Veterans Healthcare Administration providers' attitudes and perceptions regarding pragmatic trials embedded at the point of care. (June 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Weir, Charlene R; Butler, Jorie; Thraen, Iona; Woods, Patricia A; Hermos, John; Ferguson, Ryan; Gleason, Theresa; Barrus, Robyn; Fiore, Louis
• Is Part Of: Clinical trials. Volume 11:Number 3(2014)
• Page Start: 292
• Page End: 299
• Publication Date: 2014-06
• Subjects: 615.5072405
• DOI: 10.1177/1740774514523848
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1740-7745

Abstract

Background: The Veterans Healthcare Administration (VA) is implementing an adaptation of a pragmatic trial program, Point of Care Research (POC-R). The goal of POC-R is to embed research into clinical practice, contributing to a Learning Healthcare System. Provider acceptance and participation in POC-R is essential to its successful implementation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate provider's perceptions and beliefs regarding the POC-R program. Methods: Provider focus groups and interviews were conducted at seven VA medical facilities involving 62 providers. A semi-structured script was used that included descriptions of four use cases and targeted questions regarding perceptions, concerns, and attitudes about the POC-R program. Sessions were audio-taped, de-identified, transcribed, and analyzed using systematic qualitative techniques to create response categories and overarching themes. Results: The emergent themes were as follows: (1) POC-R is a valuable component of evidence-based practice, providing an opportunity to base clinical practice on more generalizable evidence as well as providing tools to improve local practice; (2) POC-R highlights the tension between the need for autonomy of practice and compliance with protocols; (3) POC-R may create increased time and burden resulting from added research responsibilities; (4) concern about the scientific validity and reliability of results; (5) potential for a negative impact on the provider–patient relationship; and (6) uncertainty regarding what constitutes equipoise, given differences in provider knowledge and preferences. Despite substantive concerns, barriers were generally felt to be solvable. Implementation should include provider education, careful attention to workflow for all arms of the study, inclusion of the entire team, and adequate oversight. Limitations: The study design is qualitative with limited implications for causal inference. Participants are from the VA and may not be representative of other clinicians. Conclusion: VA providers are supportive of the importance and value of pragmatic trials in general and of POC-R in particular. However, providers have significant concerns regarding the burden, ethics, and evidence regarding equipoise. Results are discussed in terms of implementation recommendations.