ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2012
Arriba-lib: evaluation of an electronic library of decision aids in primary care physicians.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- GP perspectives on a computer-assisted strategy to support PPI deprescribing: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Time-to-event versus ten-year-absolute-risk in cardiovascular risk prevention - does it make a difference? Results from the Optimizing-Risk-Communication (OptRisk) randomized-controlled trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Trial
- An informed shared decision making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: protocol of a cluster randomised, controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2015Trial
- Assessing physicians' agreement and the completeness of the decision aid 'arriba Diabetes': a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Validation of Cardiovascular Risk Prediction by the Arriba Instrument.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2022Article
- Article
- The Optimizing-Risk-Communication (OptRisk) randomized trial - impact of decision-aid-based consultation on adherence and perception of cardiovascular risk.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Development and validation of a generic questionnaire for the implementation of complex medical interventions.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2014Article
- Physician behaviors surrounding the implementation of decision and communication AIDS in a breast cancer clinic: a qualitative analysis of staff intern perceptions.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe successful implementation of decision aids in clinical practice initially depends on how clinicians perceive them. Relatively little is known about the acceptance of decision aids by physicians and factors influencing the implementation of decision aids from their point of view. Our electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) is to be used within the encounter and has a modular structure containing evidence-based decision aids for the following topics: cardiovascular prevention, atrial fibrillation, coronary heart disease, oral antidiabetics, conventional and intensified insulin therapy, and unipolar depression. The aim of our study was to evaluate the acceptance of arriba-lib in primary care physicians.
methodsWe conducted an evaluation study in which 29 primary care physicians included 192 patients. The physician questionnaire contained information on which module was used, how extensive steps of the shared decision making process were discussed, who made the decision, and a subjective appraisal of consultation length. We used generalised estimation equations to measure associations within patient variables and traditional crosstab analyses.
resultsOnly a minority of consultations (8.9%) was considered to be unacceptably extended. In 90.6% of consultations, physicians said that a decision could be made. A shared decision was perceived by physicians in 57.1% of consultations. Physicians said that a decision was more likely to be made when therapeutic options were discussed "detailed". Prior experience with decision aids was not a critical variable for implementation within our sample of primary care physicians.
conclusionsOur study showed that it might be feasible to apply our electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) in the primary care context. Evidence-based decision aids offer support for physicians in the management of medical information. Future studies should monitor the long-term adoption of arriba-lib in primary care physicians.
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.