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

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-08 DOI:10.1177/0272989X241285036
Hoda Fakhari, Courtney L Scherr, Sydney Moe, Christin Hoell, Maureen E Smith, Laura J Rasmussen-Torvik, Rex L Chisholm, Elizabeth M McNally
{"title":"From Calculation to Communication: Using Risk Score Calculators to Inform Clinical Decision Making and Facilitate Patient Engagement.","authors":"Hoda Fakhari, Courtney L Scherr, Sydney Moe, Christin Hoell, Maureen E Smith, Laura J Rasmussen-Torvik, Rex L Chisholm, Elizabeth M McNally","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241285036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Physicians providing care in outpatient community-based clinical settings (<i>N</i> = 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"900-913"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241285036","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从计算到交流:使用风险评分计算器为临床决策提供信息并促进患者参与。
背景:风险评分计算器是一种广泛开发的工具,可帮助临床医生识别和管理某些疾病的风险。然而,人们对医生使用风险评分计算器的经验以及风险评分估计值在临床决策和患者沟通中的作用知之甚少:方法:招募在门诊社区临床环境中提供医疗服务的医生(20 人)参加半结构式个人访谈,以评估他们在实践中对风险评分计算器的使用情况。两名研究小组成员采用基于共识的编码方法进行了归纳式主题分析:结果:参与者至少参考了 20 种风险评分计算器,其中最常用的是动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病风险计算器。与临床系统(如时间)、患者(如接受能力)和医生(如经验)相关的生态因素影响了风险评分计算器的使用条件和模式。例如,与主治医生相比,住院医生倾向于使用更多种类的风险评分计算器,使用频率也更高。风险评分估算通常用于临床决策,以改善或验证临床判断,也用于与患者沟通,作为一种激励工具:风险评分估计值对医生决策的影响程度以及是否和如何将这些评分传达给患者各不相同,这反映了风险评分计算器在临床实践中的细微作用。计划行为理论有助于解释在临床决策和患者沟通中,态度、信念和规范如何影响风险评分估算的使用。还需要进行更多的研究,以评估使用风险评分计算器和风险评分估计值的最佳实践:本研究中参与者参考的风险评分计算器和估计值代表了不同的疾病(如心脏病、焦虑症)、模型复杂程度(如概率计算、严重程度等级)和输出格式(如点估计值、风险区间)、风险评分估算通常用于临床决策,以改善或验证临床判断,也可用于患者沟通,作为一种激励工具。风险评分估算有助于参与者管理各种临床情况的不确定性和复杂性,但对这些估算局限性的考虑相对较少、除临床系统外,风险评分计算器的开发者还应考虑影响风险评分计算器使用的患者相关特征(如对风险评分估计的反应)和医生相关特征(如培训状况)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process. Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab. Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence. A Sequential Calibration Approach to Address Challenges of Repeated Calibration of a COVID-19 Model. A Longitudinal Study of the Association of Awareness of Disease Incurability with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1