ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2010
Development of a prototype clinical decision support tool for osteoporosis disease management: a qualitative study of focus groups.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exploring the role of professional identity in the implementation of clinical decision support systems-a narrative review.Implementation science : IS · 2024Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to clinical information seeking: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Complex interventions can increase osteoporosis investigations and treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2018Pooled it
- STARE-HI - Statement on Reporting of Evaluation Studies in Health Informatics: explanation and elaboration.Applied clinical informatics · 2013Guideline
- Evaluation of the EsteR Toolkit for COVID-19 Decision Support: Sensitivity Analysis and Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Article
- Principles for Real-World Implementation of Bedside Predictive Analytics Monitoring.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
- Primary care physicians' views on osteoporosis management: a qualitative study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2019Article
- Qualitative Insights from the Osteoporosis Research: A Narrative Review of the Literature.Journal of osteoporosis · 2016Review
- District nurses' perceptions of osteoporosis management: a qualitative study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2015Article
- A knowledge translation tool improved osteoporosis disease management in primary care: an interrupted time series analysis.Implementation science : IS · 2014Article
- Developing a patient and family-centred approach for measuring the quality of injury care: a study protocol.BMC health services research · 2013Article
- Evaluation of a clinical decision support tool for osteoporosis disease management: protocol for an interrupted time series design.Implementation science : IS · 2011Article
- Usability evaluation of a clinical decision support tool for osteoporosis disease management.Implementation science : IS · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOsteoporosis affects over 200 million people worldwide, and represents a significant cost burden. Although guidelines are available for best practice in osteoporosis, evidence indicates that patients are not receiving appropriate diagnostic testing or treatment according to guidelines. The use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) may be one solution because they can facilitate knowledge translation by providing high-quality evidence at the point of care. Findings from a systematic review of osteoporosis interventions and consultation with clinical and human factors engineering experts were used to develop a conceptual model of an osteoporosis tool. We conducted a qualitative study of focus groups to better understand physicians' perceptions of CDSSs and to transform the conceptual osteoporosis tool into a functional prototype that can support clinical decision making in osteoporosis disease management at the point of care.
methodsThe conceptual design of the osteoporosis tool was tested in 4 progressive focus groups with family physicians and general internists. An iterative strategy was used to qualitatively explore the experiences of physicians with CDSSs; and to find out what features, functions, and evidence should be included in a working prototype. Focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide using an iterative process where results of the first focus group informed changes to the questions for subsequent focus groups and to the conceptual tool design. Transcripts were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using grounded theory methodology.
resultsOf the 3 broad categories of themes that were identified, major barriers related to the accuracy and feasibility of extracting bone mineral density test results and medications from the risk assessment questionnaire; using an electronic input device such as a Tablet PC in the waiting room; and the importance of including well-balanced information in the patient education component of the osteoporosis tool. Suggestions for modifying the tool included the addition of a percentile graph showing patients' 10-year risk for osteoporosis or fractures, and ensuring that the tool takes no more than 5 minutes to complete.
conclusionsFocus group data revealed the facilitators and barriers to using the osteoporosis tool at the point of care so that it can be optimized to aid physicians in their clinical decision making.
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.