Multilevel factors influence the use of a cardiovascular disease assessment tool embedded in the electronic health record in oncology care

Digital health tools are positive for delivering evidence-based care. However, few studies have applied rigorous frameworks to understand their use in community settings. This study aimed to identify implementation determinants of the Automated Heart-Health Assessment (AH-HA) tool within outpatient...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Translational behavioral medicine 2024-12
Hauptverfasser: Kepper, Maura M, Gierbolini-Rivera, Raúl D, Weaver, Kathryn E, Foraker, Randi E, Dressler, Emily V, Nightingale, Chandylen L, Aguilar, Aylin A, Wiseman, Kimberly D, Hanna, Jenny, Throckmorton, Alyssa D, Craddock Lee, Simon
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Digital health tools are positive for delivering evidence-based care. However, few studies have applied rigorous frameworks to understand their use in community settings. This study aimed to identify implementation determinants of the Automated Heart-Health Assessment (AH-HA) tool within outpatient oncology settings as part of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. A mixed-methods approach informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) examined barriers and facilitators to AH-HA implementation in four NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices participating in the WF-1804CD AH-HA trial. Provider surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interviews with providers (n = 15) were coded using deductive (CFIR) and inductive codes by trained analysts. The CFIR rating tool was used to rate each quote for (i) valence, defined as a positive (+) or negative (-) influence, and (ii) strength, defined as a neutral (0), weak (1), or strong (2) influence on implementation. All providers considered discussing cardiovascular health with patients as important (61.5%, n = 8/13) or somewhat important (38.5%, n = 5/13). The tool was well-received by providers and was feasible to use in routine care among cancer survivors. Providers felt the tool was acceptable and usable, had a relative advantage over routine care, and had the potential to generate benefits for patients. Common reasons clinicians reported not using AH-HA were (i) insufficient time and (ii) the tool interfering with workflow. Systematically identifying implementation determinants from this study will guide the broader dissemination of the AH-HA tool across clinical settings and inform implementation strategies for future scale-up hybrid trials.
ISSN:1869-6716
1613-9860
DOI:10.1093/tbm/ibae058