Dataset Information

Physician Barriers and Facilitators for Screening for Congenital Heart Disease With Routine Obstetric Ultrasound: A National United States Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Prenatal detection of congenital heart disease with obstetric screening remains at less than 50% in most population studies, far from what is thought to be achievable. We sought to identify barriers/facilitators for screening from the perspective of interpreting physicians and to understand how these barriers/facilitators may be associated with interpretation of screening images.

Methods

Our mixed-methods studies included 4 focus groups in centers across the United States with obstetric, maternal-fetal medicine, and radiology providers who interpreted obstetric ultrasound studies. Themes around barriers/facilitators for fetal heart screening were coded from transcripts. A national Web-based survey was then conducted, which quantitatively measured reported barriers/facilitators and measured physicians' ability to interpret fetal heart-screening images. Multivariable generalized linear random-effect models assessed the association between barriers/facilitators and the accuracy of image interpretation at the image level.

Results

Three main themes were identified in the focus groups: intrinsic barriers (ie, comfort with screening), external barriers (ie, lack of feedback), and organizational barriers (ie, study volumes). Among 190 physician respondents, 104 interpreted ultrasound studies. Perceptions of barriers varied by practice setting, with nontertiary providers having lower self-efficacy and perceived usefulness of cardiac screening. Facilitators associated with the odds of accurate interpretation of screening images were knowledge (odds ratio, 2.54; P = .002) and the volume of scans per week (odds ratio, 1.01 for every additional scan; P = .04).

Conclusions

Some of the main barriers to cardiac screening identified and prioritized by physicians across the United States were knowledge of screening and minimal volumes of scans. Targeting these barriers will aid in improving prenatal detection of congenital heart disease.

SUBMITTER: Pinto NM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7357993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDirecting patients to safer hospitals for complex cancer surgery (regionalization) may prevent thousands of mortalities in the United States.ObjectiveTo understand the potential for individuals to move to safer hospitals: what would inspire them to travel (motivators), what challenges would they face (barriers), and what would enable them to travel (facilitators).Design, setting, and participantsThis nationally representative online survey study asked respondents to consider complex cancer surgery at their local hospital or a hospital specializing in cancer an hour farther away. Completed surveys were weighted across sociodemographics to be nationally representative and outcomes were reported as weighted percentages. In January 2018, a panel of 1817 US adults recruited by address- and telephone-based sampling to be nationally representative were invited to take the survey. Data analysis was conducted from January 24, 2018, to September 19, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of respondents motivated to travel by specific quality and safety indicators (motivators), magnitude in difference that would be necessary, proportion facing specific barriers, and proportion enabled to move by facilitators. Resistant individuals were identified as people who would not travel except for the largest (top quartile) outcomes differences.ResultsThere were 1016 completed surveys (response rate of 55.9%). The weighted median age was 48 years, 52% were female, median annual income was between $60 000 and $75 000, and 85% lived in a metropolitan area. Nonresponders were more likely than responders to be female, younger, nonwhite, less educated, and lower income (female: 54.4% vs 48.3%; P = .01; younger [aged <45 years]: 56.3% vs 37.1%; P < .001; nonwhite: 41.6% vs 30.0%; P < .001; less than college education: 43.8% vs 32.4%; P < .001; income <$30 000: 22.1% vs 17.1%; P = .01). Superior safety or oncologic outcomes, presented separately, motivated an average of 92% of respondents (95% CI, 90%-94%) to travel. One-third were easily motivated, requiring less than 1% advantage in safety or quality, while 12% were particularly resistant across outcomes. Respondents with lower income (income <$25 000: odds ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.19-3.39) and nonwhite race (odds ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.42) were more resistant to travel. At least 1 barrier was identified by 74% of respondents (95% CI, 72%-77%), most commonly financial (costs/insurance). However, 94% of respondents (95% CI, 92%-96%) with barriers would travel if provided facilitators, many of which were relatively low cost (transportation, parking, and hotel).Conclusions and relevanceIt appears that most of the US public could be motivated to travel to safer hospitals for complex cancer surgery, yet most would require some support to move. Further efforts to ensure that benefits from regionalization are equitable across sociodemographic strata are indicated.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing evidence that digital patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires and PRO-based decision support tools may help improve the active engagement of people with diabetes in self-care, thereby improving the quality of care. However, many barriers still exist for the real-world effectiveness and implementation of such PRO tools in routine care. Furthermore, limited research has evaluated the acceptability, feasibility, and benefits of such tools across different health care settings.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived benefits of the Danish digital PRO diabetes tool in different health care settings in Denmark and to determine the factors affecting its implementation. Furthermore, the study evaluates the psychometric characteristics of the Danish PRO Diabetes Questionnaire and the validity of the scoring algorithms for dialogue support. The objective of this study is to guide the ongoing optimization of the PRO diabetes tool, its implementation, and the design of future randomized controlled effectiveness studies.MethodsWe designed a multicenter, mixed methods, single-arm acceptability-feasibility implementation study protocol to contribute to the real-world pilot test of a new digital PRO diabetes tool in routine diabetes care. The use of the tool involves two main steps. First, the people with diabetes will complete a digital PRO Diabetes Questionnaire in the days before a routine diabetes visit. Second, the health care professional (HCP) will use a digital PRO tool to review the PRO results together with the people with diabetes during the visit. The PRO diabetes tool is designed to encourage and support people to take an active role for the people with diabetes in their own care and to expedite the delivery of person-centered, collaborative, and coordinated care.ResultsA multicenter pilot study protocol and psychometrically designed digital data collection tools for evaluation were developed and deployed as part of a national evaluation of a new digital PRO diabetes intervention. A total of 598 people with diabetes and 34 HCPs completed the study protocol by April 1, 2021.ConclusionsA large-scale, mixed methods, multicenter study for evaluating the use of the nationally developed PRO Diabetes Questionnaire in routine care across all health care sectors in Denmark by using the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) model as a framework has been designed and is ongoing. This study is expected to provide new important and detailed information about the real-world acceptability, perceived relevance, and benefits of the PRO diabetes tool among a large heterogeneous population of people with diabetes in Denmark and HCPs in different care settings. The results will be used to further improve the PRO tool, design implementation facilitation support strategies, and design future controlled effectiveness studies.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/28391.