Designing Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Support: A Cognitive Engineering Enterprise.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Militello LG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4784691 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Designing Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Support: A Cognitive Engineering Enterprise.
Militello Laura G LG Saleem Jason J JJ Borders Morgan R MR Sushereba Christen E CE Haverkamp Donald D Wolf Steven P SP Doebbeling Bradley N BN
Journal of cognitive engineering and decision making 20160301 1
Adoption of clinical decision support has been limited. Important barriers include an emphasis on algorithmic approaches to decision support that do not align well with clinical work flow and human decision strategies, and the expense and challenge of developing, implementing, and refining decision support features in existing electronic health records (EHRs). We applied decision-centered design to create a modular software application to support physicians in managing and tracking colorectal ca ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAustralia has a comparatively high incidence of colorectal (bowel) cancer; however, population screening uptake using faecal occult blood test (FOBT) remains low. This study will determine the impact on screening participation of a novel, Internet-based Personalised Decision Support (PDS) package. The PDS is designed to measure attitudes and cognitive concerns and provide people with individually tailored information, in real time, that will assist them with making a decision to screen. The hypothesis is that exposure to (tailored) PDS will result in greater participation in screening than participation following exposure to non-tailored PDS or resulting from the current non-tailored, paper-based approach.Methods/designA randomised parallel trial comprising three arms will be conducted. Men and women aged 50-74 years (N = 3240) will be recruited. They must have access to the Internet; have not had an FOBT within the previous 12 months, or sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy within the previous 5 years; have had no clinical diagnosis of bowel cancer. Groups 1 and 2 (PDS arms) will access a website and complete a baseline survey measuring decision-to-screen stage, attitudes and cognitive concerns and will receive immediate feedback; Group 1 will receive information 'tailored' to their responses in the baseline survey and group 2 will received 'non-tailored' bowel cancer information. Respondents in both groups will subsequently receive an FOBT kit. Group 3 (usual practice arm) will complete a paper-based version of the baseline survey and respondents will subsequently receive 'non-tailored' paper-based bowel cancer information with accompanying FOBT kit. Following despatch of FOBTs, all respondents will be requested to complete an endpoint survey. Main outcome measures are (1) completion of FOBT and (2) change in decision-to-screen stage. Secondary outcomes include satisfaction with decision and change in attitudinal scores from baseline to endpoint. Analyses will be performed using Chi-square tests, analysis of variance and log binomial generalized linear models as appropriate.DiscussionIt is necessary to restrict participants to Internet users to provide an appropriately controlled evaluation of PDS. Once efficacy of the approach has been established, it will be important to evaluate effectiveness in the wider at-risk population, and to identify barriers to its implementation in those settings.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000095066.
| S-EPMC2949693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUse of electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) has been recommended to improve implementation of clinical decision rules. Many eCDS tools, however, are designed and implemented without taking into account the context in which clinical work is performed. Implementation of the pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) clinical decision rule at one Level I pediatric emergency department includes an electronic questionnaire triggered when ordering a head computed tomography using computerized physician order entry (CPOE). Providers use this CPOE tool in less than 20% of trauma resuscitation cases. A human factors engineering approach could identify the implementation barriers that are limiting the use of this tool.ObjectivesThe objective was to design a pediatric TBI eCDS tool for trauma resuscitation using a human factors approach. The hypothesis was that clinical experts will rate a usability-enhanced eCDS tool better than the existing CPOE tool for user interface design and suitability for clinical use.MethodsThis mixed-methods study followed usability evaluation principles. Pediatric emergency physicians were surveyed to identify barriers to using the existing eCDS tool. Using standard trauma resuscitation protocols, a hierarchical task analysis of pediatric TBI evaluation was developed. Five clinical experts, all board-certified pediatric emergency medicine faculty members, then iteratively modified the hierarchical task analysis until reaching consensus. The software team developed a prototype eCDS display using the hierarchical task analysis. Three human factors engineers provided feedback on the prototype through a heuristic evaluation, and the software team refined the eCDS tool using a rapid prototyping process. The eCDS tool then underwent iterative usability evaluations by the five clinical experts using video review of 50 trauma resuscitation cases. A final eCDS tool was created based on their feedback, with content analysis of the evaluations performed to ensure all concerns were identified and addressed.ResultsAmong 26 EPs (76% response rate), the main barriers to using the existing tool were that the information displayed is redundant and does not fit clinical workflow. After the prototype eCDS tool was developed based on the trauma resuscitation hierarchical task analysis, the human factors engineers rated it to be better than the CPOE tool for nine of 10 standard user interface design heuristics on a three-point scale. The eCDS tool was also rated better for clinical use on the same scale, in 84% of 50 expert-video pairs, and was rated equivalent in the remainder. Clinical experts also rated barriers to use of the eCDS tool as being low.ConclusionsAn eCDS tool for diagnostic imaging designed using human factors engineering methods has improved perceived usability among pediatric emergency physicians.
| S-EPMC5338692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To develop a computerized clinical decision support system (CDSS) for cervical cancer screening that can interpret free-text Papanicolaou (Pap) reports.The CDSS was constituted by two rulebases: the free-text rulebase for interpreting Pap reports and a guideline rulebase. The free-text rulebase was developed by analyzing a corpus of 49?293 Pap reports. The guideline rulebase was constructed using national cervical cancer screening guidelines. The CDSS accesses the electronic medical record (EMR) system to generate patient-specific recommendations. For evaluation, the screening recommendations made by the CDSS for 74 patients were reviewed by a physician.Evaluation revealed that the CDSS outputs the optimal screening recommendations for 73 out of 74 test patients and it identified two cases for gynecology referral that were missed by the physician. The CDSS aided the physician to amend recommendations in six cases. The failure case was because human papillomavirus (HPV) testing was sometimes performed separately from the Pap test and these results were reported by a laboratory system that was not queried by the CDSS. Subsequently, the CDSS was upgraded to look up the HPV results missed earlier and it generated the optimal recommendations for all 74 test cases.Single institution and single expert study.An accurate CDSS system could be constructed for cervical cancer screening given the standardized reporting of Pap tests and the availability of explicit guidelines. Overall, the study demonstrates that free text in the EMR can be effectively utilized through natural language processing to develop clinical decision support tools.
| S-EPMC3422840 | biostudies-other
Project description:The complexity of cancer care requires integrated and continuous support to deliver appropriate care. An expert network with complementary expertise and the capability of multidisciplinary care is an integral part of contemporary oncology care. Appropriate infrastructure is necessary to empower this network to deliver personalized precision care to their patients. Providing decision support as cancer care becomes exponentially more complex with new diagnostic and therapeutic choices remains challenging. City of Hope has developed a Pyramidal Decision Support Framework to address these challenges, which were exacerbated by the COVID pandemic, health plan restrictions, and growing geographic site diversity. Optimizing efficient and targeted decision support backed by multidisciplinary cancer expertise can improve individual patient treatment plans to achieve improved care and survival wherever patients are treated.
| S-EPMC9697355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Our study examined the use of decision-making styles, as identified by Scott and Bruce (1995) (i.e. differentiating between a rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant and spontaneous decision-making style), within the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In the field of cancer screening, informed decision-making is considered important, which follows the Rational Decision model. Subsequently, gaining more insight into decision-making styles being used in real life, could improve support to people when making their screening decision. In addition, we examined whether the decision-making style that people used was associated with their experienced decisional conflict. METHODS:An online survey was carried out among a sample of first-time CRC screening invitees (1282 respondents, response rate 49%). We assessed people's decision-making styles, CRC screening participation, education level, self-reported health literacy, and decisional conflict, and examined the possible associations between them. RESULTS:In our study, people who had to decide about CRC screening scored high on using both a rational and intuitive decision-making style. Respondents scoring higher on using a spontaneous or dependent decision-making style were more likely to have participated in CRC screening, while respondents scoring higher on using an avoidant decision-making style were more likely not to have participated in CRC screening. However, differences were small. Generally, people in our study experienced low decisional conflict. CONCLUSION:Our eligible CRC screening population scored high on using both a rational and intuitive decision-making style. To optimise support to people, public education materials could be appealing more to the intuitive processes at hand. That being said, the current education materials aimed at informed/rational decision-making do not necessarily seem to create a problem, as people generally experienced low decisional conflict. Possible concerns regarding the use of a spontaneous, dependent or avoidant decision-making style could be that these styles might be contributing to less informed decisions. However, it is relevant to consider that the found differences are small and that any possible concern applies to a relatively small group of people.
| S-EPMC6998095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile online portals may be helpful to engage patients in shared decision-making at the time of cancer screening, because of known disparities in patient portal use, sole reliance on portals to support cancer screening decision-making could exacerbate well-known disparities in this health care area. Innovative approaches are needed to engage patients in health care decision-making and to support equitable shared decision-making.ObjectiveWe assessed the acceptability of text messages to engage sociodemographically diverse individuals in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions and support shared decision-making in practice.MethodsWe developed a brief text message program offering educational information consisting of components of shared decision-making regarding CRC screening (eg, for whom screening is recommended, screening test options, and pros/cons of options). The program and postprogram survey were offered to members of an online panel. The outcome of interest was program acceptability measured by observed program engagement, participant-reported acceptability, and willingness to use similar programs (behavioral intent). We evaluated acceptability among historically marginalized categories of people defined by income, literacy, and race.ResultsOf the 289 participants, 115 reported having a low income, 146 were Black/African American, and 102 had less than extreme confidence in their health literacy. With one exception, we found equal or greater acceptability, regardless of measure, within each of the marginalized categories of people compared to their counterparts. The exception was that participants reporting an income below US $50,000 were less likely to engage with sufficient content of the program to learn that there was a choice among different CRC screening tests (difference -10.4%, 95% CI -20.1 to -0.8). Of note, Black/African American participants reported being more likely to sign up to receive text messages from their doctor's office compared to white participants (difference 18.7%, 95% CI 7.0-30.3).ConclusionsStudy findings demonstrate general acceptance of text messages to inform and support CRC screening shared decision-making.
| S-EPMC10199389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:It is increasingly considered important that people make an autonomous and informed decision concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the realisation of autonomy within the concept of informed decision-making might be interpreted too narrowly. Additionally, relatively little is known about what the eligible population believes to be a 'good' screening decision. Therefore, we aimed to explore how the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making relate to how the eligible CRC screening population makes their decision and when they believe to have made a 'good' screening decision. METHODS:We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with the eligible CRC screening population (eighteen CRC screening participants and nine non-participants). The general topics discussed concerned how people made their CRC screening decision, how they experienced making this decision and when they considered they had made a 'good' decision. RESULTS:Most interviewees viewed a 'good' CRC screening decision as one based on both reasoning and feeling/intuition, and that is made freely. However, many CRC screening non-participants experienced a certain social pressure to participate. All CRC screening non-participants viewed making an informed decision as essential. This appeared to be the case to a lesser extent for CRC screening participants. For most, experiences and values were involved in their decision-making. CONCLUSION:Our sample of the eligible CRC screening population viewed aspects related to the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making as important for making a 'good' CRC screening decision. However, in particular the existence of a social norm may be affecting a true autonomous decision-making process. Additionally, the present concept of informed decision-making with its strong emphasis on making a fully informed and well-considered decision does not appear to be entirely reflective of the process in practice. More efforts could be made to attune to the diverse values and factors that are involved in deciding about CRC screening participation.
| S-EPMC7259584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the interest of primary care clinicians in utilizing CDS for PSA screening. Evidence suggests that electronic clinical decision support (CDS) may decrease low-value prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. However, physician attitudes towards CDS for PSA screening are largely unknown.MethodsA survey was sent to 201 primary care clinicians, including both physicians and Advanced Practice Providers (APP), within a large academic health system. Eligible clinicians cared for male patients aged 40 to 80 years and ordered ≥5 PSA tests in the past year. Respondents were stratified into 3 groups, appropriate screeners, low-value screeners, or rare-screeners, based on responses to survey questions assessing PSA screening practices. The degree of interest in electronic CDS was determined via a composite Likert score comprising relevant survey items.ResultsSurvey response rate was 29% (59/201) consisting of 85% MD/DO and 15% APP respondents. All clinicians surveyed were interested in CDS (P < 0.001) without significant difference between screener groups. Clinicians agreed most uniformly that CDS be evidence-based. Clinicians disagreed on whether CDS would decrease professional discretion over patient decisions.ConclusionsPrimary care clinicians are interested in CDS for PSA screening regardless of their current screening practices. Prioritizing CDS features that clinicians value, such as ensuring CDS recommendations are evidence-based, may increase the likelihood of successful implementation, whereas perceived threat to autonomy may be a hinderance to utilization.
| S-EPMC9992103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Understanding how interventions affect time to completion of colorectal cancer screening might assist in planning and delivering population-based screening interventions. The Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening (SOS) study was conducted between 2008 and 2011 at 21 primary care medical centers in Western Washington. Participants in the study, ages 50 to 73 years, were eligible if they were enrolled in Group Health (Seattle, WA) and were due for colorectal cancer screening. Of note, 4,675 recruited participants were randomized to usual care or one of three interventions with incremental levels of systems of support for completion of colorectal cancer screening. We conducted time to screening analyses of the SOS data in years 1 and 2. We investigated whether these effects were time-varying. For year 1, the intervention effects on the time to completion of colorectal cancer screening were the strongest during the first two post-randomization months and then decreased, with no significant effect after the fifth month. For year 2, the intervention effects on the time to colorectal cancer screening increased from the first to the third month and then decreased, with no significant effect after the fifth month. Hence, each of the interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening had its greatest effect within the first 3 months after being offered to participants. Future studies should test whether booster interventions offered later could increase screening rate among those who remain unscreened. Additional research is needed to develop intervention strategies for colorectal cancer screening that focus on sustained behavior over time.
| S-EPMC4119537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent US colorectal cancer screening guidelines that call for shared decision making regarding the choice among several recommended screening options are difficult to implement. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an established method well suited for supporting shared decision making. Our study goal was to determine whether a streamlined form of MCDA using rank-order-based judgments can accurately assess patients' colorectal cancer screening priorities.MethodsWe converted priorities for 4 decision criteria and 3 subcriteria regarding colorectal cancer screening obtained from 484 average-risk patients using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in a prior study into rank-order-based priorities using rank order centroids. We compared the 2 sets of priorities using Spearman rank correlation and nonparametric Bland-Altman limits of agreement analysis. We assessed the differential impact of using the rank-order-based versus the AHP-based priorities on the results of a full MCDA comparing 3 currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies. Generalizability of the results was assessed using Monte Carlo simulation.ResultsCorrelations between the 2 sets of priorities for the 7 criteria ranged from 0.55 to 0.92. The proportions of differences between rank-order-based and AHP-based priorities that were more than ±0.15 ranged from 1% to 16%. Differences in the full MCDA results were minimal, and the relative rankings of the 3 screening options were identical more than 88% of the time. The Monte Carlo simulation results were similar.ConclusionsRank-order-based MCDA could be a simple, practical way to guide individual decisions and assess population decision priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening strategies. Additional research is warranted to further explore the use of these methods for promoting shared decision making.
| S-EPMC4055507 | biostudies-literature