3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Real-world implementation of precision psychiatry: Transdiagnostic risk calculator for the automatic detection of individuals at-risk of psychosis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Risk estimation models integrated into Electronic Health Records (EHRs) can deliver innovative approaches in psychiatry, but clinicians' endorsement and their real-world usability are unknown. This study aimed to investigate the real-world feasibility of implementing an individualised, transdiagnostic risk calculator to automatically screen EHRs and detect individuals at-risk for psychosis.

          Methods

          Feasibility implementation study encompassing an in-vitro phase (March 2018 to May 2018) and in-vivo phase (May 2018 to April 2019). The in-vitro phase addressed implementation barriers and embedded the risk calculator (predictors: age, gender, ethnicity, index cluster diagnosis, age*gender) into the local EHR. The in-vivo phase investigated the real-world feasibility of screening individuals accessing secondary mental healthcare at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. The primary outcome was adherence of clinicians to automatic EHR screening, defined by the proportion of clinicians who responded to alerts from the risk calculator, over those contacted.

          Results

          In-vitro phase: implementation barriers were identified/overcome with clinician and service user engagement, and the calculator was successfully integrated into the local EHR through the CogStack platform. In-vivo phase: 3722 individuals were automatically screened and 115 were detected. Clinician adherence was 74% without outreach and 85% with outreach. One-third of clinicians responded to the first email (37.1%) or phone calls (33.7%). Among those detected, cumulative risk of developing psychosis was 12% at six-month follow-up.

          Conclusion

          This is the first implementation study suggesting that combining precision psychiatry and EHR methods to improve detection of individuals with emerging psychosis is feasible. Future psychiatric implementation research is urgently needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

            Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

              Background In 2009, Damschroder et al. developed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which provides a comprehensive listing of constructs thought to influence implementation. This systematic review assesses the extent to which the CFIR’s use in implementation research fulfills goals set forth by Damschroder et al. in terms of breadth of use, depth of application, and contribution to implementation research. Methods We searched Scopus and Web of Science for publications that cited the original CFIR publication by Damschroder et al. (Implement Sci 4:50, 2009) and downloaded each unique result for review. After applying exclusion criteria, the final articles were empirical studies published in peer-review journals that used the CFIR in a meaningful way (i.e., used the CFIR to guide data collection, measurement, coding, analysis, and/or reporting). A framework analysis approach was used to guide abstraction and synthesis of the included articles. Results Twenty-six of 429 unique articles (6 %) met inclusion criteria. We found great breadth in CFIR application; the CFIR was applied across a wide variety of study objectives, settings, and units of analysis. There was also variation in the method of included studies (mixed methods (n = 13); qualitative (n = 10); quantitative (n = 3)). Depth of CFIR application revealed some areas for improvement. Few studies (n = 3) reported justification for selection of CFIR constructs used; the majority of studies (n = 14) used the CFIR to guide data analysis only; and few studies investigated any outcomes (n = 11). Finally, reflections on the contribution of the CFIR to implementation research were scarce. Conclusions Our results indicate that the CFIR has been used across a wide range of studies, though more in-depth use of the CFIR may help advance implementation science. To harness its potential, researchers should consider how to most meaningfully use the CFIR. Specific recommendations for applying the CFIR include explicitly justifying selection of CFIR constructs; integrating the CFIR throughout the research process (in study design, data collection, and analysis); and appropriately using the CFIR given the phase of implementation of the research (e.g., if the research is post-implementation, using the CFIR to link determinants of implementation to outcomes). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Schizophr Res
                Schizophr Res
                Schizophrenia Research
                Elsevier Science Publisher B. V
                0920-9964
                1573-2509
                1 January 2021
                January 2021
                : 227
                : 52-60
                Affiliations
                [a ]Early Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
                [b ]National Institute for Health Research, Maudesley Biomedical Research Centre, South London and Maudsley National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
                [c ]Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
                [d ]Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
                [e ]Institute of Health Informatics Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [f ]South London and Maudsley Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
                [g ]Health Data Research UK London, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [h ]Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom
                [i ]OASIS Service, South London and Maudsley National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
                [j ]Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Early Psychosis: Interventions & Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom. paolo.fusar-poli@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                Article
                S0920-9964(20)30259-0
                10.1016/j.schres.2020.05.007
                7875179
                32571619
                87202f72-0509-49ea-b4ad-00d8c5d2cd8f
                © 2020 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 1 April 2020
                : 1 May 2020
                : 4 May 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Neurology
                precision psychiatry,feasibility,implementation,psychosis;transdiagnostic,risk calculator

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content50

                Cited by15

                Most referenced authors1,432