ArticleJMIR cancer2024
Improving Concordance Between Clinicians With Australian Guidelines for Bowel Cancer Prevention Using a Digital Application: Randomized Controlled Crossover Study.
Article in JMIR cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with willingness to perform expedited excisional treatment for patients at high risk for cervical precancer.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAustralia's bowel cancer prevention guidelines, following a recent revision, are among the most complex in the world. Detailed decision tables outline screening or surveillance recommendations for 230 case scenarios alongside cessation recommendations for older patients. While these guidelines can help better allocate limited colonoscopy resources, their increasing complexity may limit their adoption and potential benefits. Therefore, tools to support clinicians in navigating these guidelines could be essential for national bowel cancer prevention efforts. Digital applications (DAs) represent a potentially inexpensive and scalable solution but are yet to be tested for this purpose.
objectiveThis study aims to assess whether a DA could increase clinician adherence to Australia's new colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines and determine whether improved usability correlates with greater conformance to guidelines.
methodsAs part of a randomized controlled crossover study, we created a clinical vignette quiz to evaluate the efficacy of a DA in comparison with the standard resource (SR) for making screening and surveillance decisions. Briefings were provided to study participants, which were tailored to their level of familiarity with the guidelines. We measured the adherence of clinicians according to their number of guideline-concordant responses to the scenarios in the quiz using either the DA or the SR. The maximum score was 18, with higher scores indicating improved adherence. We also tested the DA's usability using the System Usability Scale.
resultsOf 117 participants, 80 were included in the final analysis. Using the SR, the adherence of participants was rated a median (IQR) score of 10 (7.75-13) out of 18. The participants' adherence improved by 40% (relative risk 1.4, P<.001) when using the DA, reaching a median (IQR) score of 14 (12-17) out of 18. The DA was rated highly for usability with a median (IQR) score of 90 (72.5-95) and ranked in the 96th percentile of systems. There was a moderate correlation between the usability of the DA and better adherence (r
conclusionsDAs can significantly improve the adoption of complex Australian bowel cancer prevention guidelines. As screening and surveillance guidelines become increasingly complex and personalized, these tools will be crucial to help clinicians accurately determine the most appropriate recommendations for their patients. Additional research to understand why some practitioners perform worse with DAs is required. Further improvements in application usability may optimize guideline concordance further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.