Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34350322›Full record

ArticleUrology practice2019

Evaluating Clinical Implementation Approaches for Prostate Cancer Decision Support.

Donna L Berry, Fangxin Hong, Barbara Halpenny, Martin G Sanda, Viraj A Master, Christopher P Filson, Peter Chang, Gary W Chien, Meghan Underhill, Erica Fox and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Urology practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Donna L BerryDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Fangxin HongDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Barbara HalpennyDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Martin G SandaDepartment of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta.
Viraj A MasterDepartment of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory Healthcare, Atlanta.
Christopher P FilsonDepartment of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory Healthcare, Atlanta; Atlanta Veterans Administration Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia.
Peter ChangDepartment of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Gary W ChienDepartment of Urology, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Meghan UnderhillDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Erica FoxDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Justin McReynoldsBiobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Seth WolpinBiobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USEmory Healthcare · USUniversity of Washington · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USEmory University · USKaiser Permanente · US

Funding

Personal Patient Profile-Prostate: Testing and Implementation in Health NetworksR01NR009692 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BERRY, DONNA L. · 2006 to 2015
$4.0M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR009692
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionShared decision making is widely promoted for counseling men with localized prostate cancer. Results of randomized trials suggest decision aid efficacy. However, few practices or institutions have implemented decision support as standard practice. In this study we evaluated various implementation strategies for the decision aid P3P (Personal Patient Profile-Prostate) and analyzed feedback from clinical site staff and providers.

methodsA hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial was conducted. Primary data were collected in 6 urology clinics of 3 geographically distinct health networks. During the implementation phase site specific strategies were codesigned with site leaders. Referral and access metrics for men with localized prostate cancer were monitored for up to 7 months. Clinical staff reports of barriers and facilitators of implementation were evaluated in professionally facilitated focus groups.

resultsOf 495 men with localized prostate cancer seen in the clinics 252 (51%, 95% CI 46-55) were informed of the program and of those men 107 (43%, 95% CI 36-49) accessed it. The highest access rates were observed with patient care coordinator e-mail and telephone contact (82%) or verbal physician instruction followed by e-mail and telephone invitations (87%). During focus groups physicians appraised the summaries as useful. Staff identified barriers included creating new workflows within heavy workloads and staff misunderstanding of context and resources. Promoters of successful implementation included an identified clinical lead and physician engagement.

conclusionsImplementation success was realized when physicians engaged and staff provided followup contact. New practice changes to implement interventions require multimodal strategies for early success.

Indexed as

decision support techniquesevidence-based practicemedical informaticsprostatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34350322
PMCPMC8330380
OpenAlexW2804542708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.