Innovative interventions are needed to address gaps in preventive cancer care, especially in rural areas. This study evaluated the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) with and without shared decision making (SDM) on cancer-screening completion.
Methods
In this 3-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized trial conducted at a predominantly rural medical group, 34 primary care clinics were randomized to clinical decision support (CDS), CDS plus shared decision making (CDS+SDM), or usual care (UC). The CDS applied web-based clinical algorithms identifying patients overdue for United States Preventive Services Task Force–recommended preventive cancer care and presented evidence-based recommendations to patients and providers on printouts and on the electronic health record interface. Patients in the CDS+SDM clinic also received shared decision-making tools (SDMTs). The primary outcome was a composite indicator of the proportion of patients overdue for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at index who were up to date on these 1 y later.
Results
From August 1, 2018, to March 15, 2019, 69,405 patients aged 21 to 74 y had visits at study clinics and 25,198 were overdue for 1 or more cancer screening tests at an index visit. At 12-mo follow-up, 9,543 of these (37.9%) were up to date on the composite endpoint. The adjusted, model-derived percentage of patients up to date was 36.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.0–39.1) in the UC group, 38.1% (95% CI: 35.5–40.9) in the CDS group, and 34.4% (95% CI: 31.8–37.2) in the CDS+SDM group. For all comparisons, the screening rates were higher than UC in the CDS group and lower than UC in the CDS+SDM group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.
Conclusion
The CDS did not significantly increase cancer-screening rates. Exploratory analyses suggest a deeper understanding of how SDM and CDS interact to affect cancer prevention decisions is needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.
SiegelRLMillerKDJemalA. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7–30.
2.
WeirHKThompsonTDSomanAMollerBLeadbetterS. The past, present, and future of cancer incidence in the United States: 1975 through 2020. Cancer. 2015;121(11):1827–37.
3.
ColditzGAWolinKYGehlertS. Applying what we know to accelerate cancer prevention. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(127):127rv4.
4.
KohHKBlakeyCRRoperAY. Healthy People 2020: a report card on the health of the nation. JAMA. 2014; 311(24):2475–6.
5.
CurrySJByersT, National Research Councilet al. Fulfilling the Potential of Cancer Prevention and Early Detection. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2003.
6.
WhiteAThompsonTDWhiteMC, et al. Cancer screening test use—United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(8):201–6.
7.
HallIJTangkaFKLSabatinoSAThompsonTDGraubardBIBreenN. Patterns and trends in cancer screening in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis. 2018;15:E97.
8.
SmithRAAndrewsKSBrooksD, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(3):184–210.
9.
AndersonAEHenryKASamadderNJMerrillRMKinneyAY. Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(5):526–533.
10.
ColeAMJacksonJEDoescherM. Urban-rural disparities in colorectal cancer screening: cross-sectional analysis of 1998-2005 data from the Centers for Disease Control’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Study. Cancer Med. 2012;1(3):350–6.
11.
SinghGKWilliamsSDSiahpushMMulhollenA. Socioeconomic, rural-urban, and racial inequalities in US cancer mortality: part I—all cancers and lung cancer and part II—colorectal, prostate, breast, and cervical cancers. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2011;2011:107497.
12.
DoescherMPJacksonJE. Trends in cervical and breast cancer screening practices among women in rural and urban areas of the United States. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15(3):200–9.
13.
RohatgiKWMarxCMLewis-ThamesMWLiuJColditzGAJamesAS. Urban-rural disparities in access to low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening in Missouri and Illinois. Prev Chronic Dis. 2020;17:E140.
14.
McDougallJABanegasMPWigginsCLChiuVKRajputAKinneyAY. Rural disparities in treatment-related financial hardship and adherence to surveillance colonoscopy in diverse colorectal cancer survivors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27(11):1275–82.
15.
StangeKCFedirkoTZyzanskiSJJaenCR. How do family physicians prioritize delivery of multiple preventive services?J Fam Pract. 1994;38(3):231–7.
16.
StangeKCJaenCRFlockeSAMillerWLCrabtreeBFZyzanskiSJ. The value of a family physician. J Fam Pract. 1998;46(5):363–8.
17.
SabatinoSAHabartaNBaronRC, et al. Interventions to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers systematic reviews of provider assessment and feedback and provider incentives. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(1 suppl):S67–74.
18.
O’ConnorPJSperl-HillenJMRushWA, et al. Impact of electronic health record clinical decision support on diabetes care: a randomized trial. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(1):12–21.
19.
DesaiJRSperl-HillenJMO’ConnorPJ. Patient preferences in diabetes care: overcoming barriers using new strategies. J Comp Eff Res. 2013;2(4):351–4.
20.
O’ConnorPJDesaiJRButlerJCKharbandaEOSperl-HillenJM. Current status and future prospects for electronic point-of-care clinical decision support in diabetes care. Curr Diab Rep. 2013;13(2):172–6.
21.
O’ConnorP. Opportunities to increase the effectiveness of EHR-based diabetes clinical decision support. Appl Clin Inform. 2011;2(3):350–4.
22.
Sperl-HillenJMAverbeckBPalattaoKAmundsonJRushBO’ConnorPJ. Outpatient EHR-based diabetes clinical decision support that works: lessons learned from implementing diabetes wizard. Diabetes Spectr. 2010;23(3):150–4.
23.
Sperl-HillenJMCrainALMargolisKL, et al. Clinical decision support directed to primary care patients and providers reduces cardiovascular risk: a randomized trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(9):1137–46.
24.
Sperl-HillenJMRossomRCKharbandaEO, et al. Priorities wizard: multisite web-based primary care clinical decision support improved chronic care outcomes with high use rates and high clinician satisfaction rates. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2019;7(1):9.
25.
BrightTJWongADhurjatiR, et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):29–43.
26.
HoffmanASVolkRJSaarimakiA, et al. Delivering patient decision aids on the Internet: definitions, theories, current evidence, and emerging research areas. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2013;13(suppl 2):S13.
27.
DasMEichnerJ. Challenges and Barriers to Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Design and Implementation Experienced in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality CDS Demonstrations (prepared for the AHRQ National Resource Center for Health Information Technology under Contract No. 290-04-0016). AHRQ Publication No. 10-0064-EF. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
28.
MandelblattJSStoutNKSchechterCB, et al. Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. breast cancer screening strategies. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):215–25.
29.
KnudsenABZauberAGRutterCM, et al. Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2595–609.
30.
KimJJBurgerEAReganCSyS. Screening for cervical cancer in primary care: a decision analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;320(7):706–14.
31.
MezaRJeonJToumazisI, et al. Evaluation of the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325(10):988–97.
32.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716–26, W-236.
33.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):627–37.
34.
MoyerVA, USPSTF. Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(12):880–91, W312.
35.
MoyerVA, USPSTF. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(5):330–8.
36.
GailMHBrintonLAByarDP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for White females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81(24):1879–86.
37.
ElliottTEO’ConnorPJAscheSE, et al. Design and rationale of an intervention to improve cancer prevention using clinical decision support and shared decision making: a clinic-randomized trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021;102:106271.
38.
BrennerATMaloTLMargolisM, et al. Evaluating shared decision making for lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(10):1311–6.
39.
RötteleNSchlettCKörnerM, et al. Variance components of ratings of physician-patient communication: a generalizability theory analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(6):e0252968.
40.
Elston LafataJBrownRFPignoneMPRatliffSShayLA. Primary care physicians’ support of shared decision making for different cancer screening decisions. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(1):70–8.
41.
HärterMBuchholzANicolaiJ, et al. Shared decision making and the use of decision aids. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112(40):672–9.
42.
StaceyDLegareFLewisK, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.
43.
FreedmanANSlatteryMLBallard-BarbashR, et al. Colorectal cancer risk prediction tool for white men and women without known susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(5):686–93.
44.
KatkiHAKovalchikSABergCDCheungLCChaturvediAK. Development and validation of risk models to select ever-smokers for CT lung cancer screening. JAMA. 2016;315(21):2300–11.
45.
GlasgowREVogtTMBolesSM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.
46.
DamschroderLJAronDCKeithREKirshSRAlexanderJALoweryJC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.
47.
HarryMLSamanDMTruittAR, et al. Pre-implementation adaptation of primary care cancer prevention clinical decision support. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2020;20:117.
48.
HarryMLTruittARSamanDM, et al. Barriers and facilitators to implementing cancer prevention clinical decision support in primary care: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):534.
49.
SamanDMWaltonKMHarryML, et al. Understanding primary care providers’ perceptions of cancer prevention and screening in a predominantly rural healthcare system in the upper Midwest. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):1019.
50.
DevoeCGabbidonHSchusslerN, et al. Use of electronic health records to develop and implement a silent best practice alert notification system for patient recruitment in clinical research: quality improvement initiative. JMIR Med Inform. 2019;7(2):e10020.
51.
MorganKLRubinDB. Rerandomization to improve covariate balance in experiments. Ann Stat. 2012;40(2):1263–82.
52.
VolkRJLlewellyn-ThomasHStaceyDElwynG. Ten years of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration: evolution of the core dimensions for assessing the quality of patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(suppl 2):S1.
53.
Joseph-WilliamsNNewcombeRPolitiM, et al. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi Consensus Process. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(6):699–710.
54.
SepuchaKRAbhyankarPHoffmanAS, et al. Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(5):380–8.
55.
MaciosekMVLaFranceABDehmerSP, et al. Updated priorities among effective clinical preventive services. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(1):14–22.
56.
SamanDMHarryMLFreitagLA, et al. Patient perceptions of using clinical decision support for cancer screening and prevention: “I wouldn’t have thought about getting screened without it”. J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2021;8(4):297–306.
57.
LegareFWittemanHO. Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):276–84.
58.
BrandaMELeBlancAShahND, et al. Shared decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:301.
59.
LeBlancAHerrinJWilliamsMD, et al. Shared decision making for antidepressants in primary care: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(11):1761–70.
60.
JimboMSenAPlegueMA, et al. Interactivity in a decision aid: findings from a decision aid to technologically enhance shared decision making RCT. Am J Prev Med. 2019;57(1):77–86.
61.
SchroyPCIIIEmmonsKMPetersE, et al. Aid-assisted decision making and colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(6):573–83.
62.
SchroyPCIIIDuhovicEChenCA, et al. Risk stratification and shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(4):526–35.
63.
RuparelMQuaifeSLGhimireB, et al. Impact of a lung cancer screening information film on informed decision-making: a randomized trial. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019;16(6):744–51.
64.
SouzaNMSebaldtRJMackayJA, et al. Computerized clinical decision support systems for primary preventive care: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes. Implement Sci. 2011;6:87.
65.
HsiangEYMehtaSJSmallDS, et al. Association of an active choice intervention in the electronic health record directed to medical assistants with clinician ordering and patient completion of breast and colorectal cancer screening tests. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(11):e1915619.
66.
CoxJLParkashRFosterGA, et al. Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AF): a cluster randomized trial of a computerized clinical decision support tool. Am Heart J. 2020;224:35–46.
67.
MathieuEBarrattALMcGeechanKDaveyHMHowardKHoussamiN. Helping women make choices about mammography screening: an online randomized trial of a decision aid for 40-year-old women. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(1):63–72.
68.
YarnallKSPollakKIOstbyeTKrauseKMMichenerJL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention?Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):635–41.
69.
SolbergLKottkeTBrekkeMMagnanS. Improving prevention is difficult. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3(3):153–5.
70.
HoffmanASSepuchaKRAbhyankarP, et al. Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(5):389–412.
71.
Van de VeldeSKunnamoIRoshanovP, et al. The GUIDES checklist: development of a tool to improve the successful use of guideline-based computerised clinical decision support. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):86.
72.
BatesDWKupermanGJWangS, et al. Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(6):523–30.
73.
RoshanovPSFernandesNWilczynskiJM, et al. Features of effective computerised clinical decision support systems: meta-regression of 162 randomised trials. BMJ. 2013;346:f657.
74.
LiberatiEGRuggieroFGaluppoL, et al. What hinders the uptake of computerized decision support systems in hospitals? A qualitative study and framework for implementation. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):113.
75.
MojaLPolo FrizHCapobussiM, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-based computerized decision support system on clinician recommendations and patient outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(12):e1917094.
76.
O’ConnorPJSperl-HillenJMMargolisKLKottkeTE. Strategies to prioritize clinical options in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(1):10–3.
77.
TakslerGBKeshnerMFagerlinAHajizadehNBraithwaiteRS. Personalized estimates of benefit from preventive care guidelines: a proof of concept. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(3):161–8.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
