This study will collect high-quality data on how practicing obstetricians across the U.S. currently manage patients showing signs and/or symptoms of preeclampsia and how the results of Progenity's test change clinical decision making. To do so, this study leverages simulated patient cases called Clinical Performance and Value vignettes (CPVs) in a proven methodology to rapidly measure physician care decisions.
This study will collect high-quality data on how practicing obstetricians across the U.S. currently manage patients showing signs and/or symptoms of preeclampsia and how the results of Progenity's test change clinical decision making. Data from this study will better illuminate the clinical use cases with the most significant impact on clinical decision making (and thus the largest potential clinical utility) and the associated physician characteristics (e.g., age, practice setting, training) associated with test adoption. This study leverages simulated patient cases called Clinical Performance and Value vignettes (CPVs) in a proven methodology to rapidly measure physician care decisions. CPVs are a unique and scalable tool that standardizes practice measurement by having all providers care for the same (virtual) patients. With all providers caring for the same patients, the CPVs generate unbiased data that yields powerful insights into clinical decision making and how these decisions change with the introduction of a new product or solution. Data from the CPVs can quickly demonstrate the clinical utility of a solution, be published in peer-reviewed literature, inform marketing strategies and positively impact coverage and reimbursement decisions. The study is a prospective cohort trial with five steps: 1. Enrollment: The study will enroll 110 practicing obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs) in the U.S. who are determined to be eligible by an eligibility screener. 2. Provider survey: Once providers are enrolled in the study, they will be asked to complete a questionnaire describing their practice and professional background. 3. Randomization: The 110 OB/GYNs will be randomized into equally-sized (55) control and intervention arms. 4. Education: The intervention-arm OB/GYNs will receive educational materials duplicating what physicians would receive in the real-world market as they adopt the Progenity technology. These materials are comprised of a slide deck and/or a fact sheet. 5. CPVs: Physicians will then complete the four CPV patient simulations in random order. Cases will be identical across the intervention and control arms, except that the intervention arm will receive Progenity PE test results at an appropriate point in each simulated case. All cases are presented on an online platform, participants are provided with unique weblinks, accessible via any internet-connected computer.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
108
* First, these providers will receive educational materials (e.g. a slide deck) meant to mimic what physicians will receive in the real-world market as they learn about the Progenity technology. * Second, within each of their four cases, intervention-arm physicians only will receive simulated test results from the Progenity PE test at the clinically-appropriate point in each case.
QURE Healthcare
San Francisco, California, United States
CPV-measured cost difference
Difference in cost of suspected PE-related care between control and intervention physicians. (Cost is calculated by measuring differential rates of medical interventions/levels of care selected by each arm on their CPVs, and multiplying by Medicare reimbursement rates for these interventions/levels of care.)
Time frame: One week
CPV-measured clinical score difference
Difference in the overall, and the diagnostic and treatment quality scores between control and intervention physicians. Diagnostic and treatment scores are calculated as the percent correct on CPVs, and the overall score is a average score of the subcategory scores (percent correct).
Time frame: One week
CPV-measured cost differences by use case
Difference in cost of suspected PE-related care between control and intervention physicians. (Cost is calculated by measuring differential rates of medical interventions/levels of care selected by each arm on their CPVs, and multiplying by Medicare reimbursement rates for these interventions/levels of care.) This will be examined for each of the four use cases to determine in which case(s) cost metrics most improved.
Time frame: One week
CPV-measured clinical score differences by use case
Difference in the overall, and the diagnostic and treatment quality scores between control and intervention physicians. Diagnostic and treatment scores are calculated as the percent correct on CPVs, and the overall score is a average score of the subcategory scores (percent correct). This will be examined for each of the four use cases to determine in which case(s) CPV scores most improved.
Time frame: One week
CPV-calculated baseline variation
Baseline (control physicians) levels of variation in the work-up and management of suspected PE patients. Variation is examined by looking at the range and standard deviation of the overall baseline scores for each CPV.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: One week