PURPOSE: We sought to gain an understanding of cancer prevention and screening perspectives among patients exposed to a clinical decision support (CDS) tool because they were due or overdue for certain cancer screenings or prevention. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 37 adult patients due or overdue for cancer prevention services in 10 primary care clinics within the same health system. Data were thematically segmented and coded using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We identified three themes: 1) The CDS tool had more strengths than weaknesses, with areas for improvement; 2) Many facilitators and barriers to cancer prevention and screening exist; and 3) Discussions and decision-making varied by type of cancer prevention and screening. Almost all participants made positive comments regarding the CDS. Some participants learned new information, reporting the CDS helped them make a decision they otherwise would not have made. Participants who used the tool with their provider had higher self-reported rates of deciding to be screened than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Learning about patients' perceptions of a CDS tool may increase understanding of how patient-tailored CDS impacts cancer screening and prevention rates. Participants found a personalized CDS tool for cancer screening and prevention in primary care useful and a welcome addition to their visit. However, many providers were not using the tool with eligible patients.
PURPOSE: We sought to gain an understanding of cancer prevention and screening perspectives among patients exposed to a clinical decision support (CDS) tool because they were due or overdue for certain cancer screenings or prevention. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 37 adult patients due or overdue for cancer prevention services in 10 primary care clinics within the same health system. Data were thematically segmented and coded using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We identified three themes: 1) The CDS tool had more strengths than weaknesses, with areas for improvement; 2) Many facilitators and barriers to cancer prevention and screening exist; and 3) Discussions and decision-making varied by type of cancer prevention and screening. Almost all participants made positive comments regarding the CDS. Some participants learned new information, reporting the CDS helped them make a decision they otherwise would not have made. Participants who used the tool with their provider had higher self-reported rates of deciding to be screened than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Learning about patients' perceptions of a CDS tool may increase understanding of how patient-tailored CDS impacts cancer screening and prevention rates. Participants found a personalized CDS tool for cancer screening and prevention in primary care useful and a welcome addition to their visit. However, many providers were not using the tool with eligible patients.
Authors: Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Krystina Lewis; Michael J Barry; Carol L Bennett; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; Richard Thomson; Lyndal Trevena Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-12
Authors: Vani N Simmons; Jhanelle E Gray; Matthew B Schabath; Lauren E Wilson; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen; A Lauren Crain; Karen L Margolis; Heidi L Ekstrom; Deepika Appana; Gerald Amundson; Rashmi Sharma; Jay R Desai; Patrick J O'Connor Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Patrick J O'Connor; Joann M Sperl-Hillen; William A Rush; Paul E Johnson; Gerald H Amundson; Stephen E Asche; Heidi L Ekstrom; Todd P Gilmer Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Emily B Peterson; Jamie S Ostroff; Katherine N DuHamel; Thomas A D'Agostino; Marisol Hernandez; Mollie R Canzona; Carma L Bylund Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Thomas E Elliott; Patrick J O'Connor; Stephen E Asche; Daniel M Saman; Steven P Dehmer; Heidi L Ekstrom; Clayton I Allen; Joseph A Bianco; Ella A Chrenka; Laura A Freitag; Melissa L Harry; Anjali R Truitt; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-01-24 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Melissa L Harry; Anjali R Truitt; Daniel M Saman; Hillary A Henzler-Buckingham; Clayton I Allen; Kayla M Walton; Heidi L Ekstrom; Patrick J O'Connor; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen; Joseph A Bianco; Thomas E Elliott Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Daniel M Saman; Kayla M Walton; Melissa L Harry; Stephen E Asche; Anjali R Truitt; Hillary A Henzler-Buckingham; Clayton I Allen; Heidi L Ekstrom; Patrick J O'Connor; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Joseph A Bianco; Thomas E Elliott Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Thomas E Elliott; Stephen E Asche; Patrick J O'Connor; Steven P Dehmer; Heidi L Ekstrom; Anjali R Truitt; Ella A Chrenka; Melissa L Harry; Daniel M Saman; Clayton I Allen; Joseph A Bianco; Laura A Freitag; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Melissa L Harry; Ella A Chrenka; Laura A Freitag; Daniel M Saman; Clayton I Allen; Stephen E Asche; Anjali R Truitt; Heidi L Ekstrom; Patrick J O'Connor; Jo Ann M Sperl-Hillen; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Thomas E Elliott Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Melissa L Harry; Stephen E Asche; Laura A Freitag; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen; Daniel M Saman; Heidi L Ekstrom; Ella A Chrenka; Anjali R Truitt; Clayton I Allen; Patrick J O'Connor; Steven P Dehmer; Joseph A Bianco; Thomas E Elliott Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 4.526