Abstract:Background Lung cancer risk and life expectancy vary substantially across patients eligible for low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening (LCS), which has important consequences for optimizing LCS decisions for different patients. To account for this heterogeneity during decision-making, web-based decision support tools are needed to enable quick calculations and streamline the process of obtaining individualized information that more accurately informs patient-clinician LCS discussions. We created DecisionPrecision, a clinician-facing web-based decision support tool, to help tailor the LCS discussion to a patient’s individualized lung cancer risk and estimated net benefit. Objective The objective of our study is to test two strategies for implementing DecisionPrecision in primary care at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers: a quality improvement (QI) training approach and academic detailing (AD). Methods Phase 1 comprised a multisite, cluster randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of standard implementation (adding a link to DecisionPrecision in the electronic health record vs standard implementation plus the Learn, Engage, Act, and Process [LEAP] QI training program). The primary outcome measure was the use of DecisionPrecision at each site before versus after LEAP QI training. The second phase of the study examined the potential effectiveness of AD as an implementation strategy for DecisionPrecision at all 8 medical centers. Outcomes were assessed by comparing absolute tool use before and after AD visits and conducting semistructured interviews with a subset of primary care physicians (PCPs) following the AD visits. Results Phase 1 findings showed that sites that participated in the LEAP QI training program used DecisionPrecision significantly more often than the standard implementation sites (tool used 190.3, SD 174.8 times on average over 6 months at LEAP sites vs 3.5 SD 3.7 at standard sites; P<.001). However, this finding was confounded by the lack of screening coordinators at standard implementation sites. In phase 2, there was no difference in the 6-month tool use between before and after AD (95% CI −5.06 to 6.40; P=.82). Follow-up interviews with PCPs indicated that the AD strategy increased provider awareness and appreciation for the benefits of the tool. However, other priorities and limited time prevented PCPs from using them during routine clinical visits. Conclusions The phase 1 findings did not provide conclusive evidence of the benefit of a QI training approach for implementing a decision support tool for LCS among PCPs. In addition, phase 2 findings showed that our light-touch, single-visit AD strategy did not increase tool use. To enable tool use by PCPs, prediction-based tools must be fully automated and integrated into electronic health records, thereby helping providers personalize LCS discussions among their many competing demands. PCPs also need more time to engage in shared decision-making discussions with their patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02765412; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02765412

Patient-provider communication while using a clinical decision support tool: explaining satisfaction with shared decision making for mammography screening

Unpacking the relationship between shared decision-making and decisional quality, decision to screen, and screening completion in lung cancer screening

Current State of Shared Decision-Making for CT Lung Cancer Screening and Improvement Strategies

Text-only and picture conversation aids both supported shared decision making for breast cancer surgery: Analysis from a cluster randomized trial

Can a Digital Tool Improve the Understanding of Treatment Option for Patients With Head/Neck Cancer and Increase Providers' Self-perceived Ability to Communicate With Patients?

Patient experience and satisfaction with shared decision-making: a cross-sectional study among outpatients

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision-making in Early Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: a Qualitative Study

Healthcare systems collaborating to implement a shared decision-making tool in the electronic health record and build evidence on its adoption and use

Evaluation of a web-based, interactive guide to enhance patient-clinician electronic communication.

Implementation of a Web-Based Tool for Shared Decision-making in Lung Cancer Screening: Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Evaluation

Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning: A Systematic Review

Primary care clinicians’ opinions before and after implementation of cancer screening and prevention clinical decision support in a clinic cluster-randomized control trial: a survey research study

A Qualitative Study on the Impact and Feasibility of a Simulation-Based Program for Shared Decision-Making in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Care

Patient Perspectives on a Patient‐Facing Tool for Lung Cancer Screening

Clinical Decision Support for Surgery: A Mixed Methods Study on Design and Implementation Perspectives from Urologists

Shared decision-making before prostate cancer screening decisions

Outcomes of Shared Decision-Making for Low-Dose Screening for Lung Cancer in an Academic Medical Center

Cancer patients’ perspective on shared decision-making and decision aids in oncology

The Facilitators and Barriers of the Implementation of a Clinical Decision Support System for Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings—An Interview Study

Implementation of a patient-centered mobile shared decision making platform and healthcare workers’ evaluation: a case in a medical center

ConfidentCare: A Clinical Decision Support System for Personalized Breast Cancer Screening