Dataset Information

Understanding providers' attitudes and key concerns toward incorporating CVD risk prediction into clinical practice: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although risk prediction has become an integral part of clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, multiple studies have shown that patients' risk still plays almost no role in clinical decision-making. Because little is known about why this is so, we sought to understand providers' views on the opportunities, barriers, and facilitators of incorporating risk prediction to guide their use of cardiovascular preventive medicines.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care providers (n = 33) at VA facilities in the Midwest. Facilities were chosen using a maximum variation approach according to their geography, size, proportion of MD to non-MD providers, and percentage of full-time providers. Providers included MD/DO physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical pharmacists. Providers were asked about their reaction to a hypothetical situation in which the VA would introduce a risk prediction-based approach to CVD treatment. We conducted matrix and content analysis to identify providers' reactions to risk prediction, reasons for their reaction, and exemplar quotes.

Results

Most providers were classified as Enthusiastic (n = 14) or Cautious Adopters (n = 15), with only a few Non-Adopters (n = 4). Providers described four key concerns toward adopting risk prediction. Their primary concern was that risk prediction is not always compatible with a "whole patient" approach to patient care. Other concerns included questions about the validity of the proposed risk prediction model, potential workflow burdens, and whether risk prediction adds value to existing clinical practice. Enthusiastic, Cautious, and Non-Adopters all expressed both doubts about and support for risk prediction categorizable in the above four key areas of concern.

Conclusions

Providers were generally supportive of adopting risk prediction into CVD prevention, but many had misgivings, which included concerns about impact on workflow, validity of predictive models, the value of making this change, and possible negative effects on providers' ability to address the whole patient. These concerns have likely contributed to the slow introduction of risk prediction into clinical practice. These concerns will need to be addressed for risk prediction, and other approaches relying on "big data" including machine learning and artificial intelligence, to have a meaningful role in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Takamine L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8185928 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart rhythm disorder and poses a growing disease burden worldwide because of an aging population. A multidisciplinary approach with an emphasis on patient education and self-management has been demonstrated to improve outcomes for AF through the engagement of patients in their own care. Although electronic tools (e-tools) such as apps have been proposed to provide patient education and facilitate self-management, there have been few studies to guide the development of these tools for patients with AF.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the perceptions of patients and health care providers (HCPs) and their attitudes toward the use of e-tools for the self-management of AF. It also seeks to elicit the factors that contribute to these attitudes.MethodsSemistructured qualitative interviews with HCPs and patients were conducted to understand the interpretations and expectations of an e-tool that would be used for the self-management of AF. Interview data were analyzed using an exploratory thematic analysis approach to uncover emergent themes and infer ideas of preferred features in a device. A modified technology acceptance model was developed as a framework to help interpret these findings. Data from the HCPs and patients were compared and contrasted.ResultsBoth patients and HCPs thought that an e-tool would be useful in the self-management of AF. Although both groups favored educational content and monitoring of blood pressure, patients expressed more passivity toward self-care and an ambivalence toward the use of technology to monitor their medical condition. This appears to be related to factors such as a patient's age, social support, and their attitudes toward technology. Instead, they favored using the app to contact their HCPs.ConclusionsThis study provides insights into significant differences in the attitudes of patients and HCPs toward the use of e-tools for self-care against their priorities. Understanding patients' motivations and their needs are key to ensuring higher acceptance of such tools.

Project description:ObjectiveDigital voice assistant technology provides unique opportunities to enhance clinical practice. We aimed to understand factors influencing pediatric providers' current and potential use of this technology in clinical practice.MethodsWe surveyed pediatric providers regarding current use and interest in voice technology in the workplace. Regression analyses evaluated provider characteristics associated with voice technology use. Among respondents not interested in voice technology, we elicited individual concerns.ResultsAmong 114 respondents, 19 (16.7%) indicated current use of voice technology in clinical practice, and 51 (44.7%) indicated use of voice technology for nonclinical purposes. Fifty-four (47.4%) reported willingness to try digital voice assistant technology in the clinical setting. Providers who had longer clinic visits (odds ratio [OR], 3.11, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04, 9.33, p?=?0.04), fewer patient encounters per day (p?=?0.02), and worked in hospital-based practices (OR, 2.95, 95% CI, 1.08, 8.07, p?=?0.03) were more likely to currently use voice technology in the office. Younger providers (p?=?0.02) and those confident in the accuracy of voice technology (OR, 3.05, 95% CI, 1.38, 6.74, p?=?0.005) were more willing to trial digital voice assistants in the clinical setting. Among respondents unwilling or unsure about trying voice assistant technology, the most common reasons elicited were concerns related to its accuracy (35%), efficiency (33%), and privacy (28%).ConclusionThis national survey evaluating use and attitudes toward digital voice assistant technology by pediatric providers found that while only one-eighth of pediatric providers currently use digital voice assistant technology in the clinical setting, almost half are interested in trying it in the future. Younger provider age and confidence in the accuracy of voice technology are associated with provider interest in using voice technology in the clinical setting. Future development of voice technology for clinical use will need to consider accuracy of information, efficiency of use, and patient privacy for successful integration into the workplace.