Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

How to optimize the design and implementation of risk prediction tools: focus group with patients with IgA nephropathy

Authors: Anna R. Gagliardi, Heather N. Reich, Daniel C. Cattran, Sean J. Barbour

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is a common type of chronic immune-mediated kidney disease with variable risk of progression to end-stage kidney disease. Risk stratification helps clinicians weight the potential risks and benefits of immunosuppressive therapy for individual patients, and can inform patient-centred communication. No prior research examined barriers of risk predication tools (RPT) specific to IgAN. The purpose of this study was to explore determinants (facilitators, barriers) of RPT use from the patient perspective.

Methods

We conducted a single focus group with English-speaking adults aged 18 or older with biopsy-proven IgAN. We asked about how they would use an IgAN RPT, and how to improve its design and implementation. We analyzed the transcript using constant comparison to inductively derive themes, and complied with qualitative research reporting criteria.

Results

The 5 participants were Caucasian men who varied in age from 35 to 55. The glomerular filtration rate ranged from 29 to 71 mL/min/1.73m2, and proteinuria ranged from 0.36 to 1.41 g/d. Participants identified both benefits and harms of the risk score. They said physicians should first ask patients for permission to use it. To make it more useful, participants offered suggestions to enhance RTP design: visual display, information on how to interpret the risk score, risk categories, health implications, modifiable risk factors, multiple scenarios, and comparison with similar patients. They offered additional suggestions to enhance RPT implementation: it should not replace patient-provider discussion, it should be accompanied by self-management education so that patients can take an active role in their health. Participants appreciated information from members of the multidisciplinary team in addition to physicians. Participants also said that physicians should monitor patient emotions or concerns on an ongoing basis.

Conclusions

Patients with IgAN identified numerous ways to enhance the design and use of an RPT. Others could use this information to design and implement RPTs for patients with other conditions, but should employ user-centred design to develop RPTs that address patient preferences.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Barbour SJ, Reich HN. Risk stratification of patients with IgA nephropathy. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;59:865–73.PubMed
2.
Bartosik LP, Lajoie G, Sugar L, Cattran DC. Predicting progression in IgA nephropathy. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;38:728–35.PubMed
3.
Mackinnon B, Fraser EP, Cattran DC, Fox JG, Geddes CC. Validation of the Toronto formula to predict progression in IgA nephropathy. Nephron Clin Pract. 2008;109:c148–53.PubMed
4.
Xie J, Kiryluk K, Wang W, Wang Z, Guo S, Shen P, Ren H, Pan X, Chen X, Zhang W, et al. Predicting progression of IgA nephropathy: new clinical progression risk score. PLoS One. 2012;7:e38904.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Pozzi C, Bolasco PG, Fogazzi GB, Andrulli S, Altieri P, Ponticelli C, Locatelli F. Corticosteroids in IgA nephropathy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353:883–7.PubMed
6.
Manno C, Torres DD, Rossini M, Pesce F, Schena FP. Randomized controlled clinical trial of corticosteroids plus ACE-inhibitors with long-term follow-up in proteinuric IgA nephropathy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24:3694–701.PubMed
7.
McGrogan A, Franssen CF, de Vries CS. The incidence of primary glomerulonephritis worldwide: a systematic review of the literature. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26:414–30.PubMed
8.
Barbour SJ, Coppo R, Zhang H, Liu ZH, Suzuki Y, Matsuzaki K, Katafuchi R, Er L, Espino-Hernandez G, Kim SJ, et al. Evaluating a new international risk-prediction tool in IgA nephropathy. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:942–52.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:351–79.PubMed
10.
Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2012;3:e001570.
11.
Constand MK, MacDermid JC, Dal Bello-Haas V, Law M. Scoping review of patient-centered care approaches in healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:271.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
13.
Usher-Smith J, Emery J, Hamilton W, Giffin SJ, Walter FM. Risk prediction tools for cancer in primary care. Br J Cancer. 2015;113:1645–50.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Noble D, Mathur R, Dent T, Meads C, Greenhalgh T. Risk models and scores for type 2 diabetes: systematic review. BMJ. 2011;343:d7167.
15.
Dent TH, Wright CF, Stephan BC, Brayne C, Janssens AC. Risk prediction models: a framework for assessment. Public Health Genomics. 2012;15:98–105.PubMed
16.
Moons KG, Kengne AP, Grobbee DE, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Altman DG, Woodward M. Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating and impact assessment. Heart. 2012;98:691–8.PubMed
17.
Kengne AP, Masconi K, Mbanya VN, Lekoubou A, Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Matsha TE. Risk predictive modeling for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2014;51:1–12.PubMed
18.
Engelhardt EG, Pieterse AH, van Duijn-Bakker N, Kroep JR, de Haes HC, Smets EM, Stiggelbout AM. Breast cancer specialists’ views on and use of risk prediction models in clinical practice: a mixed methods approach. Acta Oncol. 2015;54:361–7.PubMed
19.
Kappen TH, van Loon K, Kappen MA, van Wolfswinkel L, Vergouwe Y, van Klei WA, Moons KG, Kalkman CJ. Barriers and facilitators perceived by physicians when using prediction models in practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:136–45.PubMed
20.
Dhippayom T, Chaiyakunapruk N, Krass I. How diabetes risk assessment tools are implemented in practice: a systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;104:329–42.PubMed
21.
Van Oort L, Verhagen A, Koes B, de vet Anema HR, Heymans M. Evaluation of the usefulness of 2 clinical prediction models in physical therapy: a qualitative process evaluation. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2014;37:334–41.
22.
Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmouth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321:694–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
McCurdie T, Taneva S, Casselman M, Yeung M, McDaniel C, Ho W, et al. mHealth consumer apps : the case for user-centered design. Biomed Instrument Technol. 2012;46:49–56.
24.
Auerbach C, Silverstein LB. Qualitative data: an introduction to coding and analysis. New York: NYU Press; 2003.
25.
Sandelowski M. Focus on research methods: whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23:334–40.PubMed
26.
Morgan LM, Krueger RA. Planning focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1997.
27.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.
28.
Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001;322:1115.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Dwamena F, Holmes-Rovner M, Gaulden CM, Jorgenson S, Sadigh G, Sikorski A, et al. Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD003267.PubMed
30.
McCormack LA, Treiman K, Rupert D, et al. Measuring patient-centered communication in cancer care: a literature review and the development of a systematic approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:1085–95.PubMed
31.
Taylor SJC, Pinnock H, Epiphaniou E, Pearce G, Parke HL, Schwappach A, Purushotham N, Jacob S, Griffiths CJ, Greenhalgh T, Sheikh A. A rapid synthesis of the evidence on interventions supporting self-management for people with long-term conditions: PRISMS—practical systematic review of self-management support for long-term conditions. Southampton: NIHR Journals Library; 2014.
32.
33.
Helou N, Dwyer A, Shaha M, Zanchi A. Multidisciplinary management of diabetic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14:169–207.PubMed
34.
Garcia-Retamero R, Okan Y, Cokely ET. Using visual aids to improve communication of risks about health: a review. Sci World J. 2012;2012:562637.
35.
Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han PKJ, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S7.PubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Matthias MS, Imperiale TF. A risk prediction tool for colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study of patient and provider facilitators and barriers. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21:43.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Tang E, Exley C, Price C, Stephan B, Robinson L. The views of public and clinician stakeholders on risk assessment tools for post-stroke dementia: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e025586.PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016:1753–60.
Metadata
Title
How to optimize the design and implementation of risk prediction tools: focus group with patients with IgA nephropathy
Authors
Anna R. Gagliardi
Heather N. Reich
Daniel C. Cattran
Sean J. Barbour
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01253-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Violence detection explanation via semantic roles embeddings

Research article

Effective attention-based network for syndrome differentiation of AIDS

Research article

A mobile app implementing the international classification of functioning, disability and health rehabilitation set

Research article

Hospital doctors’ attitudes to brief educational messages that aim to modify diagnostic test requests: a qualitative study

Research article

A comparative study on the prediction of the BP artificial neural network model and the ARIMA model in the incidence of AIDS

Research article

Implementation of a national electronic health information system in Gabon: a survey of healthcare providers’ perceptions