Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing a Digital Informed Decision Making Tool in Primary Care: A Qualitative StudyFunding The study was funded by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute (R01CA218416), and Wake Forest Comprehensive Cancer Center (P30CA012197).
Background Informed decision aids provide information in the context of the patient's values and improve informed decision making (IDM). To overcome barriers that interfere with IDM, our team developed an innovative iPad-based application (aka “app”) to help patients make informed decisions about colorectal cancer screening. The app assesses patients' eligibility for screening, educates them about their options, and empowers them to request a test via the interactive decision aid.
Objective The aim of the study is to explore how informed decision aids can be implemented successfully in primary care clinics, including the facilitators and barriers to implementation; strategies for minimizing barriers; adequacy of draft training materials; and any additional support or training desired by clinics.
Design This work deals with a multicenter qualitative study in rural and urban settings.
Participants A total of 48 individuals participated including primary care practice managers, clinicians, nurses, and front desk staff.
Approach Focus groups and semi-structured interviews, with data analysis were guided by thematic analysis.
Key Results Salient emergent themes were time, workflow, patient age, literacy, and electronic health record (EHR) integration. Saving time was important to most participants. Patient flow was a concern for all clinic staff, and they expressed that any slowdown due to patients using the iPad module or perceived additional work to clinic staff would make staff less motivated to use the program. Participants voiced concern about older patients being unwilling or unable to utilize the iPad and patients with low literacy ability being able to read or comprehend the information.
Conclusion Integrating new IDM apps into the current clinic workflow with minimal disruptions would increase the probability of long-term adoption and ultimate sustainability.
NIH trial registry number R01CA218416-A1.
N.P.O. developed the interview and focus group guides, conducted interviews and focus groups in Winston-Salem, conducted complete analysis of the data, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. M.C. contributed to the interview and focus group guides, conducted interviews and focus groups in Kentucky, conducted complete analysis of the data, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. K.L.F. contributed to the interview and focus group guides and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. M.B.D. and A.D. contributed to the interview and focus group guides and contributed to writing the manuscript. A.C.S. contributed to writing the manuscript. D.P.M. contributed to the interview and focus group guides, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Protection of Human and Animal Subjects
Study participants were informed of their rights to participate; risks and benefits and financial disclosures were declared. A waiver of signed informed consent was approved by the IRB. The Wake Forest School of Medicine Institutional Review Board approved this study IRB00048919.
Contributions to the Literature
While there is a body of evidence that suggests strategies for incorporating mHealth tools into health care, there is not a one-size-fits-all strategy for implementation of patient-facing shared decision making tools that may occur in diverse clinic settings and populations.
The few studies that have examined implementation strategies for incorporating health apps into primary care have yielded mixed results, and the optimal strategies remain unknown.
Although we found strategies for general implementation of mHealth tools in the literature, researchers must recognize that there are a wide variety of nuances in clinic and patient barriers which should be identified to better adapt tools for more successful implementation.
We found that the ability to adapt the implementation strategy to protect or improve patient throughput is critical for successful implementation and maintenance. This finding contributes to the literature and will guide others seeking to implement new interventions in busy clinical environments.
Due to the nature of this qualitative study, data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets other than transcripts were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Eingereicht: 09. März 2021
Angenommen: 27. Oktober 2021
05. Januar 2022 (online)
© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
- 1 Hughes TM, Merath K, Chen Q. et al. Association of shared decision-making on patient-reported health outcomes and healthcare utilization. Am J Surg 2018; 216 (01) 7-12
- 2 Stacey D, Légaré F, Lyddiatt A. et al. Translating evidence to facilitate shared decision making: development and usability of a consult decision aid prototype. Patient 2016; 9 (06) 571-582
- 3 Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA. et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2017; 153 (01) 307-323
- 4 Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ. et al; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 2016; 315 (23) 2564-2575
- 5 Yarnall KSH, Pollak KI, Østbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention?. Am J Public Health 2003; 93 (04) 635-641
- 6 Ling BS, Trauth JM, Fine MJ. et al. Informed decision-making and colorectal cancer screening: is it occurring in primary care?. Med Care 2008; 46 (09, Suppl 1): S23-S29
- 7 Chen J, Mullins CD, Novak P, Thomas SB. Personalized strategies to activate and empower patients in health care and reduce health disparities. Health Educ Behav 2016; 43 (01) 25-34
- 8 Miller Jr DP, Denizard-Thompson N, Weaver KE. et al. Effect of a digital health intervention on receipt of colorectal cancer screening in vulnerable patients: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2018; 168 (08) 550-557
- 9 Gagné ME, Boulet LP. Implementation of asthma clinical practice guidelines in primary care: a cross-sectional study based on the knowledge-to-action cycle. J Asthma 2018; 55 (03) 310-317
- 10 Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci 2008; 39 (02) 273-315
- 11 Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2008; 24 (06) 574-594
- 12 Miller Jr DP, Weaver KE, Case LD. et al. Usability of a novel mobile health iPad app by vulnerable populations. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017; 5 (04) e43
- 13 Fernald DH, Jortberg BT, Hessler DM. et al. Recruiting primary care practices for research: reflections and reminders. J Am Board Fam Med 2018; 31 (06) 947-951
- 14 Sandelowski M, Leeman J. Writing usable qualitative health research findings. Qual Health Res 2012; 22 (10) 1404-1413
- 15 Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T. et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 2018; 52 (04) 1893-1907
- 16 ATLAS. ti Version 7.5.18 [Computer Software] [computer program]. Version 7.5.18. Berlin: Scientific Software Development GmbH. 2017
- 17 Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. London: Los Angeles: SAGE; 2018
- 18 Sim J, Waterfield J. Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges. Qual Quant 2019; 53 (06) 3003-3022
- 19 Shires DA, Stange KC, Divine G. et al. Prioritization of evidence-based preventive health services during periodic health examinations. Am J Prev Med 2012; 42 (02) 164-173
- 20 Harry ML, Truitt AR, Saman DM. et al. Barriers and facilitators to implementing cancer prevention clinical decision support in primary care: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2019; 19 (01) 534
- 21 Lafata JE, Shay LA, Brown R, Street RL. Office-based tools and primary care visit communication, length, and preventive service delivery. Health Serv Res 2016; 51 (02) 728-745
- 22 Cresswell K, Majeed A, Bates DW, Sheikh A. Computerised decision support systems for healthcare professionals: an interpretative review. Inform Prim Care 2012; 20 (02) 115-128
- 23 Granja C, Janssen W, Johansen MA. Factors determining the success and failure of eHealth interventions: systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20 (05) e10235
- 24 Nápoles AM, Appelle N, Kalkhoran S, Vijayaraghavan M, Alvarado N, Satterfield J. Perceptions of clinicians and staff about the use of digital technology in primary care: qualitative interviews prior to implementation of a computer-facilitated 5As intervention. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016; 16: 44
- 25 Frosch DL, Singer KJ, Timmermans S. Conducting implementation research in community-based primary care: a qualitative study on integrating patient decision support interventions for cancer screening into routine practice. Health Expect 2011; 14 (Suppl. 01) 73-84
- 26 Young RA, Burge SK, Kumar KA, Wilson JM, Ortiz DF. a time-motion study of primary care physicians' work in the electronic health record era. Fam Med 2018; 50 (02) 91-99
- 27 Kroth PJ, Morioka-Douglas N, Veres S. et al. Association of electronic health record design and use factors with clinician stress and burnout. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2 (08) e199609
- 28 Arndt BG, Beasley JW, Watkinson MD. et al. Tethered to the EHR: primary care physician workload assessment using EHR event log data and time-motion observations. Ann Fam Med 2017; 15 (05) 419-426
- 29 Mack D, Zhang S, Douglas M, Sow C, Strothers H, Rust G. Disparities in primary care EHR adoption rates. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2016; 27 (01) 327-338
- 30 Skillman SM, Andrilla CH, Patterson DG, Fenton SH, Ostergard SJ. Health information technology workforce needs of rural primary care practices. J Rural Health 2015; 31 (01) 58-66
- 31 Arcury TA, Sandberg JC, Melius KP. et al. Older adult internet use and eHealth literacy. J Appl Gerontol 2020; 39 (02) 141-150
- 32 Xie B. Effects of an eHealth literacy intervention for older adults. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13 (04) e90