The impact of personalized clinical decision support on primary care patients' views of cancer prevention and screening: a cross-sectional survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Few studies have assessed the impact of clinical decision support (CDS), with or without shared decision-making tools (SDMTs), on patients' perceptions of cancer screening or prevention in primary care settings. This cross-sectional survey was conducted to understand primary care patient's perceptions on cancer screening or prevention.Methods
We mailed surveys (10/2018-1/2019) to 749 patients aged 18 to 75 years within 15 days after an index clinical encounter at 36 primary care clinics participating in a clinic-randomized control trial of a CDS system for cancer prevention. All patients were overdue for cancer screening or human papillomavirus vaccination. The survey compared respondents' answers by study arm: usual care; CDS; or CDS + SDMT.Results
Of 387 respondents (52% response rate), 73% reported having enough time to discuss cancer prevention options with their primary care provider (PCP), 64% reported their PCP explained the benefits of the cancer screening choice very well, and 32% of obese patients reported discussing weight management, with two-thirds reporting selecting a weight management intervention. Usual care respondents were significantly more likely to decide on colorectal cancer screening than CDS respondents (p < 0.01), and on tobacco cessation than CDS + SDMT respondents (p = 0.02) and both CDS and CDS + SDMT respondents (p < 0.001).Conclusions
Most patients reported discussing cancer prevention needs with PCPs, with few significant differences between the three study arms in patient-reported cancer prevention care. Upcoming research will assess differences in screening and vaccination rates between study arms during the post-intervention follow-up period.Trial registration
clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230 , December 6, 2016.
SUBMITTER: Saman DM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8215810 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionScreening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care has been recommended; however, the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) are not known. This study aimed to determine the opinions of HCP about the feasibility of implementing screening within a primary care setting.MethodsA cross-sectional mixed methods census survey of 418 HCPs from 59 inner-city practices (Nottingham, UK) was conducted between October-December 2014. Postal and web-surveys ascertained data on existing methods, knowledge, skills, attitudes, barriers and facilitators to AF screening using Likert scale and open-ended questions. Responses, categorized according to HCP group, were summarized using proportions, adjusting for clustering by practice, with 95% C.Is and free-text responses using thematic analysis.ResultsAt least one General Practitioner (GP) responded from 48 (81%) practices. There were 212/418 (51%) respondents; 118/229 GPs, 67/129 nurses [50 practice nurses; 17 Nurse Practitioners (NPs)], 27/60 healthcare assistants (HCAs). 39/48 (81%) practices had an ECG machine and diagnosed AF in-house. Non-GP HCPs reported having less knowledge about ECG interpretation, diagnosing and treating AF than GPs. A greater proportion of non-GP HCPs reported they would benefit from ECG training specifically for AF diagnosis than GPs [proportion (95% CI) GPs: 11.9% (6.8-20.0); HCAs: 37.0% (21.7-55.5); nurses: 44.0% (30.0-59.0); NPs 41.2% (21.9-63.7)]. Barriers included time, workload and capacity to undertake screening activities, although training to diagnose and manage AF was a required facilitator.ConclusionInner-city general practices were found to have adequate access to resources for AF screening. There is enthusiasm by non-GP HCPs to up-skill in the diagnosis and management of AF and they may have a role in future AF screening. However, organisational barriers, such as lack of time, staff and capacity, should be overcome for AF screening to be feasibly implemented within primary care.
| S-EPMC4818037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer is continuing to increase worldwide, with sun exposure serving as the primary external aetiologic force in its development. Despite noticeable public health efforts, there continue to be gaps in public awareness and primary and secondary prevention mechanisms. This survey study sought to investigate preventative behaviours regarding sun exposure and skin cancer detection at an international scale.MethodsA questionnaire was submitted, both online and by telephone, to a representative sample (based on official demographic statistics on gender, age and region) of people aged from 15 to 65 originating from 23 countries. Questions dealt with demographics, sun exposure and protection, risk knowledge, self-examination, medical advice seeking. Data were then gathered and analysed at different levels.ResultsA total of 19 569 respondents were recruited. Overall, sunscreen and sunglasses were the most used measures for sun protection. There were however difference between countries and geographical areas. Some high-risk countries in terms of sun exposure (according to their location to Equator) exhibited higher rates of primary preventative behaviours, in particular Australia, Chile and Greece. There were also discrepancies between countries regarding secondary prevention through self-examination and medical advice seeking. Young people, men, individuals belonging to a lower socio-economic class or having a lower education level were all least likely to know or follow primary and secondary preventive measures.ConclusionWe found imperfections and geographical inequality both regarding primary and secondary prevention of skin cancer. Our study provides insights that could help to target populations more effectively through information campaigns embedded into the global needed endeavour aiming to reduce mid- and long-term development of skin cancer.
| S-EPMC6084324 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To describe parents' experience and views of the postmortem examination after the loss of a baby. DESIGN:Cross sectional survey. SETTING:Hospital with a dedicated bereavement counselling service, Newcastle upon Tyne. PARTICIPANTS:258 women who had attended a bereavement counselling service at the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, on at least one occasion after losing a baby during pregnancy or infancy, between October 1996 and October 2000. METHOD:Self completion postal questionnaire incorporating fixed choice and open ended questions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Number of respondents who were asked if they would agree to a postmortem examination of their baby, and number who agreed to a postmortem examination; reasons for agreeing and not agreeing to a postmortem examination; quality of explanation received; number who regretted their decision to give or withhold consent for a postmortem examination. RESULTS:166 (64%) respondents completed the questionnaire. Of these, 148 (89%) had been asked to agree to a postmortem examination on their baby and 120/148 of these respondents (81%) agreed, most of whom recognised benefits resulting from the examination. 101/117 (86%) respondents believed the findings had been explained appropriately. Nine (7%) of the 120 respondents who had agreed to a postmortem examination regretted their decision. Of the respondents who refused an examination, four (14%) had regrets about their decision. DISCUSSION:Parents viewed the postmortem examination as a useful and necessary tool in helping to discover the reasons why their baby had died. Simplifying the language used to explain findings may further raise parents' understanding of the value of the postmortem examination and ensure that they are satisfied with it. Medical staff involved in consent for postmortem examinations should be fully trained in how to ask for parental consent, the postmortem examination procedure, and how to explain the findings.
| S-EPMC100790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Involving general practitioners (GPs) in the commissioning/purchasing of services has been an important element in English health policy for many years. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 handed responsibility for commissioning of the majority of care for local populations to GP-led Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). In this paper, we explore GP attitudes to involvement in commissioning and future intentions for engagement. DESIGN AND SETTING:Survey of a random sample of GPs across England in 2015. METHOD:The Eighth National GP Worklife Survey was distributed to GPs in spring 2015. Responses were received from 2611 respondents (response rate = 46%). We compared responses across different GP characteristics and conducted two sample tests of proportions to identify statistically significant differences in responses across groups. We also used multivariate logistic regression to identify the characteristics associated with wanting a formal CCG role in the future. RESULTS:While GPs generally agree that they can add value to aspects of commissioning, only a minority feel that this is an important part of their role. Many current leaders intend to quit in the next 5?years, and there is limited appetite among those not currently in a formal role to take up such a role in the future. CCGs were set up as 'membership organisations' but only a minority of respondents reported feeling that they had 'ownership' of their local CCG and these were often GPs with formal CCG roles. However, respondents generally agree that the CCG has a legitimate role in influencing the work that they do. CONCLUSION:CCGs need to engage in active succession planning to find the next generation of GP leaders. GPs believe that CCGs have a legitimate role in influencing their work, suggesting that there may be scope for CCGs to involve GPs more fully in roles short of formal leadership.
| S-EPMC5734491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR)-linked clinical decision support (CDS) may impact primary care clinicians' (PCCs') clinical care opinions. As part of a clinic cluster-randomized control trial (RCT) testing a cancer prevention and screening CDS system with patient and PCC printouts (with or without shared decision-making tools [SDMT]) for patients due for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening and/or human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination compared to usual care (UC), we surveyed PCCs at study clinics pre- and post-CDS implementation. Our primary aim was to learn if PCCs' opinions changed over time within study arms. Secondary aims including examining whether PCCs' opinions in study arms differed both pre- and post-implementation, and gauging PCCs' opinions on the CDS in the two intervention arms.MethodsThis study was conducted within a healthcare system serving an upper Midwestern population. We administered pre-implementation (11/2/2017-1/24/2018) and post-implementation (2/2/2020-4/9/2020) cross-sectional electronic surveys to PCCs practicing within a RCT arm: UC; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. Bivariate analyses compared responses between study arms at both time periods and longitudinally within study arms.ResultsPre-implementation (53%, n = 166) and post-implementation (57%, n = 172) response rates were similar. No significant differences in PCC responses were seen between study arms on cancer prevention and screening questions pre-implementation, with few significant differences found between study arms post-implementation. However, significantly fewer intervention arm clinic PCCs reported being very comfortable with discussing breast cancer screening options with patients compared to UC post-implementation, as well as compared to the same intervention arms pre-implementation. Other significant differences were noted within arms longitudinally. For intervention arms, these differences related to CDS areas like EHR alerts, risk calculators, and ordering screening. Most intervention arm PCCs noted the CDS provided overdue screening alerts to which they were unaware. Few PCCs reported using the CDS, but most would recommend it to colleagues, expressed high CDS satisfaction rates, and thought patients liked the CDS's information and utility.ConclusionsWhile appreciated by PCCs with high satisfaction rates, the CDS may lower PCCs' confidence regarding discussing patients' breast cancer screening options and may be used irregularly. Future research will evaluate the impact of the CDS on cancer prevention and screening rates.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.
| S-EPMC8739981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess impact of disease and treatment on quality of life and symptoms; however, their use in primary care is fragmented. We aimed to understand how PROMs are currently being used in primary care, the barriers and facilitators of this use and if appropriate how it might be optimised. METHODS:Cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) in England. GPs' opinions were explored using an electronic, self-completed questionnaire disseminated to 100 GPs via an online doctors' community and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 GPs. RESULTS:Most GPs surveyed (77/100; 77%) reported using one or more PROM, primarily to aid clinical management (n =?66) or as screening/diagnostic tools (n =?62). Qualitative interviews highlighted challenges in identifying and selecting PROMs; however, some GPs valued PROMs for shared decision making and to direct patient discussions. The interviews identified key barriers to PROM use including: time constraints; insufficient knowledge; lack of integration into clinical systems; and PROMs being mandated without consultation or explanation. Evidence of the benefit of PROMs is required to promote uptake and use of PROMs in primary care. CONCLUSION:Implementation of PROMs in primary care requires integration with clinical systems, a bottom-up approach to PROM selection and system design involving meaningful consultation with patients and primary care clinicians and training/support for use.
| S-EPMC6979354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedical students will likely be most impacted by the envisaged move to artificial intelligence (AI) driven digital medicine, and there is a need to better understand their views regarding the use of AI technology in medicine. This study aimed to explore German medical students´ views about AI in medicine.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in October 2019 with all new medical students at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and the Technical University Munich. This represented approximately 10% of all new medical students in Germany.ResultsA total of 844 medical students participated (91.9% response rate). Two thirds (64.4%) did not feel well informed about AI in medicine. Just over a half (57.4%) of students thought that AI has useful applications in medicine, particularly in drug research and development (82.5%), less so for clinical uses. Male students were more likely to agree with advantages of AI, and female participants were more likely to be concerned about disadvantages. The vast majority of students thought that when AI is used in medicine that it is important that there are legal rules regarding liability (97%) and oversight mechanisms (93.7%), that physicians should be consulted prior to implementation (96.8%), that developers should be able to explain to them the details of the algorithm (95.6%), that algorithms should use representative data (93.9%), and that patients should always be informed when AI is used (93.5%).ConclusionsMedical schools and continuing medical education organisers need to promptly develop programs to ensure that clinicians are able to fully realize the potential of AI technology. It is also important that legal rules and oversight are implemented to ensure that future clinicians are not faced with a workplace where important issues around responsibility are not clearly regulated.
| S-EPMC9931368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInstances of surrogate decision-making are expected to increase with the rise in hospitalised older adults in Japan. Few large-scale studies have comprehensively examined the entire surrogate decision-making process. This study aimed to gather information to assess the current state of surrogate decision-making in Japan.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using online questionnaires. A total of 1000 surrogate decision-makers responded to the questionnaire. We examined the characteristics of surrogate decision-makers and patients, content of surrogate decision-making meeting regarding life-sustaining treatment between the doctors and surrogate decision-makers, extent of involvement of the various parties in the surrogate decision-making process, judgement grounds for surrogate decision-making, and frequency of involvement in the surrogate decision-making process.ResultsOf the participants, 70.5% were male and 48.3% were eldest sons. Only 7.6% of the patients had left a written record of their preferences and 48.8% of the surrogates reported no knowledge of the patient having expressed their prior intentions regarding medical care in any form. Respondents indicated that their family meetings with healthcare professionals mostly included the information recommended by guidelines in a surrogate decision-making meeting in Japan. Most participants reported a good understanding of the meeting content. Although many participants based their decisions on multiple grounds, surrogates' considerations may not adequately reflect respect for patient autonomy in Japan. Specifically, the eldest son considered his own preference more frequently than that of the other surrogate decision-makers. In 26.1% of the cases, either zero or one family meeting with healthcare professionals was held. In these cases, significantly fewer decisions involved the participation of healthcare professionals other than the doctor compared to cases with multiple meetings.ConclusionsSurrogate decisions in Japan are most commonly made by eldest sons and may not frequently consider the perspectives of other surrogates. The finding that patient preferences were rarely known suggests a role for increased advance care planning.
| S-EPMC8464150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether a general societal preference for prioritising treatment of rare diseases over common ones exists and could provide a justification for accepting higher cost effectiveness thresholds for orphan drugs.DesignCross sectional survey using a web based questionnaire.SettingNorway.ParticipantsRandom sample of 1547 Norwegians aged 40-67.Main outcome measureChoice between funding treatment for a rare disease versus a common disease and how funds should be allocated if it were not possible to treat all patients, for each of two scenarios: identical treatment costs per patient and higher costs for the rare disease. Respondents rated five statements concerning attitudes to equity on a five point Likert scale (5=completely agree).ResultsFor the equal cost scenario, 11.2% (9.6% to 12.8%) of respondents favoured treating the rare disease, 24.9% (21.7% to 26.0%) the common disease, and 64.9% (62.6% to 67.3%) were indifferent. When the rare disease was four times more costly to treat, the results were, respectively, 7.4% (6.1% to 8.7%), 45.3% (42.8% to 47.8%), and 47.3% (44.8% to 49.8%). Rankings for attitude on a Likert scale indicated strong support for the statements "rare disease patients should have the right to treatment even if more expensive" (mean score 4.5, SD 0.86) and "resources should be used to provide the greatest possible health benefits" (3.9, 1.23).ConclusionsDespite strong general support for statements expressing a desire for equal treatment rights for patients with rare diseases, there was little evidence that a societal preference for rarity exists if treatment of patients with rare diseases is at the expense of treatment of those with common diseases.
| S-EPMC2944922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The gold standard management of aortic dissection, a life-threatening condition, includes multidisciplinary approaches. Although mental distress following aortic dissection is common, evidence-based psychosocial interventions for aortic dissection survivors are lacking. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to identify the perceived psychosocial needs of aortic dissection survivors by surveying patients, their relatives, and health professionals to inform the development of such interventions. METHODS:This study used a cross-sectional survey and collected responses from 41 participants (27 patients with aortic dissection, 8 relatives of patients with aortic dissection, and 6 health professionals) on key topics, types of interventions, best timing, anticipated success, and the intended effects and side effects of psychosocial interventions after aortic dissection. RESULTS:The principal intervention topics were "changes in everyday life" (28/41, 68%, 95% CI 54.5%-82.9%), "anxiety" (25/41, 61%, 95% CI 46.2%-76.2%), "uncertainty" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 42.9%-73.2%), "tension/distress" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 43.9%-73.8%), and "trust in the body" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35.9%-67.5%). The most commonly indicated intervention types were "family/relative therapy" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-65.9%) and "anxiety treatment" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-67.5%). The most recommended intervention timing was "during inpatient rehabilitation" (26/41, 63%, 95% CI 47.6%-77.5%) followed by "shortly after inpatient rehabilitation" (20/41, 49%, 95% CI 32.4%-65%). More than 95% (39/41) of respondents anticipated a benefit from psychosocial interventions following aortic dissection dissection, expecting a probable improvement in 68.6% (95% CI 61.4%-76.2%) of aortic dissection survivors, a worse outcome for 5% (95% CI 2.9%-7.9%), and that 6% (95% CI 1.8%-10.4%) would have negative side effects due to such interventions. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings highlight a substantial need for psychosocial interventions in aortic dissection survivors and indicate that such interventions would be a success. They provide a basis for the development and evaluation of interventions as part of state-of-the-art aortic dissection management.
| S-EPMC7434062 | biostudies-literature