital contributor to the successful adoption of mHealth apps.ConclusionsThe promising potential of mHealth in clinical photo and wound documentation is clear and may enhance clinical workflow and quality of care; however, the factors affecting adoption go beyond the technical features of the tool itself to embrace significant social and organizational elements. Technology providers, clinicians, and decision makers should work together to carefully address any barriers to improve adoption and harness the potential of these tools.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR)-based clinical decision support tools can improve the use of evidence-based clinical guidelines for preeclampsia management that can reduce maternal mortality and morbidity. No study has investigated the organizational capabilities that enable hospitals to use EHR-based decision support tools to manage preeclampsia.ObjectiveTo examine the association of organizational capabilities and hospital adoption of EHR-based decision support tools for preeclampsia management.MethodsCross-sectional analyses of hospitals providing obstetric care in 2017. In total, 739 hospitals responded to the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS) and were linked to the 2017 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey Database and the Area Health Resources File (AHRF). A total of 425 hospitals providing obstetric care across 49 states were included in the analysis. The main outcome was whether a hospital adopted EHR-based clinical decision support tools for preeclampsia management. Hospital organizational capabilities assessed as predictors include EHR functions, adoption of evidence-based clinical treatments, use of quality improvement methods, and dissemination processes to share best patient care practices. Logistic regression estimated the association of hospital organizational capabilities and hospital adoption of EHR-based decision support tools to manage preeclampsia, controlling for hospital structural and patient sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsTwo-thirds of the hospitals (68%) adopted EHR-based decision support tools for preeclampsia, and slightly more than half (56%) of hospitals had a single EHR system. Multivariable regression results indicate that hospitals with a single EHR system were more likely to adopt EHR-based decision support tools for preeclampsia (17.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.9 to 33.0; P < .05) than hospitals with a mixture of EHR and paper-based systems. Compared with hospitals having multiple EHRs, on average, hospitals having a single EHR were also more likely to adopt the tools by 9.3 percentage points, but the difference was not statistically significant (95% CI, -1.3 to 19.9). Hospitals with more processes to aid dissemination of best patient care practices were also more likely to adopt EHR-based decision-support tools for preeclampsia (0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.6, for every 1-unit increase in dissemination processes; P < .01).ConclusionStandardized EHRs and policies to disseminate evidence are foundational hospital capabilities that can help advance the use of EHR-based decision support tools for preeclampsia management in the approximately one-third of US hospitals that still do not use them.

Project description:BackgroundAppropriate tools are essential to support a clinician's decision to refer very preterm infants to developmental resources. Streamlining the use of developmental assessment or screening tools to make clinical decisions offers an alternative methodology to help to choose the most effective way to assess this very high-risk population.ObjectiveTo examine the influence of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3rd edition (ASQ3) and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-3rd edition (Bayley-III) scores within a clinically-based decision-making process.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study includes children born at less than 29 weeks gestation who had completed both psychologist-administered Bayley-III and physician-observed ASQ3 assessments at 18 months corrected age. Theoretical referral decisions (TRDs) based on each assessment results were formulated, using cut-off scores between the lower first and second standard deviation values and below the lower second standard deviation values. TRDs to refer to developmental resources were evaluated in light of the multidisciplinary team's actual final integrated decisions (FID).ResultsComplete data was available for 67 children. The ASQ3 and the Bayley-III had similar predictive value for the FID, with comparable kappa values. Comparisons of the physicians' and psychologists' TRDs with the FIDs demonstrated that the ASQ3 in conjunction with the medical and socio-familial findings predicted 93% of referral decisions.ConclusionTaking into consideration potential methodological biases, the results suggest that either ASQ3 or Bayley-III, along with socio-environmental, medical and neurological assessment, are sufficient to guide the majority of clinicians' decisions regarding referral for specialty services. This retrospective study suggests that the physician-supervised ASQ3 may be sufficient to assess children who had been extremely preterm infants for referral purposes. The findings need to be confirmed in a larger, well-designed prospective study to minimize and account for potential sources of bias.

Project description:BackgroundThis project engages patients and physicians in the development of Decision Boxes, short clinical topic summaries covering medical questions that have no single best answer. Decision Boxes aim to prepare the clinician to communicate the risks and benefits of the available options to the patient so they can make an informed decision together.MethodsSeven researchers (including four practicing family physicians) selected 10 clinical topics relevant to primary care practice through a Delphi survey. We then developed two one-page prototypes on two of these topics: prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen test, and prenatal screening for trisomy 21 with the serum integrated test. We presented the prototypes to purposeful samples of family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and patients distributed in four focus groups. We used the User Experience Honeycomb to explore barriers and facilitators to the communication design used in Decision Boxes. All discussions were transcribed, and three researchers proceeded to thematic content analysis of the transcriptions. The coding scheme was first developed from the Honeycomb's seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible, and findable), and included new themes suggested by the data. Prototypes were modified in light of our findings.ResultsThree rounds were necessary for a majority of researchers to select 10 clinical topics. Fifteen physicians and 33 patients participated in the focus groups. Following analyses, three sections were added to the Decision Boxes: introduction, patient counseling, and references. The information was spread to two pages to try to make the Decision Boxes less busy and improve users' first impression. To try to improve credibility, we gave more visibility to the research institutions involved in development. A statement on the boxes' purpose and a flow chart representing the shared decision-making process were added with the intent of clarifying the tool's purpose. Information about the risks and benefits according to risk levels was added to the Decision Boxes, to try to ease the adaptation of the information to individual patients.ConclusionResults will guide the development of the eight remaining Decision Boxes. A future study will evaluate the effect of Decision Boxes on the integration of evidence-based and shared decision making principles in clinical practice.

Dataset Information

Clinicians' Role in the Adoption of an Oncology Decision Support App in Europe and Its Implications for Organizational Practices: Qualitative Case Study.

Publications

Clinicians' Role in the Adoption of an Oncology Decision Support App in Europe and Its Implications for Organizational Practices: Qualitative Case Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets