Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBurns, A
dc.contributor.authorDonnelly, B
dc.contributor.authorFeyi-Waboso, J
dc.contributor.authorShephard, E
dc.contributor.authorCalitri, R
dc.contributor.authorTarrant, M
dc.contributor.authorDean, SG
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-27T10:29:02Z
dc.date.issued2022-06-29
dc.date.updated2022-07-27T09:24:03Z
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and synthesise qualitative research of electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) in primary care, examining how they affect the communication and understanding of diagnostic risk and uncertainty. eRATs are computer-based algorithms designed to help clinicians avoid missing important diagnoses, pick up possible symptoms early and facilitate shared decision-making. DESIGN: Systematic search, using predefined criteria of the published literature and synthesis of the qualitative data, using Thematic Synthesis. Database searches on 27 November 2019 were of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science, and a secondary search of the references of included articles. Included studies were those involving electronic risk assessment or decision support, pertaining to diagnosis in primary care, where qualitative data were presented. Non-empirical studies and non-English language studies were excluded. 5971 unique studies were identified of which 441 underwent full-text review. 26 studies were included for data extraction. A further two were found from citation searches. Quality appraisal was via the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) tool. Data extraction was via line by line coding. A thematic synthesis was performed. SETTING: Primary care. RESULTS: eRATs included differential diagnosis suggestion tools, tools which produce a future risk of disease development or recurrence or calculate a risk of current undiagnosed disease. Analytical themes were developed to describe separate aspects of the clinical consultation where risk and uncertainty are both central and altered via the use of an eRAT: 'Novel risk', 'Risk refinement', 'Autonomy', 'Communication', 'Fear' and 'Mistrust'. CONCLUSION: eRATs may improve the understanding and communication of risk in the primary care consultation. The themes of 'Fear' and 'Mistrust' could represent potential challenges with eRATs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD219446.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipUniversity of Exeteren_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipDennis and Mireille Gillings Foundationen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipCancer Research UKen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipMacmillanen_GB
dc.format.extente060101-
dc.format.mediumElectronic
dc.identifier.citationVol. 12, No. 6, article e060101en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060101
dc.identifier.grantnumber3521en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/130419
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-3610-3680 (Shephard, Elizabeth)
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0003-0889-4670 (Calitri, Raff)
dc.identifierScopusID: 24168014000 (Calitri, Raff)
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-7194-1428 (Tarrant, Mark)
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-3682-5149 (Dean, Sarah Gerard)
dc.identifierScopusID: 12804309300 | 56654882600 | 56844769700 | 57192416272 | 8583848900 (Dean, Sarah Gerard)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBMJ Publishingen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35768084en_GB
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.en_GB
dc.subjectprimary careen_GB
dc.subjectqualitative researchen_GB
dc.subjectrisk managementen_GB
dc.titleHow do electronic risk assessment tools affect the communication and understanding of diagnostic uncertainty in the primary care consultation? A systematic review and thematic synthesis.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2022-07-27T10:29:02Z
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
exeter.article-numberARTN e060101
exeter.place-of-publicationEngland
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from BMJ Publishing via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.descriptionData availability statement: Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBMJ Openen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Open, 12(6)
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-06-15
dc.rights.licenseCC BY-NC
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-06-29
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2022-07-27T10:24:08Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2022-07-27T10:29:02Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2022-06-29


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.