Understanding clinical prediction models as 'innovations': A mixed methods study in UK family practice

13Citations
Citations of this article
99Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Well-designed clinical prediction models (CPMs) often out-perform clinicians at estimating probabilities of clinical outcomes, though their adoption by family physicians is variable. How family physicians interact with CPMs is poorly understood, therefore a better understanding and framing within a context-sensitive theoretical framework may improve CPM development and implementation. The aim of this study was to investigate why family physicians do or do not use CPMs, interpreting these findings within a theoretical framework to provide recommendations for the development and implementation of future CPMs. Methods: Mixed methods study in North West England that comprised an online survey and focus groups. Results: One hundred thirty eight respondents completed the survey, which found the main perceived advantages to using CPMs were that they guided appropriate treatment (weighted rank [r] = 299; maximum r = 414 throughout), justified treatment decisions (r = 217), and incorporated a large body of evidence (r = 156). The most commonly reported barriers to using CPMs were lack of time (r = 163), irrelevance to some patients (r = 161), and poor integration with electronic health records (r = 147). Eighteen clinicians participated in two focus groups (i.e. nine in each), which revealed 13 interdependent themes affecting CPM use under three overarching domains: clinician factors, CPM factors and contextual factors. Themes were interdependent, indicating the tensions family physicians experience in providing evidence-based care for individual patients. Conclusions: The survey and focus groups showed that CPMs were valued when they supported clinical decision making and were robust. Barriers to their use related to their being time-consuming, difficult to use and not always adding value. Therefore, to be successful, CPMs should offer a relative advantage to current working, be easy to implement, be supported by training, policy and guidelines, and fit within the organisational culture.

References Powered by Scopus

The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure

31759Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: The Framingham heart study

5684Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations

5002Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Development of a mobile clinical prediction tool to estimate future depression severity and guide treatment in primary care: User-centered design

28Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

An mHealth app for decision-making support in wound dressing selection (WounDS): Protocol for a user-centered feasibility study

22Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Clinical prediction rules: A systematic review of healthcare provider opinions and preferences

18Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Brown, B., Cheraghi-Sohi, S., Jaki, T., Su, T. L., Buchan, I., & Sperrin, M. (2016). Understanding clinical prediction models as “innovations”: A mixed methods study in UK family practice. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0343-y

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 31

55%

Researcher 17

30%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

9%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 22

51%

Social Sciences 8

19%

Nursing and Health Professions 7

16%

Business, Management and Accounting 6

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free