Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24351420›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2013

Perceived barriers and facilitators of using a Web-based interactive decision aid for colorectal cancer screening in community practice settings: findings from focus groups with primary care clinicians and medical office staff.

Masahito Jimbo, Cameron Garth Shultz, Donald Eugene Nease, Michael Derwin Fetters, Debra Power, Mack Thomas Ruffin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Masahito JimboUniversity of Michigan, Departments of Family Medicine and Urology, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. mjimbo@umich.edu.
Cameron Garth Shultz
Donald Eugene Nease
Michael Derwin Fetters
Debra Power
Mack Thomas Ruffin
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USDay Family Medicine · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · US

Funding

Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making (DATES)R01CA152413 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI JIMBO, MASAHITO · 2011 to 2014
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA152413NCI NIH HHS R01CA152413
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation is lacking about the capacity of those working in community practice settings to utilize health information technology for colorectal cancer screening.

objectiveTo address this gap we asked those working in community practice settings to share their perspectives about how the implementation of a Web-based patient-led decision aid might affect patient-clinician conversations about colorectal cancer screening and the day-to-day clinical workflow.

methodsFive focus groups in five community practice settings were conducted with 8 physicians, 1 physician assistant, and 18 clinic staff. Focus groups were organized using a semistructured discussion guide designed to identify factors that mediate and impede the use of a Web-based decision aid intended to clarify patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening and to trigger shared decision making during the clinical encounter.

resultsAll physicians, the physician assistant, and 8 of the 18 clinic staff were active participants in the focus groups. Clinician and staff participants from each setting reported a belief that the Web-based patient-led decision aid could be an informative and educational tool; in all but one setting participants reported a readiness to recommend the tool to patients. The exception related to clinicians from one clinic who described a preference for patients having fewer screening choices, noting that a colonoscopy was the preferred screening modality for patients in their clinic. Perceived barriers to utilizing the Web-based decision aid included patients' lack of Internet access or low computer literacy, and potential impediments to the clinics' daily workflow. Expanding patients' use of an online decision aid that is both easy to access and understand and that is utilized by patients outside of the office visit was described as a potentially efficient means for soliciting patients' screening preferences. Participants described that a system to link the online decision aid to a computerized reminder system could promote a better understanding of patients' screening preferences, though some expressed concern that such a system could be difficult to keep up and running.

conclusionsCommunity practice clinicians and staff perceived the Web-based decision aid technology as promising but raised questions as to how the technology and resultant information would be integrated into their daily practice workflow. Additional research investigating how to best implement online decision aids should be conducted prior to the widespread adoption of such technology so as to maximize the benefits of the technology while minimizing workflow disruptions.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesInternetAgedColorectal NeoplasmsCommunity Health CentersDecision MakingFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPrimary Health CareTelemedicinecancer screeningcolon cancercolonoscopydecision support techniquesearly detection of cancerfocus groupshealth information technologyreminder systems

Identifiers

PMID24351420
PMCPMC3875904
OpenAlexW2004316291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.