Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22212453›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2014

Barriers and facilitators to routine distribution of patient decision support interventions: a preliminary study in community-based primary care settings.

Visith Uy, Suepattra G May, Caroline Tietbohl, Dominick L Frosch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. A Call for Behavioral Science in Embedded Bioethics.Perspectives in biology and medicine · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Physician engagement: a concept analysis.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Investigating the Heart Pump Implant Decision Process: Opportunities for Decision Support Tools to Help.ACM transactions on computer-human interaction : a publication of the Association for Computing Machinery · 2016
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Visith UyStaff Research Assistant II, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CAAssistant Research AnthropologistResearch AssistantAssociate Investigator, Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CAAssociate Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Suepattra G May
Caroline Tietbohl
Dominick L Frosch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA growing body of literature documents the value of decision support interventions (DESIs) in facilitating patient participation in preference sensitive decision making, but little is known about their implementation in routine care.

objectiveThis study explored barriers and facilitators to prescribing DESIs in primary care. SETTING AND

participantsFour community-based primary care practices across Los Angeles County serving diverse low and middle income populations participated.

designThe first phase focused on implementing DESI prescribing into routine care. Weekly academic detailing visits served to identify barriers to DESI prescribing, generate ethnographic field notes and record DESI prescriptions. The second phase explored the impact of a financial incentive on DESI prescribing. At the project's conclusion, each physician completed an in-depth interview.

resultsThe four practices prescribed an average of 6.5 DESIs a month (range 3.6-9.2) during Phase I. The financial incentive increased DESI prescribing by 71% to 11.1 per month (range 3.5-21.4). The estimated percentages of patients who viewed the DESI were 37.9 and 43.9% during Phases I and II, respectively. Qualitative data suggest that physician buy-in with the project goal was crucial to DESI distribution success. Competing demands and time pressures were persistent barriers. The effects of the financial incentive were mixed.

conclusionsThis study confirmed the importance of physician engagement when implementing DESIs and found mixed effects for providing financial incentives. The relatively low rate of DESI viewing suggests further research on increasing patient uptake of these interventions in routine practice is necessary.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFamily PracticeFemaleHumansInternal MedicineLos AngelesMaleQualitative Researchcommunity based researchdecision supportshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID22212453
PMCPMC5060726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.