Author
Listed:
- Thomas E. Elliott
(HealthPartners Institute, South, Minneapolis, MN, USA)
- Stephen E. Asche
(HealthPartners Institute, South, Minneapolis, MN, USA)
- Patrick J. O’Connor
(HealthPartners Institute, South, Minneapolis, MN, USA)
- Steven P. Dehmer
(HealthPartners Institute, South, Minneapolis, MN, USA)
- Heidi L. Ekstrom
(HealthPartners Institute, South, Minneapolis, MN, USA)
- Anjali R. Truitt
(HealthPartners Institute, South, Minneapolis, MN, USA)
- Ella A. Chrenka
(HealthPartners Institute, South, Minneapolis, MN, USA)
- Melissa L. Harry
(Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Duluth, MN, USA)
- Daniel M. Saman
(Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Duluth, MN, USA
Nicklaus Children’s Health System, Doral, FL, USA)
- Clayton I. Allen
(Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Duluth, MN, USA)
- Joseph A. Bianco
(Essentia Health, 502 East 2nd Street, Duluth, MN, USA)
- Laura A. Freitag
(Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Duluth, MN, USA)
- JoAnn M. Sperl-Hillen
(HealthPartners Institute, South, Minneapolis, MN, USA)
Abstract
Background Innovative interventions are needed to address gaps in preventive cancer care, especially in rural areas. This study evaluated the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) with and without shared decision making (SDM) on cancer-screening completion. Methods In this 3-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized trial conducted at a predominantly rural medical group, 34 primary care clinics were randomized to clinical decision support (CDS), CDS plus shared decision making (CDS+SDM), or usual care (UC). The CDS applied web-based clinical algorithms identifying patients overdue for United States Preventive Services Task Force–recommended preventive cancer care and presented evidence-based recommendations to patients and providers on printouts and on the electronic health record interface. Patients in the CDS+SDM clinic also received shared decision-making tools (SDMTs). The primary outcome was a composite indicator of the proportion of patients overdue for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at index who were up to date on these 1 y later. Results From August 1, 2018, to March 15, 2019, 69,405 patients aged 21 to 74 y had visits at study clinics and 25,198 were overdue for 1 or more cancer screening tests at an index visit. At 12-mo follow-up, 9,543 of these (37.9%) were up to date on the composite endpoint. The adjusted, model-derived percentage of patients up to date was 36.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.0–39.1) in the UC group, 38.1% (95% CI: 35.5–40.9) in the CDS group, and 34.4% (95% CI: 31.8–37.2) in the CDS+SDM group. For all comparisons, the screening rates were higher than UC in the CDS group and lower than UC in the CDS+SDM group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion The CDS did not significantly increase cancer-screening rates. Exploratory analyses suggest a deeper understanding of how SDM and CDS interact to affect cancer prevention decisions is needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.
Suggested Citation
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, 2022.
"Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(6), pages 808-821, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:6:p:808-821
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221082083
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:6:p:808-821. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.