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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |