Mara A Schonberg1, Alicia R Jacobson2, Gianna M Aliberti2, Michelle Hayes3, Anne Hackman4, Maria Karamourtopolous2, Christine Kistler3. 1. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. mschonbe@bidmc.harvard.edu. 2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Division of Geriatric Medicine and Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Atrius Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We previously developed a pamphlet decision aid (DA) on mammography screening for women ≥ 75 years. However, implementing DAs in primary care may be challenging and may require support from non-physician healthcare team members. OBJECTIVE: To learn from primary care administrators, nurses, and staff their thoughts on how best to implement a mammography DA for women ≥ 75 years in practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study entailing in-person individual interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two non-physician healthcare team members (69.6% of those approached) participated from 8 different primary care practices (community and academic) in the Boston area or in Chapel Hill, NC. APPROACH: Participants were asked to provide feedback on the DA, their thoughts on ways to make the DA available to older women, and factors that would make it easier and/or harder to implement. KEY RESULTS: Participants felt the DA was clear, balanced, and understandable, but felt that it needed to be shorter for women with low health literacy. Most participants felt that as long as use of the DA was approved and supported by clinicians that women ≥ 75 years should receive the DA before a visit from staff (usually medical assistants) so that patients could ask their clinicians questions during the visit. Facilitators of DA use included its perceived helpfulness with decision-making, its format, and that existing systems (panel management, electronic medical record alerts) could be accessed to get the DA to patients especially at Medicare Annual Wellness visits. Participants perceived a need for training, albeit minimal, to provide the DA to patients. Barriers of DA use included competing demands on clinician and staff time. CONCLUSIONS: Participants felt that as long as use of the mammography DA for women ≥ 75 years was supported by clinicians, it would be feasible to implement with minimal refinements to existing healthcare system processes.
BACKGROUND: We previously developed a pamphlet decision aid (DA) on mammography screening for women ≥ 75 years. However, implementing DAs in primary care may be challenging and may require support from non-physician healthcare team members. OBJECTIVE: To learn from primary care administrators, nurses, and staff their thoughts on how best to implement a mammography DA for women ≥ 75 years in practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study entailing in-person individual interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two non-physician healthcare team members (69.6% of those approached) participated from 8 different primary care practices (community and academic) in the Boston area or in Chapel Hill, NC. APPROACH: Participants were asked to provide feedback on the DA, their thoughts on ways to make the DA available to older women, and factors that would make it easier and/or harder to implement. KEY RESULTS:Participants felt the DA was clear, balanced, and understandable, but felt that it needed to be shorter for women with low health literacy. Most participants felt that as long as use of the DA was approved and supported by clinicians that women ≥ 75 years should receive the DA before a visit from staff (usually medical assistants) so that patients could ask their clinicians questions during the visit. Facilitators of DA use included its perceived helpfulness with decision-making, its format, and that existing systems (panel management, electronic medical record alerts) could be accessed to get the DA to patients especially at Medicare Annual Wellness visits. Participants perceived a need for training, albeit minimal, to provide the DA to patients. Barriers of DA use included competing demands on clinician and staff time. CONCLUSIONS:Participants felt that as long as use of the mammography DA for women ≥ 75 years was supported by clinicians, it would be feasible to implement with minimal refinements to existing healthcare system processes.
Entities:
Keywords:
decision aids; implementation; mammography screening; older women
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Rochelle Fu; Amy Cantor; Miranda Pappas; Monica Daeges; Linda Humphrey Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Grace A Lin; Meghan Halley; Katharine A S Rendle; Caroline Tietbohl; Suepattra G May; Laurel Trujillo; Dominick L Frosch Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Mara A Schonberg; Christine E Kistler; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Angela Fagerlin; Roger B Davis; Christina C Wee; Edward R Marcantonio; Carmen L Lewis; Whitney A Stanley; Trisha M Crutchfield; Mary Beth Hamel Journal: J Clin Trials Date: 2014
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Grace L Smith; Arti Hurria; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sun Hee Rim; Ingrid J Hall; Greta M Massetti; Cheryll C Thomas; Jun Li; Lisa C Richardson Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Mara A Schonberg; Mary Beth Hamel; Roger B Davis; M Cecilia Griggs; Christina C Wee; Angela Fagerlin; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Mara A Schonberg; Christine E Kistler; Adlin Pinheiro; Alicia R Jacobson; Gianna M Aliberti; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Michelle Hayes; Bridget A Neville; Carmen L Lewis; Christina C Wee; Angela Fagerlin; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Edward R Marcantonio; Mary Beth Hamel; Roger B Davis Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Tamara Cadet; Adlin Pinheiro; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Alicia R Jacobson; Gianna M Aliberti; Christine E Kistler; Roger B Davis; Mara A Schonberg Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 6.921