Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26459233›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015

Implementation of multiple-domain covering computerized decision support systems in primary care: a focus group study on perceived barriers.

Marjolein Lugtenberg, Jan-Willem Weenink, Trudy van der Weijden, Gert P Westert, Rudolf B Kool

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marjolein LugtenbergScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. m.lugtenberg@tilburguniversity.edu.
Jan-Willem WeeninkScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Trudy van der WeijdenSchool for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Department of General Practice, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Gert P WestertScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rudolf B KoolScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the widespread availability of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) in various healthcare settings, evidence on their uptake and effectiveness is still limited. Most barrier studies focus on CDSSs that are aimed at a limited number of decision points within selected small-scale academic settings. The aim of this study was to identify the perceived barriers to using large-scale implemented CDSSs covering multiple disease areas in primary care.

methodsThree focus group sessions were conducted in which 24 primary care practitioners (PCPs) participated (general practitioners, general practitioners in training and practice nurses), varying from 7 to 9 per session. In each focus group, barriers to using CDSSs were discussed using a semi-structured literature-based topic list. Focus group discussions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently performed thematic content analysis using the software program Atlas.ti 7.0.

resultsThree groups of barriers emerged, related to 1) the users' knowledge of the system, 2) the users' evaluation of features of the system (source and content, format/lay out, and functionality), and 3) the interaction of the system with external factors (patient-related and environmental factors). Commonly perceived barriers were insufficient knowledge of the CDSS, irrelevant alerts, too high intensity of alerts, a lack of flexibility and learning capacity of the CDSS, a negative effect on patient communication, and the additional time and work it requires to use the CDSS.

conclusionsMultiple types of barriers may hinder the use of large-scale implemented CDSSs covering multiple disease areas in primary care. Lack of knowledge of the system is an important barrier, emphasizing the importance of a proper introduction of the system to the target group. Furthermore, barriers related to a lack of integration into daily practice seem to be of primary concern, suggesting that increasing the system's flexibility and learning capacity in order to be able to adapt the decision support to meet the varying needs of different users should be the main target of CDSS interventions.

Indexed as

AdultDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFemaleFocus GroupsGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMiddle AgedNurse PractitionersPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID26459233
PMCPMC4603732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.