Cargando…

Understanding clinical prediction models as ‘innovations’: a mixed methods study in UK family practice

BACKGROUND: Well-designed clinical prediction models (CPMs) often out-perform clinicians at estimating probabilities of clinical outcomes, though their adoption by family physicians is variable. How family physicians interact with CPMs is poorly understood, therefore a better understanding and frami...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brown, Benjamin, Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh, Jaki, Thomas, Su, Ting-Li, Buchan, Iain, Sperrin, Matthew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4977891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27506547
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0343-y
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Well-designed clinical prediction models (CPMs) often out-perform clinicians at estimating probabilities of clinical outcomes, though their adoption by family physicians is variable. How family physicians interact with CPMs is poorly understood, therefore a better understanding and framing within a context-sensitive theoretical framework may improve CPM development and implementation. The aim of this study was to investigate why family physicians do or do not use CPMs, interpreting these findings within a theoretical framework to provide recommendations for the development and implementation of future CPMs. METHODS: Mixed methods study in North West England that comprised an online survey and focus groups. RESULTS: One hundred thirty eight respondents completed the survey, which found the main perceived advantages to using CPMs were that they guided appropriate treatment (weighted rank [r] = 299; maximum r = 414 throughout), justified treatment decisions (r = 217), and incorporated a large body of evidence (r = 156). The most commonly reported barriers to using CPMs were lack of time (r = 163), irrelevance to some patients (r = 161), and poor integration with electronic health records (r = 147). Eighteen clinicians participated in two focus groups (i.e. nine in each), which revealed 13 interdependent themes affecting CPM use under three overarching domains: clinician factors, CPM factors and contextual factors. Themes were interdependent, indicating the tensions family physicians experience in providing evidence-based care for individual patients. CONCLUSIONS: The survey and focus groups showed that CPMs were valued when they supported clinical decision making and were robust. Barriers to their use related to their being time-consuming, difficult to use and not always adding value. Therefore, to be successful, CPMs should offer a relative advantage to current working, be easy to implement, be supported by training, policy and guidelines, and fit within the organisational culture.