ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2015
Use of Mobile Clinical Decision Support Software by Junior Doctors at a UK Teaching Hospital: Identification and Evaluation of Barriers to Engagement.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the role of professional identity in the implementation of clinical decision support systems-a narrative review.Implementation science : IS · 2024Pooled it
- Attitudes of healthcare providers towards fertility preservation in Portugal: perceived support across indications and their ethical implications.BMC medical ethics · 2026Observational
- Acceptability of artificial intelligence for cervical cancer screening in Dschang, Cameroon: a qualitative study on patient perspectives.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- The Receptivity to Safety-Related Mobile Apps Among Commercial Fishing Captains: Descriptive Exploratory Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Segmenting Clinicians' Usage Patterns of a Digital Health Tool in Resource-Limited Settings: Clickstream Data Analysis and Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Designing a Novel Clinician Decision Support Tool for the Management of Acute Diarrhea in Bangladesh: Formative Qualitative Study.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- Hurdles for adopting mobile learning devices at the outset of clinical courses.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Article
- Health Care Staff's Experiences of Engagement When Introducing a Digital Decision Support System for Wound Management: Qualitative Study.JMIR human factors · 2020Article
- The impact of a multifaceted intervention to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing among discharged older adults: a before-and-after study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2020Article
- The art of note taking with mobile devices in medical education.BMC medical education · 2019Article
- "A Tool, Not a Crutch": Patient Perspectives About IBM Watson for Oncology Trained by Memorial Sloan Kettering.Journal of oncology practice · 2019Article
- Use of an online medical database for clinical decision-making processes: assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practice of oral health care providers.Advances in medical education and practice · 2019Article
- Online clinical decision support: how it is used at the point-of-care.BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning · 2017Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical decision support (CDS) tools improve clinical diagnostic decision making and patient safety. The availability of CDS to health care professionals has grown in line with the increased prevalence of apps and smart mobile devices. Despite these benefits, patients may have safety concerns about the use of mobile devices around medical equipment.
objectiveThis research explored the engagement of junior doctors (JDs) with CDS and the perceptions of patients about their use. There were three objectives for this research: (1) to measure the actual usage of CDS tools on mobile devices (mCDS) by JDs, (2) to explore the perceptions of JDs about the drivers and barriers to using mCDS, and (3) to explore the perceptions of patients about the use of mCDS.
methodsThis study used a mixed-methods approach to study the engagement of JDs with CDS accessed through mobile devices. Usage data were collected on the number of interactions by JDs with mCDS. The perceived drivers and barriers for JDs to using CDS were then explored by interviews. Finally, these findings were contrasted with the perception of patients about the use of mCDS by JDs.
resultsNine of the 16 JDs made a total of 142 recorded interactions with the mCDS over a 4-month period. Only 27 of the 114 interactions (24%) that could be categorized as on-shift or off-shift occurred on-shift. Eight individual, institutional, and cultural barriers to engagement emerged from interviews with the user group. In contrast to reported cautions and concerns about the impact of clinicians' use of mobile phone on patient health and safety, patients had positive perceptions about the use of mCDS.
conclusionsPatients reported positive perceptions toward mCDS. The usage of mCDS to support clinical decision making was considered to be positive as part of everyday clinical practice. The degree of engagement was found to be limited due to a number of individual, institutional, and cultural barriers. The majority of mCDS engagement occurred outside of the workplace. Further research is required to verify these findings and assess their implications for future policy and practice.
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.