Journal of general internal medicine · 2022
A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Voils Corrine I, Coffman Cynthia J, Wu R Ryanne, Grubber Janet M, Fisher Deborah A, Strawbridge Elizabeth M, Sperber Nina, Wang Virginia, Scheuner Maren T, Provenzale Dawn, Nelson Richard E, Hauser Elizabeth, Orlando Lori A, Goldstein Karen M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk.
DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control.
PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk.
INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later.
MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively.
KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed.
CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk.
DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control.
PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk.
INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later.
MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively.
KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed.
CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.