Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on the implementation of e-health to identify: (i) barriers and facilitators to e-health implementation, and (ii) outstanding gaps in research on the subject.METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched for reviews published between 1 January 1995 and 17 March 2009. Studies had to be systematic reviews, narrative reviews, qualitative metasyntheses or meta-ethnographies of e-health implementation. Abstracts and papers were double screened and data were extracted on country of origin; e-health domain; publication date; aims and methods; databases searched; inclusion and exclusion criteria and number of papers included. Data were analysed qualitatively using normalization process theory as an explanatory coding framework.FINDINGS: Inclusion criteria were met by 37 papers; 20 had been published between 1995 and 2007 and 17 between 2008 and 2009. Methodological quality was poor: 19 papers did not specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria and 13 did not indicate the precise number of articles screened. The use of normalization process theory as a conceptual framework revealed that relatively little attention was paid to: (i) work directed at making sense of e-health systems, specifying their purposes and benefits, establishing their value to users and planning their implementation; (ii) factors promoting or inhibiting engagement and participation; (iii) effects on roles and responsibilities; (iv) risk management, and (v) ways in which implementation processes might be reconfigured by user-produced knowledge.CONCLUSION: The published literature focused on organizational issues, neglecting the wider social framework that must be considered when introducing new technologies.<br/

Improvement in self-reported exercise participation with the combination of tiotropium and rehabilitative exercise training in COPD patients

Steven Kesten1, Richard Casaburi2, David Kukafka3, Christopher B Cooper41Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Ingelheim, Germany; 2Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA; 3Northern Colorado Pulmonary Consultants PC, Fort Collins, CO, USA; 4UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USABackground: Improvements in ventilatory mechanics with tiotropium increases exercise tolerance during pulmonary rehabilitation. We wondered whether tiotropium also increased physical activities outside of pulmonary rehabilitation.Methods: COPD patients participating in 8 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation were studied in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tiotropium 18 &amp;micro;g daily (tiotropium = 47, placebo = 44). Study drug was administered for 5 weeks prior to, 8 weeks during, and 12 weeks following pulmonary rehabilitation. Patients completed a questionnaire documenting participation in pre-defined activities outside of pulmonary rehabilitation during the 2 weeks prior to each visit. Patients who submitted an activity questionnaire at week 4 and on at least one subsequent visit were included in the analysis. For each patient, the number of sessions was multiplied with the duration of each activity and then summed to give overall activity duration.Results: Patients (n = 46) had mean age of 67 years, mean baseline FEV1 of 0.84 L (33% predicted). Mean (SE) increase in duration of activities (minutes during 2 weeks prior to each visit) from week 4 (prior to PR) to week 13 (end of PR) was 145 (84) minutes with tiotropium and 66 (96) minutes with placebo. The increase from week 4 to week 25 (end of follow-up) was 262 (96) and 60 (93) minutes for the respective groups. Increases in activity duration from week 4 to weeks 17, 21, and 25 were statistically significant with tiotropium. No statistical differences over time were observed within the placebo-treated group and differences between groups were not significant.Conclusions: Tiotropium appears to amplify the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation as seen by increases in patient self-reported participation in physical activities.Keywords: activity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, exercise, pulmonary rehabilitation, tiotropiu

Cancer Genetic Counselor Information Needs for Risk Communication: A Qualitative Evaluation of Interview Transcripts

Personalized medicine is a model of healthcare that is predictive, personalized, preventive and participatory (“P4 Medicine”). Genetic counselors are an ideal group to study when designing tools to support cancer P4 Medicine activities more broadly. The goal for this work was to gain a better understanding of the information cancer genetic counselors seek from their patients to facilitate effective information exchange for discussing risk. This was an analysis of a qualitative data set from interviews of eight cancer genetic counselors, recruited from three institutions. Genetic counselors at each site were interviewed using a semi-structured, open-ended questionnaire. A selective coding approach was used to determine major themes associated with genetic counseling information needs for communicating risk. We generated a model for understanding categories of genetic counseling information needs to support risk communication activities. Common activities for risk communication included risk assessment and tailoring communication. Categories of information needs included: (a) clinical patient characteristics, (b) social and cognitive patient characteristics and (c) patient motivation and goals for the genetic counseling session. A logical next step is for this model to inform the design of software systems for pre-visit patient planning and delivering just-in-time educational information to facilitate cancer risk communication activities

The breast cancer genetic testing experience: probing the potential utility of an online decision aid in risk perception and decision making

Background Despite the association of pathogenic variants (PVs) in cancer predisposition genes with significantly increased risk of breast cancer (BC), uptake of genetic testing (GT) remains low, especially among ethnic minorities. Our prior study identified that a patient decision aid, RealRisks, improved patient-reported outcomes (including worry and perceived risk) relative to standard educational materials. This study examined patients’ GT experience and its influence on subsequent actions. We also sought to identify areas for improvement in RealRisks that would expand its focus from improved GT decision-making to understanding results. Methods Women enrolled in the parent randomized controlled trial were recruited and interviewed. Demographic data was collected from surveys in the parent study. Interviews were conducted, transcribed, and coded to identify recurring themes. Descriptive statistics were generated to compare the interviewed subgroup to the original study cohort of 187 women. Results Of the 22 women interviewed, 11 (50%) had positive GT results, 2 (9.1%) with a BRCA1/2 PV, and 9 (40.9%) with variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Median age was 40.5 years and 15 (71.4%) identified as non-Hispanic. Twenty (90.9%) reported a family history of BC, and 2 (9.1%) reported a family history of BRCA1/2 PV. The emerging themes included a preference for structured communication of GT results and the need for more actionable knowledge to mitigate BC risk, especially among patients with VUS or negative results. Few patients reported lifestyle changes following the return of their results, although they did understand that their behaviors can impact their BC risk. Conclusions Patients preferred a structured explanation of their GT results to facilitate a more personal testing experience. While most did not change lifestyle behaviors in response to their GT results, there was a consistent call for further guidance following the initial discussion of GT results. Empowering patients, especially those with negative or VUS results, with the context to internalize the implications of their results and form accurate risk perception represents a powerful opportunity to optimize subsequent risk management strategies. Informed by this study, future work will expand RealRisks to include the return of results and decision support to navigate concrete next steps

Pilot study of decision support tools on breast cancer chemoprevention for high-risk women and healthcare providers in the primary care setting

Background Breast cancer chemoprevention can reduce breast cancer incidence in high-risk women; however, chemoprevention is underutilized in the primary care setting. We conducted a pilot study of decision support tools among high-risk women and their primary care providers (PCPs). Methods The intervention included a decision aid (DA) for high-risk women, RealRisks, and a provider-centered tool, Breast Cancer Risk Navigation (BNAV). Patients completed validated surveys at baseline, after RealRisks and after their PCP clinical encounter or at 6-months. Referral for high-risk consultation and chemoprevention uptake were assessed via the electronic health record. The primary endpoint was accuracy of breast cancer risk perception at 6-months. Results Among 40 evaluable high-risk women, median age was 64.5 years and median 5-year breast cancer risk was 2.19%. After exposure to RealRisks, patients demonstrated an improvement in accurate breast cancer risk perceptions (p = 0.02), an increase in chemoprevention knowledge (p < 0.01), and 24% expressed interest in taking chemoprevention. Three women had a high-risk referral, and no one initiated chemoprevention. Decisional conflict significantly increased from after exposure to RealRisks to after their clinical encounter or at 6-months (p < 0.01). Accurate breast cancer risk perceptions improved and was sustained at 6-months or after clinical encounters. We discuss the side effect profile of chemoprevention and the care pathway when RealRisks was introduced to understand why patients experienced increased decision conflict. Conclusion Future interventions should carefully link the use of a DA more proximally to the clinical encounter, investigate timed measurements of decision conflict and improve risk communication, shared decision making, and chemoprevention education for PCPs. Additional work remains to better understand the impact of decision aids targeting both patients and providers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02954900 November 4, 2016 Retrospectively registered

Study protocol: a cluster randomized controlled trial of web-based decision support tools for increasing BRCA1/2 genetic counseling referral in primary care

Background BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confer a substantial breast risk of developing breast cancer to those who carry them. For this reason, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended that all women be screened in the primary care setting for a family history indicative of a mutation, and women with strong family histories of breast or ovarian cancer be referred to genetic counseling. However, few high-risk women are being routinely screened and fewer are referred to genetic counseling. To address this need we have developed two decision support tools that are integrated into clinical care. Method This study is a cluster randomized controlled trial of high-risk patients and their health care providers. Patient-provider dyads will be randomized to receive either standard education that is supplemented with the patient-facing decision aid, RealRisks, and the provider-facing Breast Cancer Risk Navigation Toolbox (BNAV) or standard education alone. We will assess these tools’ effectiveness in promoting genetic counseling uptake and informed and shared decision making about genetic testing. Discussion If found to be effective, these tools can help integrate genomic risk assessment into primary care and, ultimately, help expand access to risk-appropriate breast cancer prevention options to a broader population of high-risk women. Trial registration This trial is retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470402 : 20 March 2018

Qualitative analysis of shared decision-making for chemoprevention in the primary care setting: provider-related barriers

Background Chemoprevention with anti-estrogens, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene or aromatase inhibitors, have been shown to reduce breast cancer risk in randomized controlled trials; however, uptake among women at high-risk for developing breast cancer remains low. The aim of this study is to identify provider-related barriers to shared decision-making (SDM) for chemoprevention in the primary care setting. Methods Primary care providers (PCPs) and high-risk women eligible for chemoprevention were enrolled in a pilot study and a randomized clinical trial of web-based decision support tools to increase chemoprevention uptake. PCPs included internists, family practitioners, and gynecologists, whereas patients were high-risk women, age 35–75 years, who had a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk ≥ 1.67%, according to the Gail model. Seven clinical encounters of high-risk women and their PCPs who were given access to these decision support tools were included in this study. Audio-recordings of the clinical encounters were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using grounded theory methodology. Results Six primary care providers, of which four were males (mean age 36 [SD 6.5]) and two were females (mean age 39, [SD 11.5]) and seven racially/ethnically diverse high-risk female patients participated in this study. Qualitative analysis revealed three themes: (1) Competing demands during clinical encounters; (2) lack of knowledge among providers about chemoprevention; and (3) limited risk communication during clinical encounters. Conclusions Critical barriers to SDM about chemoprevention were identified among PCPs. Providers need education and resources through decision support tools to engage in risk communication and SDM with their high-risk patients, and to gain confidence in prescribing chemoprevention in the primary care setting

Patient, primary care provider, and stakeholder perspectives on mammography screening frequency: lessons learned from a qualitative study

Background U.S. professional organizations have provided conflicting recommendations on annual vs. biennial mammography screening. Potential harms of more frequent screening include increased anxiety and costs of false positive results, including unnecessary breast biopsies and overdiagnosis. Objective To characterize current practices and beliefs surrounding mammography screening frequency and perspectives on using risk-based screening to inform screening intervals. Design Semi-structured interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants Patients, primary care providers (PCPs), third-party stakeholders (breast radiologists, radiology administrators, patient advocates). Main measures Qualitative data, with a codebook developed based upon prespecified implementation science constructs. Key results We interviewed 25 patients, 11 PCPs, and eight key stakeholders, including three radiologists, two radiology administrators, and three patient advocates. Most patients reported having annual mammograms, however, half believed having mammograms every two years was acceptable. Some women were worried early breast cancer would be missed if undergoing biennial screening. PCPs were equally split between recommending annual and biennial mammograms. Although PCPs were interested in using breast cancer risk models to inform screening decisions, concerns raised include time burden and lack of familiarity with breast cancer risk assessment tools. All breast radiologists believed patients should receive annual mammograms, while patient advocates and radiology administrators were split between annual vs. biennial. Radiologists were worried about missing breast cancer diagnoses when mammograms are not performed yearly. Patient advocates and radiology administrators were more open to biennial mammograms and utilizing risk-based screening. Conclusions Uncertainty remains across stakeholder groups regarding appropriate mammogram screening intervals. Radiologists recommend annual mammography, whereas patients and PCPs were evenly split between annual vs. biennial screening, although both favored annual screening among higher-risk women. Breast cancer risk assessment tools may help facilitate decisions about screening intervals, but face barriers to widespread implementation in the primary care setting. These results will inform future implementation strategies to adopt risk-stratified breast cancer screening

Breast cancer worry, uncertainty, and perceived risk following breast density notification in a longitudinal mammography screening cohort

Background Dense breast notification (DBN) legislation aims to increase a woman’s awareness of her personal breast density and the implications of having dense breasts for breast cancer detection and risk. This information may adversely affect women’s breast cancer worry, perceptions of risk, and uncertainty about screening, which may persist over time or vary by sociodemographic factors. We examined short- and long-term psychological responses to DBN and awareness of breast density (BD). Methods In a predominantly Hispanic New York City screening cohort (63% Spanish-speaking), ages 40–60 years, we assessed breast cancer worry, perceived breast cancer risk, and uncertainties about breast cancer risk and screening choices, in short (1–3 months)- and long-term (9–18 months) surveys following the enrollment screening mammogram (between 2016 and 2018). We compared psychological responses by women’s dense breast status (as a proxy for DBN receipt) and BD awareness and examined multiplicative interaction by education, health literacy, nativity, and preferred interview language. Results In multivariable models using short-term surveys, BD awareness was associated with increased perceived risk (odds ratio (OR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99, 5.20 for high, OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.34, 3.58 for moderate, vs. low risk) in the overall sample, and with increased uncertainty about risk (OR 1.97 per 1-unit increase, 95% CI 1.15, 3.39) and uncertainty about screening choices (OR 1.73 per 1-unit increase, 95% CI 1.01, 2.9) in Spanish-speaking women. DBN was associated with decreased perceived risk among women with at least some college education (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11, 0.89, for high, OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29, 0.89, for moderate vs. low risk), while those with a high school education or less experienced an increase (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.05, 8.67 high vs. low risk). There were no associations observed between DBN or BD awareness and short-term breast cancer worry, nor with any psychological outcomes at long-term surveys. Conclusions Associations of BD awareness and notification with breast cancer-related psychological outcomes were limited to short-term increases in perceived breast cancer risk dependent on educational attainment, and increases in uncertainty around breast cancer risk and screening choices among Spanish-speaking women