Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Piloting electronic screening forms in primary care: findings from a mixed methods study to identify patients eligible for low dose CT lung cancer screening

Authors: Mary Ann O’Brien, Frank Sullivan, Andrea Carson, Rabiya Siddiqui, Saddaf Syed, Lawrence Paszat

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Recent evidence suggests that screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans significantly reduces mortality from lung cancer. However, optimal methods to identify potentially eligible patients in primary care are not known. Using brief electronic screening forms administered prior to a primary care visit is a strategy to identify high risk, asymptomatic patients eligible for LDCT screening. The objective of this study was to compare the acceptability and feasibility of using brief electronic versus paper screening forms to identify eligible patients at high risk of developing lung cancer in primary care.

Methods

A mixed method pilot comparative study was conducted in primary care. Practices were allocated to an electronic form (e-form) group or a paper-based form (p-form) group. Allocation was randomly assigned for the first practice then by alternation. Patients in the e-form practices completed forms at home via the web or in the waiting room on a tablet. Patients in p-form practices completed forms in waiting rooms. Interviews were conducted with patients, administrators, and primary care physicians (PCPs) about their experiences.

Results

Six of 30 (20%) eligible practices agreed to participate. Over the 16-week study period, a total of 831 of an expected 1442 patients (58%) aged 55–74 years were enrolled; 573/690 (83%) patients in the e-form group and 258/752 (34%) in the p-form group. Of the 573 participants in the e-form group, 335 (58%) completed forms via the web; 238 (29%) did so via tablet. Twenty-four interviews were conducted with 15 patients, 5 administrative staff and 4 PCPs. Patients were willing to discuss lung cancer screening eligibility with their PCP. Staff members expressed low administrative burden except for an extra step to link appointment information to patient demographics to identify eligible patients. PCPs indicated that forms were reminders to discuss smoking cessation. PCPs in the e-form group reported that patients asked questions about screening.

Conclusion

There was fairly low uptake by primary care practices. For e-forms to be feasible in practice workflow, electronic medical record software needs to link appointment information with patient eligibility requirements. The use of brief pre-consultation electronic screening forms for LDCT eligibility encouraged PCPs to discuss smoking cessation with patients.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Field JK, Duffy SW, Baldwin DR, Whynes DK, Deveraj A, Brain KE, Eisen T, Gosney J, Green BA, Holemans JA, Kavanagh T, Kerr KM, Ledson M, Lifford KJ, McRonald FE, Nair A, Page RD, Parmar MKB, Rassl DM, Rintoul RC, Screaton NJ, Wald NJ, Weller D, Williamson PR, Yadegarfar G, Hansell DM. UK lung cancer RCT pilot screening trial: baseline findings from the screening arm provide evidence for the potential implementation of lung cancer screening. Thorax. 2016;71:161–70.CrossRefPubMed Field JK, Duffy SW, Baldwin DR, Whynes DK, Deveraj A, Brain KE, Eisen T, Gosney J, Green BA, Holemans JA, Kavanagh T, Kerr KM, Ledson M, Lifford KJ, McRonald FE, Nair A, Page RD, Parmar MKB, Rassl DM, Rintoul RC, Screaton NJ, Wald NJ, Weller D, Williamson PR, Yadegarfar G, Hansell DM. UK lung cancer RCT pilot screening trial: baseline findings from the screening arm provide evidence for the potential implementation of lung cancer screening. Thorax. 2016;71:161–70.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Goodyear-Smith F, Warren J, Elley CR. The eCHAT program to facilitate healthy changes in New Zealand primary care. Family Medicine World Perspective. 2013;26:177–82. Goodyear-Smith F, Warren J, Elley CR. The eCHAT program to facilitate healthy changes in New Zealand primary care. Family Medicine World Perspective. 2013;26:177–82.
4.
go back to reference Henderson S, DeGroff A, Richards TB, Kish-Doto J, Soloe C, Heminger C, Rohan EA. Qualitative analysis of lung cancer screening practices by primary care physicians. J Community Health. 2011;36:949–56.CrossRefPubMed Henderson S, DeGroff A, Richards TB, Kish-Doto J, Soloe C, Heminger C, Rohan EA. Qualitative analysis of lung cancer screening practices by primary care physicians. J Community Health. 2011;36:949–56.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Sittig DF. Potential impact of advanced clinical information technology on cancer care in 2015. Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17:813–20.CrossRefPubMed Sittig DF. Potential impact of advanced clinical information technology on cancer care in 2015. Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17:813–20.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Devers KJ, Frankel RM. Study design in qualitative research- 2: sampling and data collection strategies. Education for Health. 2000;13:263–71.CrossRefPubMed Devers KJ, Frankel RM. Study design in qualitative research- 2: sampling and data collection strategies. Education for Health. 2000;13:263–71.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Crabtree B, Miller W. Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 1999. Crabtree B, Miller W. Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 1999.
8.
go back to reference Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago. Aldine. 1967; Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago. Aldine. 1967;
9.
go back to reference Charmaz K: Constructing grounded theory. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2006. Charmaz K: Constructing grounded theory. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2006.
10.
go back to reference Boeije HA. Purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative data. Quality & Quantity. 2002;36:391–409.CrossRef Boeije HA. Purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative data. Quality & Quantity. 2002;36:391–409.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1989. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1989.
12.
go back to reference Naughton F. Delivering "Just-In-Time" Smoking cessation support via mobile phones: current knowledge and future directions. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 May 28. Naughton F. Delivering "Just-In-Time" Smoking cessation support via mobile phones: current knowledge and future directions. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 May 28.
13.
go back to reference Voncken-Brewster V, Tange H, Moser A, Nagykaldi Z, de Vries H, van der Weijden T. Integrating a tailored e-health self-management application for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients into primary care: a pilot study. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:1–10.CrossRef Voncken-Brewster V, Tange H, Moser A, Nagykaldi Z, de Vries H, van der Weijden T. Integrating a tailored e-health self-management application for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients into primary care: a pilot study. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:1–10.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Fleisher L, Kandadai V, Keenan E, Miller SM, Devarajan K, Ruth KJ, Rodoletz M, Bieber EJ, Weinberg DS. Build it, and will they come? Unexpected findings from a study on a web-based intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening. J Health Commun. 2012;17:41–53.CrossRefPubMed Fleisher L, Kandadai V, Keenan E, Miller SM, Devarajan K, Ruth KJ, Rodoletz M, Bieber EJ, Weinberg DS. Build it, and will they come? Unexpected findings from a study on a web-based intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening. J Health Commun. 2012;17:41–53.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Mair FS, May C, O’Donnell C, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-heath systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bulletin world health. Organization. 2012;90:357–64. Mair FS, May C, O’Donnell C, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-heath systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bulletin world health. Organization. 2012;90:357–64.
16.
go back to reference May C, Finch T, Mair F, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles M, Gask L, MacFarlane A, Murray E, Rapley T, Rogers A, Treweek S, Wallace P, Anderson G, Burns J, Heaven B. Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:148–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral May C, Finch T, Mair F, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles M, Gask L, MacFarlane A, Murray E, Rapley T, Rogers A, Treweek S, Wallace P, Anderson G, Burns J, Heaven B. Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:148–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Piloting electronic screening forms in primary care: findings from a mixed methods study to identify patients eligible for low dose CT lung cancer screening
Authors
Mary Ann O’Brien
Frank Sullivan
Andrea Carson
Rabiya Siddiqui
Saddaf Syed
Lawrence Paszat
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0666-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Primary Care 1/2017 Go to the issue