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:PurposeTo characterize pediatricians' perceived barriers and areas of confidence in assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the U.S., and to test associations of these factors with implementing PRO assessment.MethodsUsing a random sample from the members of American Medical Association, we recruited general pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists to complete a survey (July 2011 to December 2013). Perceived barriers and confidence in PRO assessment were compared by age, pediatric specialty (general pediatrics, seven subspecialties), practice settings (academic, private), and region of practice. Multivariable logistic regressions tested associations of demographic factors, barriers, and confidence factors with the implementation of PRO assessment.FindingsThe survey was completed by 458 participants (response rate 48.5%); of these, 40.4%, 15.9%, 15.5%, and 8.1% were general pediatricians, cardiology, hematology/oncology, and pulmonary specialists, respectively. PRO assessment was implemented by 29.0% of the pediatricians. The top five barriers for PRO assessment included limited time/manpower (79.0%), limited training (77.4%), lengthy PRO instruments (76%), lack of meaningful cut-offs on PRO scores (75.5%), and unavailable PRO instruments (75.0%). Limited knowledge of PROs (OR 4.10; 95% CI 2.21, 7.60) and unavailability of PRO instruments (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.01, 3.49) increased the odds of not implementing the assessment, whereas confidence in PRO assessments compatible with norms (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23, 0.72) and perceived benefit over clinical judgment alone (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31, 0.93) decreased the odds of not implementing the assessment.Interpretationsignificant barriers to PRO assessment in pediatric settings suggest the need for providing training, resources, and practical guidance toward implementation. Patient or Public Contribution: healthcare service users contributed to this study by completing a survey and providing feedback about the barriers and areas of confidence in assessing PROs for pediatric populations.