Context, automated decision support, and clinical practice guidelines: does the literature apply to the United States practice environment?

BACKGROUND: Context - the combined effect of factors such as physician type, clinical setting, and guideline characteristics - influences the ability of automated decision support (ADS) to improve physician compliance with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our goal was to determine whether research about the utility of ADS for promoting CPG compliance is contextually applicable to United States physicians. METHODS: We extracted information about physicians, settings, and guidelines from all articles published in the last 10 years that describe original research about the use of ADS to promote CPG compliance. The extracted information was compared to the range of practice contexts seen in the United States. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds (65.3%) of papers described studies conducted in an academic setting, but only 11% of physicians report academic affiliations (p<0.0001). Physician reimbursement structure is often not reported. Salaried physicians were explicitly included as subjects in 14% of articles, but make up 45% of US physicians (p<0.0001). There are little data about the generalizability of ADS research to emergency care settings (6% of articles), and nursing home or skilled nursing facilities (10% of articles). Finally, ADS has not been studied at all in several epidemiologically important disease categories. CONCLUSION: The literature does not adequately address some physician, setting, and guideline contexts. Before making policy or spending decisions based on the effectiveness of ADS, additional research is needed to determine whether ADS research can be generalized to under-represented contexts.     

Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: Update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions

ObjectiveTo update a systematic review on the barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice as perceived by health professionals.MethodsFrom March to December 2006, PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO, and Dissertation Abstracts were searched. Studies were included if they reported on health professionals’ perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in practice. Quality of the included studies was assessed. Content analysis was performed with a pre-established taxonomy.ResultsOut of 1130 titles, 10 new eligible studies were identified for a total of 38 included studies compared to 28 in the previous version. The vast majority of participants (n = 3231) were physicians (89%). The three most often reported barriers were: time constraints (22/38) and lack of applicability due to patient characteristics (18/38) and the clinical situation (16/38). The three most often reported facilitators were: provider motivation (23/38) and positive impact on the clinical process (16/38) and patient outcomes (16/38).ConclusionThis systematic review update confirms the results of the original review.Practice implicationsInterventions to foster implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice will need to address a range of factors.     

Is anxiety a suitable measure of decision aid effectiveness: a systematic review?

Several trials have employed anxiety measures to assess decision aid effectiveness. This study employed a systematic review method to integrate their findings. The affective impact of decision aids and the appropriateness of anxiety as a measure of decision aid effectiveness are explored. From 11,361 citations generated from searching electronic databases and journals, 26 randomised controlled trials evaluated patient decision aids; 10 included anxiety measures (HADS; STAI). The data were too heterogeneous to integrate statistically. No studies showed an increase in anxiety from exposure to decision aids versus usual care. Some patterns emerged between level of anxiety and characteristics of the decision. As raised levels of anxiety are associated with both more effective decision strategies and stressful health interventions, anxiety is an inappropriate measure to employ when evaluating decision aids. Future research needs to investigate the relationship between affect, cognition and decision aids in order to facilitate effective patient decision making.     

What are the contents of patient engagement interventions for older adults? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Objective

To describe the contents of interventions reported in RCTs focusing on patient engagement of older adults.

Primary-care providers’ perceived barriers to integration of genetics services: a systematic review of the literature

PurposeWe aimed to systematically review the literature to identify primary-care providers’ perceived barriers against provision of genetics services.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed and ERIC using key and Boolean term combinations for articles published from 2001 to 2012 that met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Specific barriers were identified and aggregated into categories based on topic similarity. These categories were then grouped into themes.ResultsOf the 4,174 citations identified by the search, 38 publications met inclusion criteria. There were 311 unique barriers that were classified into 38 categories across 4 themes: knowledge and skills; ethical, legal, and social implications; health-care systems; and scientific evidence. Barriers most frequently mentioned by primary-care providers included a lack of knowledge about genetics and genetic risk assessment, concern for patient anxiety, a lack of access to genetics, and a lack of time.ConclusionAlthough studies reported that primary-care providers perceive genetics as being important, barriers to the integration of genetics medicine into routine patient care were identified. The promotion of practical guidelines, point-of-care risk assessment tools, tailored educational tools, and other systems-level strategies will assist primary-care providers in providing genetics services for their patients.     

The development of incorpoRATE: A measure of physicians’ willingness to incorporate shared decision making into practice

ObjectivesTo develop ‘incorpoRATE’, a brief and broadly applicable measure of physicians’ willingness to incorporate shared decision making (SDM) into practice.MethodsincorpoRATE was developed across three phases: 1) A review of relevant literature to inform candidate domain and item development, 2) Cognitive interviews with US physicians to iteratively refine the measure, and 3) Pilot testing of the measure across a larger sample of US physicians to explore item and measure performance.ResultsThe final measure consists of seven items that assess physician perspectives on various components of SDM use that may present as barriers in practice. During pilot testing, the majority of physicians expressed positive opinions about the overall concept of SDM, yet were less comfortable acting on informed patient choices when there was known incongruence with their own recommendations.ConclusionsincorpoRATE is a novel physician-reported measure that assesses physicians’ willingness to incorporate SDM in practice.Practice implicationsincorpoRATE has the potential to help us further understand the limited adoption of SDM and areas of focus for improving the use of SDM in the future. We recommend that incorpoRATE be subject to further psychometric, real-world testing, in order to explore its performance across different samples of physicians and organizations.     

A systematic review of social support interventions for caregivers of people with dementia: Are they doing what they promise?

ObjectiveSocial support interventions for caregivers of persons with dementia (PwD) are important because informal carers often rely on their social networks for support. This systematic review synthesises findings from research on social support interventions, and examines their methodological quality and effectiveness on caregiver social support and well-being variables.MethodsA systematic literature search utilised five databases. Papers were selected when the primary aim of the intervention was to improve social support. Quality of papers was assessed by the Level of Evidence grade and the criteria list from the Cochrane Back Review Group.Results39 papers were identified and classified into 4 social support intervention categories: befriending and peer support, family support and social network interventions, support groups, and remote interventions using the internet or telephone. Content, intensity, uptake, effectiveness and quality of interventions varied widely. In general, the level of evidence was low. Most studies measured effect on well-being variables, while few examined social support outcomes. Multi-component social support interventions were most effective. Evidence suggested, also a caregiver benefit from remote interventions. Generally, results were inconsistent; some papers demonstrated beneficial results, while others demonstrated no improvement on social support and well-being variables. Social support outcomes were more positively evaluated when qualitative outcome measures rather than quantitative measures were used.ConclusionsAlthough multi-component social support interventionsmay improve caregiver well-being, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether a change in social support is the underlying mediating factor. The inclusion, validation and operationalization of caregiver social support measures deserve more attention.     

Healthcare professionals’ behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review

ObjectiveTo explore the barriers to and facilitators of healthcare professionals’ implementation of SDM regarding screening programmes.MethodA systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and PsyscInfo. The barriers and facilitators identified were classified into three factors based on their origin: patients, healthcare system performance, and healthcare professionals themselves.ResultsEight studies were selected: seven related to cancer screening. The most significant facilitators were literacy and interest in active participation, both of which have their origins in patients. The most significant barriers identified for the first time in a systematic review were legal conflict, lack of remuneration and lack of flexibility in clinical guidelines in screening programmes.ConclusionThe results of this study show that there are differences between barriers and facilitators for SDM when it is applied in the context of healthy people who perform preventive activities, particularly screening, in contrast to general medical consultation contexts.Practical implicationsThe authors suggest that to advance in the practice of SDM, we need to develop and disseminate training documents. Further, SDM should be incorporated into clinical guidelines. There should be more studies focusing on healthcare professionals’ behaviour within the context of the uncertainty of screening programmes.     

The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: Do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions?

Objective

To discuss whether using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration checklist as a gold standard to judge interventions’ quality is premature and potentially detrimental to the validity of resources designed to help patients make treatment choices.

Methods

Conceptual review integrating the science behind individuals’ decision making with the demands of designing complex, healthcare interventions.

Results

Patient decision aids are promoted as interventions to help professionals engage in shared and/or patient-centred care. The IPDAS domains were informed by experts’ opinions of best practice. Decision scientists study how individuals make decisions, what biases their choices and how best to support decisions. There is debate from decision scientists about which component parts are the active ingredients that help people make decisions.

Conclusions

Interventions to help patients make choices have different purposes, component parts and outcomes to those facilitating professional–patient communications. The IPDAS checklist will change to respond to new evidence from the decision sciences.

Practice implications

Adhering uncritically to the IPDAS checklist may reduce service variation but is not sufficient to ensure interventions enable good patient decision making. Developers must be encouraged to reason about the IPDAS checklist to identify those component parts that do (not) meet their intervention's purpose.     

Taking into account the observers’ uncertainty: a graduated approach to the credibility of the patient’s pain evaluation

This article presents two experiments aiming to investigate the adoption of a graduated measure to describe credibility attribution by observers who evaluate patients’ pain accounts. A total of 160 medical students were required to express a credibility judgment on the pain intensity level of hypothetical patients. We used 16 vignettes based on a factorial mixed-design. Within-participants factors were the reported pain, the presence of a physical sign, the patient’s facial expression and the patient’s gender, and between-groups factors were the patient’s age and the geographical distribution of the patient’s name. Results confirm the well-established tendency not to believe patients’ self-reports and provide information regarding the evaluators’ uncertainty. The findings suggest that a graduated measure is useful for assessing the degree of uncertainty of the observers and subtle effects of different factors upon the judgment of patient’s pain.     

How do peer support interventions for the self-management of chronic pain,support basic psychological needs? A systematic review and framework synthesis using self-determination theory

ObjectiveTo identify how peer support interventions, for self-management of chronic pain, support basic psychological needs from a self-determination theory (SDT) perspective, using a systematic review.MethodsTen databases were searched for studies reporting qualitative research about peer interactions in pain management interventions. ‘Best fit’ framework synthesis methodology was applied to identify strategies that support the satisfaction of competence, autonomy and motivation. These were matched to definitions of strategies provided by standardised taxonomies.Results18 studies were selected for inclusion. The synthesis resulted in a conceptual model, identifying 12 peer strategies that support psychological needs for self-management of chronic pain; 10 overlapped with existing taxonomies.ConclusionThis was the first known attempt to synthesise evidence about peer support strategies for people living with pain, using SDT as an a priori framework. The model demonstrates commonality between the motivation-promoting processes of peer support and those of other behaviour change interventions and identifies additional unique strategies provided by peers. This systematic classification of peer support strategies provides a means for future study of the efficacy and comprehensiveness of peer interventions.Practice implicationsThe model could assist healthcare professionals and support groups to optimise the potential of peer processes.     

Uncovering healthcare practitioners’ information processing using the think-aloud method: From paper-based guideline to clinical decision support system

ObjectiveTo investigate whether the use of the think-aloud method with propositional analysis could be helpful in the design of a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) providing guideline recommendations about long-term follow-up of childhood cancer survivors.Materials and methodsThe think-aloud method was used to gain insight into healthcare professionals’ information processing while reviewing a paper-based guideline. A total of 13 healthcare professionals (6 physicians and 7 physician assistants) prepared 2 fictitious patient consults using the paper-based guideline. Propositional analysis was used to analyze verbal protocols of the think-aloud sessions. A prototype CDSS was developed and a usability study was performed, again with the think-aloud method.ResultsThe analysis revealed that the paper-based guideline did not support healthcare practitioners in finding patient-specific recommendations. An information processing model for retrieving recommendations was developed and used as input for the design of a CDSS prototype user interface. Usability analysis of the prototype CDSS showed that the navigational structure of the system fitted well with healthcare practitioners’ daily practices.ConclusionsThe think-aloud method combined with propositional analysis of healthcare practitioners’ verbal utterances while they processed a paper-based guideline was useful in the design of a usable CDSS providing patient-specific guideline recommendations.     

Developing a common framework for evaluating the implementation of genomic medicine interventions in clinical care: the IGNITE Network’s Common Measures Working Group

PurposeImplementation research provides a structure for evaluating the clinical integration of genomic medicine interventions. This paper describes the Implementing Genomics in Practice (IGNITE) Network’s efforts to promote (i) a broader understanding of genomic medicine implementation research and (ii) the sharing of knowledge generated in the network.MethodsTo facilitate this goal, the IGNITE Network Common Measures Working Group (CMG) members adopted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide its approach to identifying constructs and measures relevant to evaluating genomic medicine as a whole, standardizing data collection across projects, and combining data in a centralized resource for cross-network analyses.ResultsCMG identified 10 high-priority CFIR constructs as important for genomic medicine. Of those, eight did not have standardized measurement instruments. Therefore, we developed four survey tools to address this gap. In addition, we identified seven high-priority constructs related to patients, families, and communities that did not map to CFIR constructs. Both sets of constructs were combined to create a draft genomic medicine implementation model.ConclusionWe developed processes to identify constructs deemed valuable for genomic medicine implementation and codified them in a model. These resources are freely available to facilitate knowledge generation and sharing across the field.