Trial reportAcademic pediatrics
Pediatricians' responses to printed clinical reminders: does highlighting prompts improve responsiveness?
Trial report in Academic pediatrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Do providers use computerized clinical decision support systems? A systematic review and meta-regression of clinical decision support uptake.Implementation science : IS · 2022Pooled it
- Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Community-Engaged Research to Translate Developmental Screening and Referral Processes into Locally-Relevant, Family-Centered Language.Maternal and child health journal · 2020Article
- Characteristics Associated with Confidential Consultation for Adolescents in Primary Care.The Journal of pediatrics · 2018Article
- Experience with decision support system and comfort with topic predict clinicians' responses to alerts and reminders.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016Article
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
Abstract
objectivePhysicians typically respond to roughly half of the clinical decision support prompts they receive. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that selectively highlighting prompts in yellow would improve physicians' responsiveness.
methodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial using the Child Health Improvement Through Computer Automation clinical decision support system in 4 urban primary care pediatric clinics. Half of a set of electronic prompts of interest was highlighted in yellow when presented to physicians in 2 clinics. The other half of the prompts was highlighted when presented to physicians in the other 2 clinics. Analyses compared physician responsiveness to the 2 randomized sets of prompts: highlighted versus not highlighted. Additionally, several prompts deemed high priority were highlighted during the entire study period in all clinics. Physician response rates to the high-priority highlighted prompts were compared to response rates for those prompts from the year before the study period, when they were not highlighted.
resultsPhysicians did not respond to prompts that were highlighted at higher rates than prompts that were not highlighted (62% and 61%, respectively; odds ratio 1.056, P = .259, NS). Similarly, physicians were no more likely to respond to high-priority prompts that were highlighted compared to the year before, when the prompts were not highlighted (59% and 59%, respectively, χ(2) = 0.067, P = .796, NS).
conclusionsHighlighting reminder prompts did not increase physicians' responsiveness. We provide possible explanations why highlighting did not improve responsiveness and offer alternative strategies to increasing physician responsiveness to prompts.
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.