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
_version_ 1782447121750818816
author Brown, Benjamin
Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh
Jaki, Thomas
Su, Ting-Li
Buchan, Iain
Sperrin, Matthew
author_facet Brown, Benjamin
Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh
Jaki, Thomas
Su, Ting-Li
Buchan, Iain
Sperrin, Matthew
author_sort Brown, Benjamin
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4977891
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49778912016-08-10 Understanding clinical prediction models as ‘innovations’: a mixed methods study in UK family practice Brown, Benjamin Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh Jaki, Thomas Su, Ting-Li Buchan, Iain Sperrin, Matthew BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2016-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4977891/ /pubmed/27506547 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0343-y Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Brown, Benjamin
Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh
Jaki, Thomas
Su, Ting-Li
Buchan, Iain
Sperrin, Matthew
Understanding clinical prediction models as ‘innovations’: a mixed methods study in UK family practice
title Understanding clinical prediction models as ‘innovations’: a mixed methods study in UK family practice
title_full Understanding clinical prediction models as ‘innovations’: a mixed methods study in UK family practice
title_fullStr Understanding clinical prediction models as ‘innovations’: a mixed methods study in UK family practice
title_full_unstemmed Understanding clinical prediction models as ‘innovations’: a mixed methods study in UK family practice
title_short Understanding clinical prediction models as ‘innovations’: a mixed methods study in UK family practice
title_sort understanding clinical prediction models as ‘innovations’: a mixed methods study in uk family practice
topic Research Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT brownbenjamin understandingclinicalpredictionmodelsasinnovationsamixedmethodsstudyinukfamilypractice
AT cheraghisohisudeh understandingclinicalpredictionmodelsasinnovationsamixedmethodsstudyinukfamilypractice
AT jakithomas understandingclinicalpredictionmodelsasinnovationsamixedmethodsstudyinukfamilypractice
AT sutingli understandingclinicalpredictionmodelsasinnovationsamixedmethodsstudyinukfamilypractice
AT buchaniain understandingclinicalpredictionmodelsasinnovationsamixedmethodsstudyinukfamilypractice
AT sperrinmatthew understandingclinicalpredictionmodelsasinnovationsamixedmethodsstudyinukfamilypractice