Quebec: Office of Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University (Vaisson, Witteman, Chipenda-Dansokho), Research Centre of the CHU de Québec, Laval University (Vaisson, Witteman), Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Laval University (Witteman), and Laval University Primary Care Research Centre, Laval University, Quebec City (Witteman).
Ontario: Family Practice Health Centre, Women's College Hospital, Toronto (Saragosa, Desveaux, Ivers); Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care, Women's College Hospital, Toronto (Saragosa, Bouck, Desveaux, Ivers); Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto (Bouck); Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto (Bravo, Llovet, Umar, Tinmouth); Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto (Llovet); Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa (Presseau, Taljaard, Grimshaw); School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa (Presseau, Taljaard); School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa (Presseau); Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa (Grimshaw); Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto (Tinmouth); Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto (Tinmouth); and Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto (Ivers).
Curr Oncol. 2019 Jun;26(3):205-216. doi: 10.3747/co.26.4829. Epub 2019 Jun 1.
In Ontario, an online audit and feedback tool that provides primary care physicians with detailed information about patients who are overdue for cancer screening is underused. In the present study, we aimed to examine the effect of messages operationalizing 3 behaviour change techniques on access to the audit and feedback tool and on cancer screening rates.
During May-September 2017, a pragmatic 2×2×2 factorial experiment tested 3 behaviour change techniques: anticipated regret, material incentive, and problem-solving. Outcomes were assessed using routinely collected administrative data. A qualitative process evaluation explored how and why the e-mail messages did or did not support Screening Activity Report access.
Of 5449 primary care physicians randomly allocated to 1 of 8 e-mail messages, fewer than half opened the messages and fewer than 1 in 10 clicked through the messages. Messages with problem-solving content were associated with a 12.9% relative reduction in access to the tool (risk ratio: 0.871; 95% confidence interval: 0.791 to 0.958; = 0.005), but a 0.3% increase in cervical cancer screening (rate ratio: 1.003; 95% confidence interval: 1.001 to 1.006; = 0.003). If true, that association would represent 7568 more patients being screened. No other significant effects were observed.
For audit and feedback to work, recipients must engage with the data; for e-mail messages to prompt activity, recipients must open and review the message content. This large factorial experiment demonstrated that small changes in the content of such e-mail messages might influence clinical behaviour. Future research should focus on strategies to make cancer screening more user-centred.
在安大略省,一种提供给初级保健医生关于癌症筛查逾期患者详细信息的在线审核和反馈工具未得到充分利用。在本研究中,我们旨在检验实施 3 种行为改变技术的信息对访问审核和反馈工具以及癌症筛查率的影响。
在 2017 年 5 月至 9 月期间,一项实用的 2×2×2 析因实验测试了 3 种行为改变技术:预期后悔、物质激励和解决问题。使用常规收集的行政数据评估结果。定性过程评估探讨了电子邮件信息是如何以及为何支持或不支持 Screening Activity Report 访问。
在随机分配到 8 封电子邮件中的 5449 名初级保健医生中,不到一半的人打开了邮件,不到十分之一的人点击了邮件。包含解决问题内容的邮件与工具访问量减少 12.9%(风险比:0.871;95%置信区间:0.791 至 0.958; = 0.005)相关,但宫颈癌筛查率增加 0.3%(率比:1.003;95%置信区间:1.001 至 1.006; = 0.003)。如果这是真的,那么这将代表有 7568 多名患者接受了筛查。未观察到其他显著影响。
为了使审核和反馈发挥作用,收件人必须与数据互动;为了使电子邮件信息提示活动,收件人必须打开并查看邮件内容。这项大型析因实验表明,此类电子邮件信息内容的微小变化可能会影响临床行为。未来的研究应集中于使癌症筛查更以用户为中心的策略。