ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2006
Decision tools in health care: focus on the problem, not the solution.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A knowledge-based taxonomy of critical factors for adopting electronic health record systems by physicians: a systematic literature review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2010Pooled it
- Decision discovery using clinical decision support system decision log data for supporting the nurse decision-making process.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Agreement and consistency in the triaging of musculoskeletal primary care referrals by vetting clinicians using a knowledge-based triage tool.Primary health care research & development · 2023Article
- Article
- Exploring Human-Data Interaction in Clinical Decision-making Using Scenarios: Co-design Study.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- Using cognitive pre-testing methods in the development of a new evidenced-based pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- Two Validated Ways of Improving the Ability of Decision-Making in Emergencies; Results from a Literature Review.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 2016Review
- Clinical Decision Support: a 25 Year Retrospective and a 25 Year Vision.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Review
- The clinical decision analysis using decision tree.Epidemiology and health · 2014Article
- A Cognitive Modeling Approach to Decision Support Tool Design for Anesthesia Provider Crisis Management.International journal of human-computer interaction · 2013Article
- A knowledge authoring tool for clinical decision support.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2008Article
- A decision aid for COPD patients considering inhaled steroid therapy: development and before and after pilot testing.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews or randomised-controlled trials usually help to establish the effectiveness of drugs and other health technologies, but are rarely sufficient by themselves to ensure actual clinical use of the technology. The process from innovation to routine clinical use is complex. Numerous computerised decision support systems (DSS) have been developed, but many fail to be taken up into actual use. Some developers construct technologically advanced systems with little relevance to the real world. Others did not determine whether a clinical need exists. With NHS investing 5 billion pounds sterling in computer systems, also occurring in other countries, there is an urgent need to shift from a technology-driven approach to one that identifies and employs the most cost-effective method to manage knowledge, regardless of the technology. The generic term, 'decision tool' (DT), is therefore suggested to demonstrate that these aids, which seem different technically, are conceptually the same from a clinical viewpoint. DISCUSSION: Many computerised DSSs failed for various reasons, for example, they were not based on best available knowledge; there was insufficient emphasis on their need for high quality clinical data; their development was technology-led; or evaluation methods were misapplied. We argue that DSSs and other computer-based, paper-based and even mechanical decision aids are members of a wider family of decision tools. A DT is an active knowledge resource that uses patient data to generate case specific advice, which supports decision making about individual patients by health professionals, the patients themselves or others concerned about them. The identification of DTs as a consistent and important category of health technology should encourage the sharing of lessons between DT developers and users and reduce the frequency of decision tool projects focusing only on technology. The focus of evaluation should become more clinical, with the impact of computer-based DTs being evaluated against other computer, paper- or mechanical tools, to identify the most cost effective tool for each clinical problem. SUMMARY: We suggested the generic term 'decision tool' to demonstrate that decision-making aids, such as computerised DSSs, paper algorithms, and reminders are conceptually the same, so the methods to evaluate them should be the same.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.