Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35762832›Full record

Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2022

Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial.

Jennifer Elston Lafata, Deirdre A Shires, Yongyun Shin, Susan Flocke, Kenneth Resnicow, Morgan Johnson, Ellen Nixon, Xinxin Sun, Sarah Hawley

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2022. 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
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer Elston LafataUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy and UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8550-6195
Deirdre A ShiresSchool of Social Work, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Yongyun ShinSchool of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Susan FlockeSchool of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University.
Kenneth ResnicowSchool of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1416-9627
Morgan JohnsonUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Ellen NixonCenter for Health Policy and Services Research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA.
Xinxin SunSchool of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Sarah HawleySchool of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
University of Michigan · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USVirginia Commonwealth University · USHenry Ford Health System · USMichigan State University · USOregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

e-Assist: A Post-Visit Patient Portal Tool to Promote Colorectal Cancer ScreeningR01CA197205 · NCI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI ELSTON LAFATA, JENNIFER M · 2015 to 2019
$3.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA197205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEven after a physician recommendation, many people remain unscreened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The proliferation of electronic health records (EHRs) and tethered online portals may afford new opportunities to embed patient-facing interventions within clinic workflows and engage patients following a physician recommendation for care. We evaluated the effectiveness of a patient-facing intervention designed to complement physician office-based recommendations for CRC screening.

designUsing a 2-arm pragmatic, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the intervention's effect on CRC screening use as documented in the EHR (primary outcome) and the extent to which the intervention reached the target population. Trial participants were insured, aged 50 to 75 y, with a physician recommendation for CRC screening. Typical EHR functionalities, including patient registries, health maintenance flags, best practice alerts, and secure messaging, were used to support research-related activities and deliver the intervention to enrolled patients.

resultsA total of 1,825 adults consented to trial participation, of whom 78% completed a baseline survey and were exposed to the intervention. Most trial participants (>80%) indicated an intent to be screened on the baseline survey, and 65% were screened at follow-up, with no significant differences by study arm. One-third of eligible patients were sent a secure message. Among those, more than three-quarters accessed study material.

conclusionsBy leveraging common EHR functionalities, we integrated a patient-facing intervention within clinic workflows. Despite practice integration, the intervention did not improve screening use, likely in part due to portal-based interventions not reaching those for whom the intervention may be most effective. IMPLICATIONS: Embedding patient-facing interventions within the EHR enabled practice integration but may minimize program effectiveness by missing important segments of the patient population. HIGHLIGHTS: Electronic health record tools can be used to facilitate practice-embedded pragmatic trial and patient-facing intervention processes, including patient identification, study arm allocation, and intervention delivery.The online portal-embedded intervention did not improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake following a physician recommendation, likely in part because portal users tend to be already highly engaged with healthcare.Relying on patient portals alone for CRC screening interventions may not alter screening use and could exacerbate well-known care disparities.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsElectronic Health RecordsAdultEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass Screeningcolorectal cancer screeninghierarchical generalized linear modelspatient portalsprogram reach

Identifiers

PMID35762832
PMCPMC9583291
OpenAlexW4283660853

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.