Bridging the Gap: A Mixed-Methods Study on Factors Influencing Breast Cancer Clinicians' Decisions to Use Clinical Prediction Models.

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2025-03-27 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683251328377
Mary Ann E Binuya, Sabine C Linn, Annelies H Boekhout, Marjanka K Schmidt, Ellen G Engelhardt
{"title":"Bridging the Gap: A Mixed-Methods Study on Factors Influencing Breast Cancer Clinicians' Decisions to Use Clinical Prediction Models.","authors":"Mary Ann E Binuya, Sabine C Linn, Annelies H Boekhout, Marjanka K Schmidt, Ellen G Engelhardt","doi":"10.1177/23814683251328377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> Clinical prediction models provide tailored risk estimates that can help guide decisions in breast cancer care. Despite their potential, few models are widely used in clinical practice. We aimed to identify the factors influencing breast cancer clinicians' decisions to adopt prediction models and assess their relative importance. <b>Methods.</b> We conducted a mixed-methods study, beginning with semi-structured interviews, followed by a nationwide online survey. Thematic analysis was used to qualitatively summarize the interviews and identify key factors. For the survey, we used descriptive analysis to characterize the sample and Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> and Kruskal-Wallis tests to explore differences in score (0 = <i>not important</i> to 10 = <i>very important</i>) distributions. <b>Results.</b> Interviews (<i>N</i> = 16) identified eight key factors influencing model use. Practical/methodological factors included accessibility, cost, understandability, <i>objective</i> accuracy, actionability, and clinical relevance. Perceptual factors included acceptability, <i>subjective</i> accuracy, and risk communication. In the survey (<i>N</i> = 146; 137 model users), clinicians ranked online accessibility (median score = 9 [interquartile range = 8-10]) as most important. Cost was also highly rated, with preferences for freely available models (9 [8-10]) and those with reimbursable tests (8 [8-10]). Formal regulatory approval (7 [5-8]) and direct integration with electronic health records (6 [3-8]) were considered less critical. Subgroup analysis revealed differences in score distributions; for example, clinicians from general hospitals prioritized inclusion of new biomarkers more than those in academic settings. <b>Conclusions.</b> Breast cancer clinicians' decisions to initiate use of prediction models are influenced by practical and perceptual factors, extending beyond technical metrics such as discrimination and calibration. Addressing these factors more holistically through collaborative efforts between model developers, clinicians, and communication and implementation experts, for instance, by developing clinician-friendly online tools that prioritize usability and local adaptability, could increase model uptake.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Accessibility, cost, and practical considerations, such as ease of use and clinical utility, were prioritized slightly more than technical validation metrics, such as discrimination and calibration, when deciding to start using a clinical prediction model.Most breast cancer clinicians valued models with clear inputs (e.g., variable definitions, cutoffs) and outputs; few were interested in the exact model specifications.Perceptual or subjective factors, including perceived accuracy and peer acceptability, also influenced model adoption but were secondary to practical considerations.Sociodemographic variables, such as clinical specialization and hospital setting, influenced the importance of factors for model use.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"10 1","pages":"23814683251328377"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11948560/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683251328377","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Clinical prediction models provide tailored risk estimates that can help guide decisions in breast cancer care. Despite their potential, few models are widely used in clinical practice. We aimed to identify the factors influencing breast cancer clinicians' decisions to adopt prediction models and assess their relative importance. Methods. We conducted a mixed-methods study, beginning with semi-structured interviews, followed by a nationwide online survey. Thematic analysis was used to qualitatively summarize the interviews and identify key factors. For the survey, we used descriptive analysis to characterize the sample and Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests to explore differences in score (0 = not important to 10 = very important) distributions. Results. Interviews (N = 16) identified eight key factors influencing model use. Practical/methodological factors included accessibility, cost, understandability, objective accuracy, actionability, and clinical relevance. Perceptual factors included acceptability, subjective accuracy, and risk communication. In the survey (N = 146; 137 model users), clinicians ranked online accessibility (median score = 9 [interquartile range = 8-10]) as most important. Cost was also highly rated, with preferences for freely available models (9 [8-10]) and those with reimbursable tests (8 [8-10]). Formal regulatory approval (7 [5-8]) and direct integration with electronic health records (6 [3-8]) were considered less critical. Subgroup analysis revealed differences in score distributions; for example, clinicians from general hospitals prioritized inclusion of new biomarkers more than those in academic settings. Conclusions. Breast cancer clinicians' decisions to initiate use of prediction models are influenced by practical and perceptual factors, extending beyond technical metrics such as discrimination and calibration. Addressing these factors more holistically through collaborative efforts between model developers, clinicians, and communication and implementation experts, for instance, by developing clinician-friendly online tools that prioritize usability and local adaptability, could increase model uptake.

Highlights: Accessibility, cost, and practical considerations, such as ease of use and clinical utility, were prioritized slightly more than technical validation metrics, such as discrimination and calibration, when deciding to start using a clinical prediction model.Most breast cancer clinicians valued models with clear inputs (e.g., variable definitions, cutoffs) and outputs; few were interested in the exact model specifications.Perceptual or subjective factors, including perceived accuracy and peer acceptability, also influenced model adoption but were secondary to practical considerations.Sociodemographic variables, such as clinical specialization and hospital setting, influenced the importance of factors for model use.

弥合差距:影响乳腺癌临床医生决定使用临床预测模型的因素的混合方法研究。
背景。临床预测模型提供量身定制的风险估计,可以帮助指导乳腺癌护理的决策。尽管有潜力,但很少有模型被广泛应用于临床实践。我们的目的是确定影响乳腺癌临床医生决定采用预测模型的因素,并评估其相对重要性。方法。我们进行了一项混合方法的研究,从半结构化访谈开始,然后是全国性的在线调查。专题分析用于定性总结访谈并确定关键因素。在调查中,我们使用描述性分析来描述样本的特征,并使用Mann-Whitney U和Kruskal-Wallis检验来探索分数分布的差异(0 =不重要到10 =非常重要)。结果。访谈(N = 16)确定了影响模型使用的八个关键因素。实用/方法学因素包括可及性、成本、可理解性、客观准确性、可操作性和临床相关性。感知因素包括可接受性、主观准确性和风险沟通。在调查中(N = 146;137个模型用户),临床医生认为在线可访问性(中位数得分= 9[四分位数间距= 8-10])是最重要的。成本也被高度评价,人们倾向于免费提供的模型(9[8-10])和可报销的测试(8[8-10])。正式的监管批准(7[5-8])和与电子健康记录的直接整合(6[3-8])被认为不那么重要。亚组分析显示得分分布差异;例如,综合医院的临床医生比学术机构的临床医生更优先考虑纳入新的生物标志物。结论。乳腺癌临床医生决定开始使用预测模型受到实际和感知因素的影响,超出了技术指标,如歧视和校准。通过模型开发人员、临床医生、沟通和实施专家之间的合作,更全面地解决这些因素,例如,通过开发临床医生友好的在线工具,优先考虑可用性和局部适应性,可以增加模型的吸收。重点:当决定开始使用临床预测模型时,可访问性、成本和实际考虑因素(例如易用性和临床效用)比技术验证度量(例如区分和校准)优先考虑。大多数乳腺癌临床医生重视具有明确输入(例如,变量定义、截止值)和输出的模型;很少有人对确切的模型规格感兴趣。感知或主观因素,包括感知的准确性和同伴可接受性,也会影响模型的采用,但相对于实际考虑而言是次要的。社会人口学变量,如临床专科和医院环境,影响模型使用因素的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信