From Calculation to Communication: Using Risk Score Calculators to Inform Clinical Decision Making and Facilitate Patient Engagement

Background Risk score calculators are a widely developed tool to support clinicians in identifying and managing risk for certain diseases. However, little is known about physicians’ applied experiences with risk score calculators and the role of risk score estimates in clinical decision making and patient communication. Methods Physicians providing care in outpatient community-based clinical settings ( N = 20) were recruited to participate in semi-structured individual interviews to assess their use of risk score calculators in practice. Two study team members conducted an inductive thematic analysis using a consensus-based coding approach. Results Participants referenced at least 20 risk score calculators, the most common being the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator. Ecological factors related to the clinical system (e.g., time), patient (e.g., receptivity), and physician (e.g., experience) influenced conditions and patterns of risk score calculator use. For example, compared with attending physicians, residents tended to use a greater variety of risk score calculators and with higher frequency. Risk score estimates were generally used in clinical decision making to improve or validate clinical judgment and in patient communication to serve as a motivational tool. Conclusions The degree to which risk score estimates influenced physician decision making and whether and how these scores were communicated to patients varied, reflecting a nuanced role of risk score calculator use in clinical practice. The theory of planned behavior can help explain how attitudes, beliefs, and norms shape the use of risk score estimates in clinical decision making and patient communication. Additional research is needed to evaluate best practices in the use of risk score calculators and risk score estimates. Highlights The risk score calculators and estimates that participants referenced in this study represented a range of conditions (e.g., heart disease, anxiety), levels of model complexity (e.g., probability calculations, scales of severity), and output formats (e.g., point estimates, risk intervals). Risk score calculators that are easily accessed, have simple inputs, and are trusted by physicians appear more likely to be used. Risk score estimates were generally used in clinical decision making to improve or validate clinical judgment and in patient communication to serve as a motivational tool. Risk score estimates helped participants manage the uncertainty and complexity of various clinical situations, yet consideration of the limitations of these estimates was relatively minimal. Developers of risk score calculators should consider the patient- (e.g., response to risk score estimates) and physician- (e.g., training status) related characteristics that influence risk score calculator use in addition to that of the clinical system.