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

Adoption, acceptance, and use of a decision support tool to promote timely investigations for cancer in primary care

Optimization of a Quality Improvement Tool for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care: Qualitative Study

Optimising a clinical decision support tool to improve chronic kidney disease management in general practice

Hidden systems in primary care cancer detection: an embedded qualitative intervention development study

Perceived benefits and challenges of using an electronic cancer prediction system for safety netting in primary care: An exploratory study of C the signs

Development and acceptability of a digital tool for promoting syphilis testing in Australian general practice: qualitative study using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability

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

The early diagnosis of cancer in primary care: A qualitative exploration of the patient's role and acceptable safety-netting strategies

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

Primary Care Support Tools for Digestive Health Care: A Mixed Method Study

A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study

Feasibility and User Experience of Digital Patient Monitoring for Real-World Patients With Lung or Breast Cancer

Primary care physician experiences utilizing a family health history tool with electronic health record–integrated clinical decision support: an implementation process assessment

Exploring the User Acceptability and Feasibility of a Clinical Decision Support Tool Designed to Facilitate Timely Diagnosis of New-Onset Type 1 Diabetes in Children: Qualitative Interview Study Among General Practitioners

Barriers and facilitators of implementing a multicomponent intervention to improve faecal immunochemical test (FIT) colorectal cancer screening in primary care clinics, Alberta

Standards-Based Clinical Decision Support Platform to Manage Patients Who Meet Guideline-Based Criteria for Genetic Evaluation of Familial Cancer

Level density and level-spacing distributions of random, self-adjoint, non-Hermitian matrices.

Sunbed Use, Attitudes, and Knowledge After the Under-18s Ban

Can we do better? A qualitative study in the East of England investigating patient experience and acceptability of using the faecal immunochemical test in primary care

Substance Misuse Services in Secure Psychiatric Units

Development and Usability Testing of a Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Study Protocol