Dataset Information

Exploring the perspectives of primary care providers on use of the electronic Patient Reported Outcomes tool to support goal-oriented care: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Digital health technologies can support primary care delivery, but clinical uptake in primary care is limited. This study explores enablers and barriers experienced by primary care providers when adopting new digital health technologies, using the example of the electronic Patient Reported Outcome (ePRO) tool; a mobile application and web portal designed to support goal-oriented care. To better understand implementation drivers and barriers primary care providers' usage behaviours are compared to their perspectives on ePRO utility and fit to support care for patients with complex care needs.

Methods

This qualitative sub-analysis was part of a larger trial evaluating the use of the ePRO tool in primary care. Qualitative interviews were conducted with providers at the midpoint (i.e. 4.5-6 months after ePRO implementation) and end-point (i.e. 9-12 months after ePRO implementation) of the trial. Interviews explored providers' experiences and perceptions of integrating the tool within their clinical practice. Interview data were analyzed using a hybrid thematic analysis and guided by the Technology Acceptance Model. Data from thirteen providers from three distinct primary care sites were included in the presented study.

Results

Three core themes were identified: (1) Perceived usefulness: perceptions of the tool's alignment with providers' typical approach to care, impact and value and fit with existing workflows influenced providers' intention to use the tool and usage behaviour; (2) Behavioural intention: providers had a high or low behavioural intention, and for some, it changed over time; and (3) Improving usage behaviour: enabling external factors and enhancing the tool's perceived ease of use may improve usage behaviour.

Conclusions

Multiple refinements/iterations of the ePRO tool (e.g. enhancing the tool's alignment with provider workflows and functions) may be needed to enhance providers' usage behaviour, perceived usefulness and behavioural intention. Enabling external factors, such as organizational and IT support, are also necessary to increase providers' usage behaviour. Lessons from this study advance knowledge of technology implementation in primary care.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov Identified NCT02917954. Registered September 2016, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02917954.

SUBMITTER: Singh H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8714873 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: This study aimed to understand the offer of mental health care at the primary care level, collecting the views of psychologists, primary health care providers (PHCPs), and patients, with a focus on health services in which patients attend regularly and who present a higher prevalence of mental disorders. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted in antenatal care, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and chronic diseases services from six primary health care centers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with psychologists, PHCPs, and patients working in or attending the selected facilities. Results: A total of 4 psychologists, 22 PHCPs, and 37 patients were interviewed. A high perceived need for mental health care was noted. PHCPs acknowledged the emotional impact physical health conditions have on their patients and mentioned that referral to psychologists was reserved only for serious problems. Their approach to emotional problems was providing emotional support (includes listening, talk about their patients' feelings, provide advice). PHCPs identified system-level barriers about the specialized mental health care, including a shortage of psychologists and an overwhelming demand, which results in brief consultations and lack in continuity of care. Psychologists focus their work on individual consultations; however, consultations were brief, did not follow a standardized model of care, and most patients attend only once. Psychologists also mentioned the lack of collaborative work among other healthcare providers. Despite these limitations, interviewed patients declared that they were willing to seek specialized care if advised and considered the psychologist's care provided as helpful; however, they recognized the stigmatization related to seeking mental health care. Conclusions: There is a perceived need of mental health care for primary care patients. To attend these needs, PHCPs provide emotional support and refer to psychology the most severe cases, while psychologists provide one-to-one consultations. Significant limitations in the care provided are discussed.

Project description:Purpose/Objectives: Family caregivers of individuals living with cancer are often highly involved in communication with healthcare teams, yet little is known about their experiences, needs, and preferences in this role. To address this gap in the knowledge base, researchers sought to explore family caregivers' perspectives on communication with oncology care providers. Design and Methods: Researchers conducted a secondary inductive thematic analysis of qualitative interviews originally collected as part of a randomized clinical trial of a supportive intervention for family caregivers of patients with cancer (N?=?63). Participants: Participants were family caregivers of adult patients with cancer. Most were patients' spouses/long-term partners (52.3%) or adult children/grandchildren (29.2%). Caregivers of patients with all cancer types and stages of disease progression were eligible for study enrollment. Findings: Caregivers valued communication with healthcare providers who were attentive, genuine, broadly focused on patients and caregivers' experiences, sensitive to unmet information needs, and responsive to the potentially different communication preferences of patients and caregivers. Interpretation: Family caregivers expressed a strong preference for person-centered communication, conceptualized as communication that helps healthcare providers meet the needs of patients and caregivers both as individuals and as an interdependent unit of care, and that acknowledges individuals' experiences beyond their prescribed roles of "cancer patient" and "caregiver." Implications for Psychosocial Oncology Practice: Psychosocial oncology providers' strong orientation to the biopsychosocial and spiritual aspects of cancer care delivery make them uniquely positioned to support family caregivers. Findings suggest that providers should explicitly communicate their commitment to both patient and family care, involve family caregivers in psychosocial assessment activities and subsequent intervention, and strive to honor patients and caregivers' potentially different communication preferences.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of a definitive trial in primary care of electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) for possible oesophago-gastric (O-G) cancer.Design and settingFeasibility study in 42 general practices in two regions of England, cluster randomised controlled trial design without blinding, nested qualitative and health economic evaluation.ParticipantsPatients aged 55 years or older, presenting to their general practitioner (GP) with symptoms associated with O-G cancer. 530 patients (mean age 68 years, 58% female) participated.InterventionPractices randomised 1:1 to usual care (control) or to receive a previously piloted eCDS tool for suspected cancer (intervention), for use at the discretion of the GPs, supported by a theory-based implementation package and ongoing support. We conducted semistructured interviews with GPs in intervention practices. Recruitment lasted 22 months.OutcomesPatient participation rate, use of eCDS, referrals and route to diagnosis, O-G cancer diagnoses; acceptability to GPs; cost-effectiveness. Participants followed up 6 months after index encounter.ResultsFrom control and intervention practices, we screened 3841 and 1303 patients, respectively; 1189 and 434 were eligible, 392 and 138 consented to participate. Ten patients (1.9%) had O-G cancer. eCDS was used eight times in total by five unique users. GPs experienced interoperability problems between the eCDS tool and their clinical system and also found it did not fit with their workflow. Unexpected restrictions on software installation caused major problems with implementation.ConclusionsThe conduct of this study was hampered by technical limitations not evident during an earlier pilot of the eCDS tool, and by regulatory controls on software installation introduced by primary care trusts early in the study. This eCDS tool needed to integrate better with clinical workflow; even then, its use for suspected cancer may be infrequent. Any definitive trial of eCDS for cancer diagnosis should only proceed after addressing these constraints.Trial registration numberISRCTN125595588.