Dataset Information

A risk prediction tool for colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study of patient and provider facilitators and barriers.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Despite proven effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, at least 35% of screen-eligible adults are not current with screening. Decision aids and risk prediction tools may help increase uptake, adherence, and efficiency of CRC screening by presenting lower-risk patients with options less invasive than colonoscopy. The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine patient and provider perceptions of facilitators and barriers to use of a risk prediction tool for advanced colorectal neoplasia (CRC and advanced, precancerous polyps), to maximize its chances of successful clinical implementation. METHODS:We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with patients aged 50-75?years who were not current with CRC screening, and primary care providers (PCPs) at an academic and a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the Midwest from October 2016 through March 2017. Participants were asked about their current experiences discussing CRC screening, then were shown the risk tool and asked about its acceptability, barriers, facilitators, and whether they would use it to guide their choice of a screening test. The constant comparative method guided analysis. RESULTS:Thirty patients and PCPs participated. Among facilitators were the tool's potential to increase screening uptake, reduce patient risk, improve resource allocation, and facilitate discussion about CRC screening. PCP-identified barriers included concerns about the tool's accuracy, consistency with guidelines, and time constraints. CONCLUSIONS:Patients and PCPs found the risk prediction tool useful, with potential to increase uptake, safety, and efficiency of CRC screening, indicating potential acceptability and feasibility of implementation into clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Matthias MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7045431 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A risk prediction tool for colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study of patient and provider facilitators and barriers.

Matthias Marianne S MS Imperiale Thomas F TF

BMC family practice 20200226 1

<h4>Background</h4>Despite proven effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, at least 35% of screen-eligible adults are not current with screening. Decision aids and risk prediction tools may help increase uptake, adherence, and efficiency of CRC screening by presenting lower-risk patients with options less invasive than colonoscopy. The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine patient and provider perceptions of facilitators and barriers to use of a risk prediction tool for a ...[more]

PMID: 32102659

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDiabetic retinopathy (DR) can cause significant visual impairment which can be largely avoided by early detection through proper screening and treatment. People with DR face a number of challenges from early detection to treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that influence DR screening in Thailand and to identify barriers to follow-up compliance from patient, family member, and health care provider (HCP) perspectives.MethodsA total of 15 focus group discussions (FGDs) were held, each with five to twelve participants. There were three distinct stakeholders: diabetic patients (n = 47) presenting to a diabetic retinopathy clinic in Thailand, their family members (n = 41), and health care providers (n = 34). All focus group conversations were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to examine textual material.ResultsDifferent themes emerged from the FGD on knowledge about diabetes, self-care behaviors of diabetes mellitus (DM), awareness about DR, barriers to DR screening, and the suggested solutions to address those barriers. Data showed lower knowledge and awareness about diabetes and DR in both patients and family members. Long waiting times, financial issues, and lack of a person to accompany appointments were identified as the major deterrents for attending DR screening. Family support for patients was found to vary widely, with some patients reporting to have received adequate support while others reported having received minimal support. Even though insurance covered the cost of attending diabetes/DR screening program, some patients did not show up for their appointments.ConclusionPatients need to be well-informed about the asymptomatic nature of diabetes and DR. Communication at the patient level and shared decision-making with HCPs are essential. Family members and non-physician clinicians (such as diabetes nurses, diabetes educators, physician assistants) who work in the field of diabetes play a vital role in encouraging patients to attend diabetes and DR follow-ups visits regularly.

Project description:BackgroundChronic health conditions are affecting an increasing number of individuals, who experience various symptoms that decrease their quality of life. Digital communication interventions that enable patients to report their symptoms have been shown to positively impact chronic disease management by improving access to care, patient-provider communication, clinical outcomes, and health-related quality of life. These interventions have the potential to prepare patients and health care providers (HCPs) before visits and improve patient-provider communication. Despite the recent rapid development and increasing number of digital communication interventions that have shown positive research results, barriers to realizing the benefits offered through these types of interventions still exist.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to prepare for the implementation of a digital patient-provider communication intervention in the daily workflow at 2 outpatient clinics by identifying potential determinants of implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to tailor the use of digital communication intervention to the intended context and identify key aspects for an implementation plan.MethodsA combination of focus groups, workshops, and project steering committee meetings was conducted with HCPs (n=14) and patients (n=2) from 2 outpatient clinics at a university hospital. The CFIR was used to guide data collection and analysis. Transcripts, written minutes, and notes were analyzed and coded into 5 CFIR domains using thematic analysis.ResultsData were examined and analyzed into 18 CFIR constructs relevant to the study purpose. On the basis of the identified determinants, important intervention tailoring includes adjustments to the digital features and adjustments to fit the clinical workflow and a decision to conduct a future pilot study. Furthermore, it was decided to provide the intervention to patients as early as possible in their disease trajectory, with tailored information about its use. Key aspects for the implementation plan encompassed maintaining the identified engagement and positive attitude, involving key stakeholders in the implementation process, and providing the needed support and training.ConclusionsThis study offers insight into the involvement of stakeholders in the tailoring and implementation planning of a digital communication intervention in clinical practice. Stakeholder involvement in the identification of implementation facilitators and barriers can contribute to the tailoring of digital communication interventions and how they are used and can also inform systematic and targeted implementation planning.

Project description:Background: Deficits in quality of care for patients with heart failure (HF) contribute to high mortality in this population. This qualitative study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to high-quality HF care in Kerala, India. Methods: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of health care providers (n=13), patients and caregivers (n=14). Additionally, focus group discussions (n=3) were conducted with patients and their caregivers. All interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim. Textual data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Patients' motivation to change their lifestyle behaviours after HF diagnosis and active follow-up calls from health care providers to check on patients' health status were important enablers of high-quality care. Health care providers' advice on substance use often motivated patients to stop smoking and consuming alcohol. Although patients expected support from their family members, the level of caregiver support for patients varied, with some patients receiving strong support from caregivers and others receiving minimal support. Emotional stress and lack of structured care plans for patients hindered patients' self-management of their condition. Further, high patient loads often limited the time health care providers had to provide advice on self-management options. Nevertheless, the availability of experienced nursing staff to support patients improved care within health care facilities. Finally, initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy was perceived as complex by health care providers due to multiple coexisting chronic conditions in HF patients. Conclusions: Structured plans for self-management of HF and more time for patients and health care providers to interact during clinical visits may enable better clinical handover with patients and family members, and thereby improve adherence to self-care options. Quality improvement interventions should also address the stress and emotional concerns of HF patients.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:As cancer treatments may impact on fertility, a high priority for young patients with breast cancer is access to evidence-based, personalised information for them and their healthcare providers to guide treatment and fertility-related decisions prior to cancer treatment. Current tools to predict fertility outcomes after breast cancer treatments are imprecise and do not offer individualised prediction. To address the gap, we are developing a novel personalised infertility risk prediction tool (FoRECAsT) for premenopausal patients with breast cancer that considers current reproductive status, planned chemotherapy and adjuvant endocrine therapy to determine likely post-treatment infertility. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of implementing this FoRECAsT tool into clinical practice by exploring the barriers and facilitators of its use among patients and healthcare providers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A cross-sectional exploratory study is being conducted using semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with 15-20 participants each from the following groups: (1) premenopausal patients with breast cancer younger than 40, diagnosed within last 5 years, (2) breast surgeons, (3) breast medical oncologists, (4) breast care nurses (5) fertility specialists and (6) fertility preservation nurses. Patients with breast cancer are being recruited from the joint Breast Service of three affiliated institutions of Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia-Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital, and clinicians are being recruited from across Australia. Interviews are being audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and imported into qualitative data analysis software to facilitate data management and analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study protocol has been approved by Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee, Australia (HREC number: 2017.163). Confidentiality and privacy are maintained at every stage of the study. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journals, national and international conference presentations, social media, broadcast media, print media, internet and various community/stakeholder engagement activities.

Project description:BackgroundNew Zealand (NZ) has high rates of colorectal cancer but low rates of early diagnosis. Due to a lack of understanding of the pre-diagnostic experience from the patient's perspective, it is necessary to investigate potential patient and health system factors that contribute to longer diagnostic intervals. Previous qualitative studies have discussed delays using The Model of Pathways to Treatment, but this has not been explored in the NZ context. This study aimed to understand the patient experience and perception of their general practitioner (GP) through the diagnostic process in the Waikato region of NZ. In particular, we sought to investigate potential barriers and facilitators that contribute to longer diagnostic intervals.MethodsEthical approval for this study was granted by the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee. Twenty-eight participants, diagnosed with colorectal cancer, were interviewed about their experience. Semi-structured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using The Model of Pathways to Treatment framework (intervals: appraisal, help-seeking, diagnostic).ResultsParticipant appraisal of symptoms was a barrier to prompt diagnosis, particularly if symptoms were normalised, intermittent, or isolated in occurrence. Successful self-management techniques also resulted in delayed help-seeking. However if symptoms worsened, disruption to work and daily routines were important facilitators to seeking a GP consultation. Participants positively appraised GPs if they showed good technical competence and were proactive in investigating symptoms. Negative GP appraisals were associated with a lack of physical examinations and misdiagnosis, and left participants feeling dehumanised during the diagnostic process. However high levels of GP interpersonal competence could override poor technical competence, resulting in an overall positive experience, even if the cancer was diagnosed at an advanced stage. Māori participants often appraised symptoms inclusive of their sociocultural environment and considered the impact of their symptoms in relation to family.ConclusionsThe findings of this study highlight the importance of tailored colorectal cancer symptom communication in health campaigns, and indicate the significance of the interpersonal competence aspect of GP-patient interactions. These findings suggest that interpersonal competence be overtly displayed in all GP interactions to ensure a higher likelihood of a positive experience for the patient.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Previous studies on patient-centred care (PCC) and its facilitators and barriers usually considered specific patient groups, healthcare settings and aspects of PCC or focused on expert perspectives. The objective of this study was to analyse patients' perspectives of facilitators and barriers towards implementing PCC. DESIGN:We conducted semistructured individual interviews with chronically ill patients. The interviewees were encouraged to share positive and negative experiences of care and the related facilitators and barriers in all settings including preventive, acute and chronic health issues. Interview data were analysed based on the concept of content analysis. SETTING:Interviews took place at the University Hospital Cologne, nursing homes, at participants' homes or by telephone. PARTICIPANTS:Any person with at least one chronic illness living in the region of Cologne was eligible for participation. 25 persons with an average age of 60 years participated in the interviews. The participants suffered from various chronic conditions including mental health problems, oncological, metabolic, neurological diseases, but also shared experiences related to acute health issues. RESULTS:Participants described facilitators and barriers of PCC on the microlevel (eg, patient-provider interaction), mesolevel (eg, health and social care organisation, HSCO) and macrolevel (eg, laws, financing). In addition to previous concepts, interviewees illustrated the importance of being an active patient by taking individual responsibility for health. Interviewees considered functioning teams and healthy staff members a facilitator of PCC as this can compensate stressful situations or lack of staff to some degree. A lack of transparency in financing and reimbursement was identified as barrier to PCC. CONCLUSION:Individual providers and HSCOs can address many facilitators and barriers of PCC as perceived by patients. Large-scale changes such as reduction of administrative barriers, the expansion of care networks or higher mandatory nurse to patient ratios require political action and incentives. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:DRKS00011925.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The number of patient portals is rising, and although portals can have positive effects, their implementation has major impacts on the providing health care institutions. However, little is known about the organizational factors affecting successful implementation. Knowledge of the specific barriers to and facilitators of various stakeholders is likely to be useful for future implementations. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to identify the barriers to and facilitators of patient portal implementation facing various stakeholders within hospital organizations in the Netherlands. METHODS:Purposive sampling was used to select hospitals of various types. A total of 2 university medical centers, 3 teaching hospitals, and 2 general hospitals were included. For each, 3 stakeholders were interviewed: (1) medical professionals, (2) managers, and (3) information technology employees. In total, 21 semistructured interviews were conducted using the Grol and Wensing model, which describes barriers to and facilitators of change in health care practice at 6 levels: (1) innovation; (2) individual professional; (3) patient; (4) social context; (5) organizational context; and (6) economic and political context. Two researchers independently selected and coded quotes by applying this model using a (deductive) directed content approach. Additional factors related to technical and portal characteristics were added using the model of McGinn et al, developed for implementation of electronic health records. RESULTS:In total, we identified 376 quotes, 26 barriers, and 28 facilitators. Thirteen barriers and 12 facilitators were common for all stakeholder groups. The facilitators' perceived usefulness (especially less paperwork) was mentioned by all the stakeholders, followed by subjects' positive attitude. The main barriers were lack of resources (namely, lack of staff and materials), financial difficulties (especially complying with high costs, lack of reimbursements), and guaranteeing privacy and security (eg, strict regulations). Both similarities and differences were found between stakeholder groups and hospital types. For example, managers and information technology employees mainly considered guaranteeing privacy and security as a predominant barrier. Financial difficulties were particularly mentioned by medical professionals and managers. CONCLUSIONS:Patient portal implementation is a complex process and is not only a technical process but also affects the organization and its staff. Barriers and facilitators occurred at various levels and differed among hospital types (eg, lack of accessibility) and stakeholder groups (eg, sufficient resources) in terms of several factors. Our findings underscore the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in portal implementations. We identified a set of barriers and facilitators that are likely to be useful in making strategic and efficient implementation plans.

Dataset Information

A risk prediction tool for colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study of patient and provider facilitators and barriers.

Publications

A risk prediction tool for colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study of patient and provider facilitators and barriers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets