Effect of a Computer-Based Decision Support Intervention on Autism Spectrum Disorder Screening in Pediatric Primary Care Clinics: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 12 2019
02 12 2019
Historique:
entrez:
19
12
2019
pubmed:
19
12
2019
medline:
18
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Universal early screening for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is recommended but not routinely performed. To determine whether computer-automated screening and clinical decision support can improve ASD screening rates in pediatric primary care practices. This cluster randomized clinical trial, conducted between November 16, 2010, and November 21, 2012, compared ASD screening rates among a random sample of 274 children aged 18 to 24 months in urban pediatric clinics of an inner-city county hospital system with or without an ASD screening module built into an existing decision support software system. Statistical analyses were conducted from February 6, 2017, to June 1, 2018. Four clinics were matched in pairs based on patient volume and race/ethnicity, then randomized within pairs. Decision support with the Child Health Improvement Through Computer Automation system (CHICA) was integrated with workflow and with the electronic health record in intervention clinics. The main outcome was screening rates among children aged 18 to 24 months. Because the intervention was discontinued among children aged 18 months at the request of the participating clinics, only results for those aged 24 months were collected and analyzed. Rates of positive screening results, clinicians' response rates to screening results in the computer system, and new cases of ASD identified were also measured. Main results were controlled for race/ethnicity and intracluster correlation. Two clinics were randomized to receive the intervention, and 2 served as controls. Records from 274 children (101 girls, 162 boys, and 11 missing information on sex; age range, 23-30 months) were reviewed (138 in the intervention clinics and 136 in the control clinics). Of 263 children, 242 (92.0%) were enrolled in Medicaid, 138 (52.5%) were African American, and 96 (36.5%) were Hispanic. Screening rates in the intervention clinics increased from 0% (95% CI, 0%-5.5%) at baseline to 68.4% (13 of 19) (95% CI, 43.4%-87.4%) in 6 months and to 100% (18 of 18) (95% CI, 81.5%-100%) in 24 months. Control clinics had no significant increase in screening rates (baseline, 7 of 64 children [10.9%]; 6-24 months after the intervention, 11 of 72 children [15.3%]; P = .46). Screening results were positive for 265 of 980 children (27.0%) screened by CHICA during the study period. Among the 265 patients with positive screening results, physicians indicated any response in CHICA in 151 (57.0%). Two children in the intervention group received a new diagnosis of ASD within the time frame of the study. The findings suggest that computer automation, when integrated with clinical workflow and the electronic health record, increases screening of children for ASD, but follow-up by physicians is still flawed. Automation of the subsequent workup is still needed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01612897.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31851348
pii: 2757629
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17676
pmc: PMC6991212
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01612897']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1917676Subventions
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : R01 HS018453
Pays : United States
Références
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Apr;112:74-81
pubmed: 29500025
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Oct 17;10:CD009260
pubmed: 23076956
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 Jul-Aug;18(4):485-90
pubmed: 21672910
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2010 Nov 13;2010:167-71
pubmed: 21346962
Pediatrics. 2014 Jan;133(1):37-45
pubmed: 24366990
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2016 Apr 01;65(3):1-23
pubmed: 27031587
J Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;62(2):212-218
pubmed: 29174939
Pediatrics. 2012 May;129(5):e1275-81
pubmed: 22508925
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Apr 1;171(4):327-334
pubmed: 28192551
Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125(1):e17-23
pubmed: 19948568
N Engl J Med. 1976 Dec 9;295(24):1351-5
pubmed: 988482
J Pediatr Nurs. 2015 Jan-Feb;30(1):227-35
pubmed: 25017291
Appl Clin Inform. 2015 Jan 07;6(1):1-15
pubmed: 25848409
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Feb 9;169(3):305-11
pubmed: 19204222
Pediatrics. 2016 Sep;138(3):
pubmed: 27542847
Pediatrics. 2015 Oct;136 Suppl 1:S41-59
pubmed: 26430169
Acad Pediatr. 2017 Jul;17(5):464-470
pubmed: 28286136
JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1223-38
pubmed: 15755945
Appl Clin Inform. 2015 Jul 15;6(3):454-65
pubmed: 26448791
Am J Public Health. 2009 Mar;99(3):493-8
pubmed: 19106426
Pediatrics. 2007 Nov;120(5):1183-215
pubmed: 17967920
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016 Apr;58(4):369-75
pubmed: 26303216
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014 Feb;53(2):141-52
pubmed: 24472250
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2018 Apr 27;67(6):1-23
pubmed: 29701730
Pediatrics. 2013 Sep;132(3):e623-9
pubmed: 23958768
JAMA Pediatr. 2014 Sep;168(9):815-21
pubmed: 25022724
Am J Ment Retard. 2005 Nov;110(6):417-38
pubmed: 16212446
JAMA Pediatr. 2013 Apr;167(4):341-7
pubmed: 23381234
Artif Intell Med. 2018 Nov;92:15-23
pubmed: 26547523
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Mar-Apr;20(2):311-6
pubmed: 22744960
Afr Health Sci. 2017 Mar;17(1):52-61
pubmed: 29026377