Improving Concordance Between Clinicians With Australian Guidelines for Bowel Cancer Prevention Using a Digital Application: Randomized Controlled Crossover Study.

Abstract

Background: Australia's bowel cancer prevention guidelines, following a recent revision, are among the most complex in the world. Detailed decision tables outline screening or surveillance recommendations for 230 case scenarios alongside cessation recommendations for older patients. While these guidelines can help better allocate limited colonoscopy resources, their increasing complexity may limit their adoption and potential benefits. Therefore, tools to support clinicians in navigating these guidelines could be essential for national bowel cancer prevention efforts. Digital applications (DAs) represent a potentially inexpensive and scalable solution but are yet to be tested for this purpose.

Objective: This study aims to assess whether a DA could increase clinician adherence to Australia's new colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines and determine whether improved usability correlates with greater conformance to guidelines.

Methods: As part of a randomized controlled crossover study, we created a clinical vignette quiz to evaluate the efficacy of a DA in comparison with the standard resource (SR) for making screening and surveillance decisions. Briefings were provided to study participants, which were tailored to their level of familiarity with the guidelines. We measured the adherence of clinicians according to their number of guideline-concordant responses to the scenarios in the quiz using either the DA or the SR. The maximum score was 18, with higher scores indicating improved adherence. We also tested the DA's usability using the System Usability Scale.

Results: Of 117 participants, 80 were included in the final analysis. Using the SR, the adherence of participants was rated a median (IQR) score of 10 (7.75-13) out of 18. The participants' adherence improved by 40% (relative risk 1.4, P<.001) when using the DA, reaching a median (IQR) score of 14 (12-17) out of 18. The DA was rated highly for usability with a median (IQR) score of 90 (72.5-95) and ranked in the 96th percentile of systems. There was a moderate correlation between the usability of the DA and better adherence (r_s=0.4; P<.001). No differences between the adherence of specialists and nonspecialists were found, either with the SR (10 vs 9; P=.47) or with the DA (13 vs 15; P=.24). There was no significant association between participants who were less adherent with the DA (n=17) and their age (P=.06), experience with decision support tools (P=.51), or academic involvement with a university (P=.39).

Conclusions: DAs can significantly improve the adoption of complex Australian bowel cancer prevention guidelines. As screening and surveillance guidelines become increasingly complex and personalized, these tools will be crucial to help clinicians accurately determine the most appropriate recommendations for their patients. Additional research to understand why some practitioners perform worse with DAs is required. Further improvements in application usability may optimize guideline concordance further.