Feasibility Study of a Patient-centered CDS for Recommended Screenings in Primary Care

Describe quantitatively the feasibility criteria for the implementation of the ADER-F intervention according to the GUIDES checklist domains.

The checklist GUIDES is the standard for evaluating indicators that promote the implementation of an CDS (computerized decision support) system based on clinical practice recommendations. According to this guide, indicators evenly distributed across four areas (a favorable context for use, an appropriate content, an effective system, a proper implementation) determine the success of an CDS system implementation. Questionnaire GUIDES consists of 12 items distributed across this four areas. Each item is scored using a 7-point Likert scale. Responses were code as follows : 1 for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 for somewhat disagree, 4 for undecided, 5 for somewhat agree, 6 for agree, 7 for strongly agree.

The scores per domain are the average of the scores assigned to the various items comprising each domain (range 1 to 7). Domains with l

Describe quantitatively the feasibility criteria for the implementation of the ADER-F intervention according to the GUIDES checklist domains using patient satisfaction questionnaire (12 items - 7-point Likert scale).

The satisfaction questionnaire is interpreted according to the areas of the GUIDES Check List. According to this guide, 16 indicators, evenly distributed across 4 areas, determine the success of implementing a SADM (Simplified Access Management System). These four areas lead researchers to ensure that the context of use is favorable, the content appropriate, the system efficient, and the implementation adequate.

Describe quantitatively the feasibility criteria for the implementation of the ADER-F intervention according to the areas GUIDES checklist domains using primary care professional questionnaire (11 items - 7-point Likert scale)

Assessment of the Lianeli SADM user experience (patient and Primary care professional) using the SUS scale The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a questionnaire for measuring the usability of interactive systems, comprising ten items formulated in the form of affirmative sentences. For each sentence, users are asked to express their agreement or disagreement, using a 5-point Lickert scale.

Assessment of the Lianeli SADM user experience (patient and Primary care professional) using the SUS scale The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a questionnaire for measuring the usability of interactive systems, comprising ten items formulated in the form of affirmative sentences. For each sentence, users are asked to express their agreement or disagreement, using a 5-point Lickert scale. The results of the SUS questionnaire are used to calculate the satisfaction score. This score ranges from 1 to 100. A score of 75 or above is generally considered "good," while a score between 50 and 75 is considered

To assess the effect of interprofessional use of the Lianeli SADM on the primary endpoint.

Interprofessional work will be defined as the collaboration of at least two healthcare professionals (including the general practitioner) with the patient as part of the ADER-F intervention

To assess the effect of patients' health literacy on the primary endpoint. Health literacy will be assessed using the HLS-EU16 (European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire). This questionnaire comprises 16 questions using a 5-point Likert scale. The HLS-EU16 L scale assesses one dimension of health literacy in the general population. The French version of the HLS-EU-Q16 has acceptable psychometric properties.

European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (Erreur dans proto - échelle Likert en 4 points) The results of the HLS-EU16 scale reveal the health literacy levels of the participants. Responses were coded as follows: 0 for "quite difficult" and "very difficult," and 1 for "quite easy" and "very easy." The total score, which ranges from 0 to 16, allows participants' health literacy to be classified into three levels: Inadequate (0-8), Problematic (9-12), Sufficient (13-16)

EPICES : Assessment of Precarity and Health Inequalities in Health Examination Centers To assess the effect of patients' precariousness and health inequalities on the primary outcome.

Health insecurity will be assessed using the EPICES scale. This questionnaire is an individual indicator of precariousness that considers the multidimensional nature of precariousness. It consists of 11 binary yes/no questions. The answer to each question is assigned a coefficient, and the sum of the 11 answers gives the EPICES score. The score is continuous, ranging from 0 (absence of precariousness) to 100 (maximum precariousness). A single score of 30.17 is considered relevant.

The proportion of patients for whom the intervention is likely to improve participation in the three organized cancer screenings (colorectal, breast, cervical) will be assessed within the population of patients identified as eligible for at least one of the three organized screenings (previous examination performed within a timeframe greater than the recommended timeframe, or never performed) by the proportion of patients who attended the dedicated screening consultation within 60 days of the inclusion consultation.

The proportion of patients for whom the intervention is likely to improve participation in opportunistic cancer screening will be assessed within the population of patients identified as eligible for at least one of the opportunistic cancer screenings (high-risk colorectal cancer, high-risk breast cancer, high-risk stomach cancer - previous examination performed within a timeframe greater than the recommended timeframe or never performed) by the proportion of patients who attended the dedicated screening consultation within 60 days of the inclusion consultation.

Describe quantitatively the feasibility criteria for the implementation of the ADER-F intervention from Lianeli usage metadata