Multilevel factors influence the use of a cardiovascular disease assessment tool embedded in the electronic health record in oncology care.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Translational Behavioral Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1093/tbm/ibae058
Maura M Kepper, Raúl D Gierbolini-Rivera, Kathryn E Weaver, Randi E Foraker, Emily V Dressler, Chandylen L Nightingale, Aylin A Aguilar, Kimberly D Wiseman, Jenny Hanna, Alyssa D Throckmorton, Simon Craddock Lee
{"title":"Multilevel factors influence the use of a cardiovascular disease assessment tool embedded in the electronic health record in oncology care.","authors":"Maura M Kepper, Raúl D Gierbolini-Rivera, Kathryn E Weaver, Randi E Foraker, Emily V Dressler, Chandylen L Nightingale, Aylin A Aguilar, Kimberly D Wiseman, Jenny Hanna, Alyssa D Throckmorton, Simon Craddock Lee","doi":"10.1093/tbm/ibae058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Digital health tools are positive for delivering evidence-based care. However, few studies have applied rigorous frameworks to understand their use in community settings. This study aimed to identify implementation determinants of the Automated Heart-Health Assessment (AH-HA) tool within outpatient oncology settings as part of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. A mixed-methods approach informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) examined barriers and facilitators to AH-HA implementation in four NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices participating in the WF-1804CD AH-HA trial. Provider surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interviews with providers (n = 15) were coded using deductive (CFIR) and inductive codes by trained analysts. The CFIR rating tool was used to rate each quote for (i) valence, defined as a positive (+) or negative (-) influence, and (ii) strength, defined as a neutral (0), weak (1), or strong (2) influence on implementation. All providers considered discussing cardiovascular health with patients as important (61.5%, n = 8/13) or somewhat important (38.5%, n = 5/13). The tool was well-received by providers and was feasible to use in routine care among cancer survivors. Providers felt the tool was acceptable and usable, had a relative advantage over routine care, and had the potential to generate benefits for patients. Common reasons clinicians reported not using AH-HA were (i) insufficient time and (ii) the tool interfering with workflow. Systematically identifying implementation determinants from this study will guide the broader dissemination of the AH-HA tool across clinical settings and inform implementation strategies for future scale-up hybrid trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":48679,"journal":{"name":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11756333/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibae058","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Digital health tools are positive for delivering evidence-based care. However, few studies have applied rigorous frameworks to understand their use in community settings. This study aimed to identify implementation determinants of the Automated Heart-Health Assessment (AH-HA) tool within outpatient oncology settings as part of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. A mixed-methods approach informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) examined barriers and facilitators to AH-HA implementation in four NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices participating in the WF-1804CD AH-HA trial. Provider surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interviews with providers (n = 15) were coded using deductive (CFIR) and inductive codes by trained analysts. The CFIR rating tool was used to rate each quote for (i) valence, defined as a positive (+) or negative (-) influence, and (ii) strength, defined as a neutral (0), weak (1), or strong (2) influence on implementation. All providers considered discussing cardiovascular health with patients as important (61.5%, n = 8/13) or somewhat important (38.5%, n = 5/13). The tool was well-received by providers and was feasible to use in routine care among cancer survivors. Providers felt the tool was acceptable and usable, had a relative advantage over routine care, and had the potential to generate benefits for patients. Common reasons clinicians reported not using AH-HA were (i) insufficient time and (ii) the tool interfering with workflow. Systematically identifying implementation determinants from this study will guide the broader dissemination of the AH-HA tool across clinical settings and inform implementation strategies for future scale-up hybrid trials.

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
多层次因素影响肿瘤治疗中使用电子病历中嵌入的心血管疾病评估工具。
数字卫生工具对提供循证护理具有积极作用。然而,很少有研究应用严格的框架来理解它们在社区环境中的使用。本研究旨在确定在门诊肿瘤学设置中自动心脏健康评估(AH-HA)工具的实施决定因素,作为混合有效性-实施试验的一部分。在参与WF-1804CD AH-HA试验的四个NCI社区肿瘤研究计划(NCORP)实践中,由实施研究综合框架(CFIR)通知的混合方法研究了AH-HA实施的障碍和促进因素。使用描述性统计分析提供者调查。与供应商的访谈(n = 15)由训练有素的分析师使用演绎(CFIR)和归纳代码进行编码。使用CFIR评级工具对每个报价进行(i)效价(定义为正面(+)或负面(-)影响)和(ii)强度(定义为对实施的中性(0)、弱(1)或强(2)影响)评级。所有提供者都认为与患者讨论心血管健康是重要的(61.5%,n = 8/13)或比较重要的(38.5%,n = 5/13)。该工具受到了提供者的好评,并且在癌症幸存者的常规护理中是可行的。提供者认为该工具是可接受和可用的,与常规护理相比具有相对优势,并且有可能为患者带来益处。临床医生报告不使用AH-HA的常见原因是(i)时间不足和(ii)工具干扰工作流程。从本研究中系统地确定实施决定因素将指导在临床环境中更广泛地传播AH-HA工具,并为未来扩大混合试验的实施策略提供信息。
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
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Translational Behavioral Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Translational Behavioral Medicine publishes content that engages, informs, and catalyzes dialogue about behavioral medicine among the research, practice, and policy communities. TBM began receiving an Impact Factor in 2015 and currently holds an Impact Factor of 2.989. TBM is one of two journals published by the Society of Behavioral Medicine. The Society of Behavioral Medicine is a multidisciplinary organization of clinicians, educators, and scientists dedicated to promoting the study of the interactions of behavior with biology and the environment, and then applying that knowledge to improve the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities, and populations.
期刊最新文献
Incentivizing social support in the randomized mobile Lifestyle Intervention for Food and Exercise study: the impact of gamification on social support perceptions, provision, and receipt. Social determinants of health influence maternal health behaviors and engagement in an obesity prevention intervention. Identifying effective behavior change techniques in interventions for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies and/or practices to prevent chronic disease in students: a secondary analysis of a systematic review. The Selah trial: A preference-based partially randomized waitlist control study of three stress management interventions. Adaptation of a sleep hygiene intervention for individuals with poor sleep and their companions: Results of a randomized controlled pilot trial.
×
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:604180095
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