ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2025
Multilevel factors influence the use of a cardiovascular disease assessment tool embedded in the electronic health record in oncology care.
Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital health tools are positive for delivering evidence-based care. However, few studies have applied rigorous frameworks to understand their use in community settings. This study aimed to identify implementation determinants of the Automated Heart-Health Assessment (AH-HA) tool within outpatient oncology settings as part of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. A mixed-methods approach informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) examined barriers and facilitators to AH-HA implementation in four NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices participating in the WF-1804CD AH-HA trial. Provider surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interviews with providers (n = 15) were coded using deductive (CFIR) and inductive codes by trained analysts. The CFIR rating tool was used to rate each quote for (i) valence, defined as a positive (+) or negative (-) influence, and (ii) strength, defined as a neutral (0), weak (1), or strong (2) influence on implementation. All providers considered discussing cardiovascular health with patients as important (61.5%, n = 8/13) or somewhat important (38.5%, n = 5/13). The tool was well-received by providers and was feasible to use in routine care among cancer survivors. Providers felt the tool was acceptable and usable, had a relative advantage over routine care, and had the potential to generate benefits for patients. Common reasons clinicians reported not using AH-HA were (i) insufficient time and (ii) the tool interfering with workflow. Systematically identifying implementation determinants from this study will guide the broader dissemination of the AH-HA tool across clinical settings and inform implementation strategies for future scale-up hybrid trials.
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.