Author
Listed:
- Jennifer Elston Lafata
(UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy and UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Center for Health Policy and Services Research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA)
- Deirdre A. Shires
(School of Social Work, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA)
- Yongyun Shin
(School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA)
- Susan Flocke
(School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University)
- Kenneth Resnicow
(School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)
- Morgan Johnson
(UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA)
- Ellen Nixon
(Center for Health Policy and Services Research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA)
- Xinxin Sun
(School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA)
- Sarah Hawley
(School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)
Abstract
Background Even after a physician recommendation, many people remain unscreened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The proliferation of electronic health records (EHRs) and tethered online portals may afford new opportunities to embed patient-facing interventions within clinic workflows and engage patients following a physician recommendation for care. We evaluated the effectiveness of a patient-facing intervention designed to complement physician office-based recommendations for CRC screening. Design Using a 2-arm pragmatic, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the intervention’s effect on CRC screening use as documented in the EHR (primary outcome) and the extent to which the intervention reached the target population. Trial participants were insured, aged 50 to 75 y, with a physician recommendation for CRC screening. Typical EHR functionalities, including patient registries, health maintenance flags, best practice alerts, and secure messaging, were used to support research-related activities and deliver the intervention to enrolled patients. Results A total of 1,825 adults consented to trial participation, of whom 78% completed a baseline survey and were exposed to the intervention. Most trial participants (>80%) indicated an intent to be screened on the baseline survey, and 65% were screened at follow-up, with no significant differences by study arm. One-third of eligible patients were sent a secure message. Among those, more than three-quarters accessed study material. Conclusions By leveraging common EHR functionalities, we integrated a patient-facing intervention within clinic workflows. Despite practice integration, the intervention did not improve screening use, likely in part due to portal-based interventions not reaching those for whom the intervention may be most effective. Implications Embedding patient-facing interventions within the EHR enabled practice integration but may minimize program effectiveness by missing important segments of the patient population. Highlights Electronic health record tools can be used to facilitate practice-embedded pragmatic trial and patient-facing intervention processes, including patient identification, study arm allocation, and intervention delivery. The online portal-embedded intervention did not improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake following a physician recommendation, likely in part because portal users tend to be already highly engaged with healthcare. Relying on patient portals alone for CRC screening interventions may not alter screening use and could exacerbate well-known care disparities.
Suggested Citation
Jennifer Elston Lafata & Deirdre A. Shires & Yongyun Shin & Susan Flocke & Kenneth Resnicow & Morgan Johnson & Ellen Nixon & Xinxin Sun & Sarah Hawley, 2022.
"Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(8), pages 985-998, November.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:8:p:985-998
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221104094
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:8:p:985-998. 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.