ArticleFamily practice2024
Adoption, acceptance, and use of a decision support tool to promote timely investigations for cancer in primary care.
Article in Family practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pancreatic Cancer Risk Assessment Tools in Primary Care: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Implementation of a Quality Improvement and Clinical Decision Support Tool for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care: Process Evaluation.JMIR cancer · 2025Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe complexities of diagnosing cancer in general practice has driven the development of quality improvement (QI) interventions, including clinical decision support (CDS) and auditing tools. Future Health Today (FHT) is a novel QI tool, consisting of CDS at the point-of-care, practice population-level auditing, recall, and the monitoring of QI activities.
objectivesExplore the acceptability and usability of the FHT cancer module, which flags patients with abnormal test results that may be indicative of undiagnosed cancer.
methodsInterviews were conducted with general practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs), from practices participating in a randomized trial evaluating the appropriate follow-up of patients. Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) was used to analyse and interpret the data.
resultsThe majority of practices reported not using the auditing and QI components of the tool, only the CDS which was delivered at the point-of-care. The tool was used primarily by GPs; GPNs did not perceive the clinical recommendations to be within their role. For the CDS, facilitators for use included a good workflow fit, ease of use, low time cost, importance, and perceived knowledge gain. Barriers for use of the CDS included accuracy, competing priorities, and the patient population.
conclusionsThe CDS aligned with the clinical workflow of GPs, was considered non-disruptive to the consultation and easy to implement into usual care. By applying the CP-FIT theory, we were able to demonstrate the key drivers for GPs using the tool, and what limited the use by GPNs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.