Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29273040›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2017

Multiple constraints compromise decision-making about implantable medical devices for individual patients: qualitative interviews with physicians.

Anna R Gagliardi, Ariel Ducey, Pascale Lehoux, Thomas Turgeon, Jeremy Kolbunik, Sue Ross, Patricia Trbovich, Anthony Easty, Chaim Bell, David R Urbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Anna R GagliardiUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Canada. anna.gagliardi@uhnresearch.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-5721-809X
Ariel DuceyUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Pascale LehouxUniversity of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Thomas TurgeonConcordia Hip and Knee Institute, Winnipeg, Canada.
Jeremy KolbunikMount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Sue RossUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Patricia TrbovichUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Anthony EastyUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Chaim BellMount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
David R UrbachUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle research has examined how physicians choose medical devices for treating individual patients to reveal if interventions are needed to support decision-making and reduce device-associated morbidity and mortality. This study explored factors that influence choice of implantable device from among available options.

methodsA descriptive qualitative approach was used. Physicians who implant orthopedic and cardiovascular devices were identified in publicly available directories and web sites. They were asked how they decided what device to use in a given patient, sources of information they consulted, and how patients were engaged in decision-making. Sampling was concurrent with data collection and analysis to achieve thematic saturation. Data were analyzed using constant comparative technique by all members of the research team.

resultsTwenty-two physicians from five Canadian provinces (10 cardiovascular, 12 orthopedic; 8, 10 and 4 early, mid and late career, respectively) were interviewed. Responses did not differ by specialty, geographic region or career stage. Five major categories of themes emerged that all influence decision-making about a range of devices, and often compromise choice of the most suitable device for a given patient, potentially leading to sub-optimal clinical outcomes: lack of evidence on device performance, patient factors, physician factors, organizational and health system factors, and device and device market factors. In the absence of evidence from research or device registries, tacit knowledge from trusted colleagues and less-trusted industry representatives informed device choice. Patients were rarely engaged in decision-making. Physician preference for particular devices was a barrier to acquiring competency in devices potentially more suitable for patients. Access to suitable devices was further limited to the number of comparable devices on the market, local inventory and purchasing contract specifications.

conclusionsThis study revealed that decision-making about devices is complex, cognitively challenging and constrained by several factors limiting access to and use of devices that could optimize patient outcomes. Further research is needed to assess the impact of these constraints on clinical outcomes, and develop interventions that optimize decision-making about device choice for treating given patients.

Indexed as

CardiologistsSurgeonsCanadaClinical Decision-MakingDefibrillators, ImplantableHumansInternal FixatorsOrthopedic SurgeonsPacemaker, ArtificialProstheses and ImplantsQualitative ResearchDecision-makingInfluencing factorsMedical devicesQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29273040
PMCPMC5741896

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.