From Calculation to Communication: Using Risk Score Calculators to Inform Clinical Decision Making and Facilitate Patient Engagement.

clinical decision making risk communication risk score calculator

Journal

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
ISSN: 1552-681X
Titre abrégé: Med Decis Making
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8109073

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 Oct 2024
Historique:
medline: 8 10 2024
pubmed: 8 10 2024
entrez: 8 10 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Risk score calculators are a widely developed tool to support clinicians in identifying and managing risk for certain diseases. However, little is known about physicians' applied experiences with risk score calculators and the role of risk score estimates in clinical decision making and patient communication. Physicians providing care in outpatient community-based clinical settings ( Participants referenced at least 20 risk score calculators, the most common being the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator. Ecological factors related to the clinical system (e.g., time), patient (e.g., receptivity), and physician (e.g., experience) influenced conditions and patterns of risk score calculator use. For example, compared with attending physicians, residents tended to use a greater variety of risk score calculators and with higher frequency. Risk score estimates were generally used in clinical decision making to improve or validate clinical judgment and in patient communication to serve as a motivational tool. The degree to which risk score estimates influenced physician decision making and whether and how these scores were communicated to patients varied, reflecting a nuanced role of risk score calculator use in clinical practice. The theory of planned behavior can help explain how attitudes, beliefs, and norms shape the use of risk score estimates in clinical decision making and patient communication. Additional research is needed to evaluate best practices in the use of risk score calculators and risk score estimates. The risk score calculators and estimates that participants referenced in this study represented a range of conditions (e.g., heart disease, anxiety), levels of model complexity (e.g., probability calculations, scales of severity), and output formats (e.g., point estimates, risk intervals).Risk score calculators that are easily accessed, have simple inputs, and are trusted by physicians appear more likely to be used.Risk score estimates were generally used in clinical decision making to improve or validate clinical judgment and in patient communication to serve as a motivational tool.Risk score estimates helped participants manage the uncertainty and complexity of various clinical situations, yet consideration of the limitations of these estimates was relatively minimal.Developers of risk score calculators should consider the patient- (e.g., response to risk score estimates) and physician- (e.g., training status) related characteristics that influence risk score calculator use in addition that of the clinical system.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Risk score calculators are a widely developed tool to support clinicians in identifying and managing risk for certain diseases. However, little is known about physicians' applied experiences with risk score calculators and the role of risk score estimates in clinical decision making and patient communication.
METHODS METHODS
Physicians providing care in outpatient community-based clinical settings (
RESULTS RESULTS
Participants referenced at least 20 risk score calculators, the most common being the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator. Ecological factors related to the clinical system (e.g., time), patient (e.g., receptivity), and physician (e.g., experience) influenced conditions and patterns of risk score calculator use. For example, compared with attending physicians, residents tended to use a greater variety of risk score calculators and with higher frequency. Risk score estimates were generally used in clinical decision making to improve or validate clinical judgment and in patient communication to serve as a motivational tool.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The degree to which risk score estimates influenced physician decision making and whether and how these scores were communicated to patients varied, reflecting a nuanced role of risk score calculator use in clinical practice. The theory of planned behavior can help explain how attitudes, beliefs, and norms shape the use of risk score estimates in clinical decision making and patient communication. Additional research is needed to evaluate best practices in the use of risk score calculators and risk score estimates.
HIGHLIGHTS CONCLUSIONS
The risk score calculators and estimates that participants referenced in this study represented a range of conditions (e.g., heart disease, anxiety), levels of model complexity (e.g., probability calculations, scales of severity), and output formats (e.g., point estimates, risk intervals).Risk score calculators that are easily accessed, have simple inputs, and are trusted by physicians appear more likely to be used.Risk score estimates were generally used in clinical decision making to improve or validate clinical judgment and in patient communication to serve as a motivational tool.Risk score estimates helped participants manage the uncertainty and complexity of various clinical situations, yet consideration of the limitations of these estimates was relatively minimal.Developers of risk score calculators should consider the patient- (e.g., response to risk score estimates) and physician- (e.g., training status) related characteristics that influence risk score calculator use in addition that of the clinical system.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39377500
doi: 10.1177/0272989X241285036
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

272989X241285036

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: EMM is or has been a consultant to Amgen, Cytokinetics, PepGen, Pfizer, and Tenaya Therapeutics and is a founder of Ikaika Therapeutics. These activities are unrelated to the content of this article. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Hoda Fakhari (H)

Department of Communication Studies, School of Communication, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.

Courtney L Scherr (CL)

Department of Communication Studies, School of Communication, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.

Sydney Moe (S)

Department of Communication Studies, School of Communication, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.

Christin Hoell (C)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.

Maureen E Smith (ME)

Center for Genetic Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.

Laura J Rasmussen-Torvik (LJ)

Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.

Rex L Chisholm (RL)

Center for Genetic Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.

Elizabeth M McNally (EM)

Center for Genetic Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.

Classifications MeSH