PMID- 25318648
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20160113
LR  - 20220318
IS  - 1365-2753 (Electronic)
IS  - 1356-1294 (Linking)
VI  - 21
IP  - 2
DP  - 2015 Apr
TI  - Clinicians' perceptions of digital vs. paper-based decision support 
      interventions.
PG  - 175-9
LID - 10.1111/jep.12269 [doi]
AB  - RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Despite extensive evidence on the value of 
      patient decision support interventions (DESIs), there is no consensus on optimal 
      DESI formats. Assessing clinicians' perceptions about DESI formats can help 
      facilitate their adoption. The aim of this study was to assess clinicians' 
      perceptions of DESIs formats and potential use in practice. METHODS: 
      Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with doctors from diverse 
      practice areas (internal medicine, OB/GYN, surgery, medical oncology, emergency 
      medicine) and elicited perceptions toward patient DESIs formats (digital vs. 
      paper) and timing of administration. Questions also elicited beliefs underlying 
      attitudes, perceived social norms and self-efficacy for using DESIs and the 
      feasibility of doing so. Data analysis was conducted using a thematic analysis 
      approach. RESULTS: Participants identified strengths of both more comprehensive 
      digital and shorter paper-based tools and thought they could complement each 
      other. Participants consistently expressed the advantages of using DESIs outside 
      the consultation to supplement clinical discussions about cancer decisions given 
      the amount of information to discuss during these emotion-laden conversations. 
      Participants felt that patients with older age and lower socio-economic status 
      were more likely to use a paper-based compared with a digital DESI. Participants 
      also noted challenges related to reliable resources such as computers and 
      Internet in the practice setting, which would be necessary for implementing the 
      digital DESIs on site. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' perceptions and opinions about 
      value of DESIs can vary widely across doctor, patient and clinic characteristics. 
      A one-size-fits-all approach to implementation might not be feasible, suggesting 
      that flexible approaches to providing decision support for patients are needed to 
      drive broader adoption.
CI  - (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
FAU - Politi, Mary C
AU  - Politi MC
AD  - Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University 
      in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
FAU - Adsul, Prajakta
AU  - Adsul P
FAU - Kuzemchak, Marie D
AU  - Kuzemchak MD
FAU - Zeuner, Rachel
AU  - Zeuner R
FAU - Frosch, Dominick L
AU  - Frosch DL
LA  - eng
SI  - GENBANK/CD001431
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
DEP - 20141016
PL  - England
TA  - J Eval Clin Pract
JT  - Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
JID - 9609066
SB  - IM
MH  - Age Factors
MH  - *Attitude of Health Personnel
MH  - Base Sequence
MH  - *Decision Making
MH  - *Decision Support Systems, Clinical
MH  - *Decision Support Techniques
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - Internet
MH  - Interviews as Topic
MH  - Male
MH  - Medicine
MH  - Molecular Sequence Data
MH  - Patient Participation/*methods
MH  - Perception
MH  - Physicians
MH  - Qualitative Research
MH  - Self Efficacy
MH  - Socioeconomic Factors
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - behavioural science
OT  - decision aids
OT  - doctor-patient relationship
OT  - health communication
OT  - shared decision making
EDAT- 2014/10/17 06:00
MHDA- 2016/01/14 06:00
CRDT- 2014/10/17 06:00
PHST- 2014/09/04 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2014/10/17 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2014/10/17 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2016/01/14 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1111/jep.12269 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Apr;21(2):175-9. doi: 10.1111/jep.12269. Epub 2014 Oct 
      16.