047 Barriers and facilitators to appropriate thyroid function testing: a provincial mixed-methods study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Objectives</h3> Overdiagnosis of thyroid dysfunction is closely linked with thyroid function testing practices. Thyroid function testing in healthcare is common and unfortunately, often unnecessary. Guidelines outline that thyroid tests should not be carried out on asymptomatic patients and testing for thyroid stimulating hormone in these instances may lead to the detection of subclinical disease. To prevent overdiagnosis, de-implementation efforts must be made to reduce low-value use of thyroid function testing. To understand the underlying contributors to these testing practices, we performed a mixed-methods provincial study, to explore underlying clinical and social barriers and facilitators to appropriate testing. To guide future de-implementation, we mapped these factors onto the combined Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour (COM-B) model. <h3>Method</h3> Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted a province-wide survey of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) on thyroid function testing in British Columbia, Canada. Interested survey respondents were invited to attend focus group sessions. A semi-structured focus group guide was developed based on survey responses. The surveys and focus groups were conducted between June to October 2023. The survey quantitative data was summarized using simple statistics and the open-ended survey questions were summarized using summative content analysis. The survey results informed the design of the focus group guide. All focus group sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. The results were then synthesised and mapped onto the TDF COM-B model. <h3>Results</h3> 230 respondents completed the survey and 50 practitioners attended 6 focus groups. Results showed that social influences, namely patient expectations, driven by internet searches, were key influences over HCPs ordering thyroid function tests, linking to the opportunity section of TDF COM-B. Requests for specific tests made by alternative medicine practitioners, that differ from standard practice, caused patient confusion regarding care responsibility, adding to the social influence of patients. Further, the opportunity to change was influenced by system level factors such as limited access to both previous test results and specialists in remote areas. The capability of HCPs centred around knowledge gaps, due to lack of clear guidance regarding testing for specific patient groups. HCPs were motivated to change their thyroid testing practices. HCPs identified leveraging information systems (Opportunity), providing personalized feedback (Opportunity), and creating more educational resources (Opportunity and Capability) as facilitators of behaviour change towards appropriate thyroid testing. <h3>Conclusions</h3> To reduce the risk of overdiagnosis of thyroid dysfunction, interventions must target specific barriers to appropriate thyroid function testing. Using the combined TDF and COM-B, we established specific barriers and facilitators within the clinical and social context of thyroid testing in British Columbia. Our findings showed that healthcare providers were motivated to make changes to their thyroid testing practices. We found that changes could be made to their capability to change via educational resources and opportunity to change could be improved by introducing patient information materials and improving information systems. Our study outlines a systematic way forward for the design of tailored, multi-level, de-implementation interventions towards reducing unnecessary thyroid testing. Future studies should focus on implementing and evaluating such intervention elements to investigate if improvements can be made to thyroid testing practices in the province.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».