Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28599817›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2017

User-centered design to improve clinical decision support in primary care.

Julian Brunner, Emmeline Chuang, Caroline Goldzweig, Cindy L Cain, Catherine Sugar, Elizabeth M Yano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

6 authors.

Julian BrunnerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, University of California, Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles Young Dr. S., Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA; VA HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (Sepulveda Campus),16111 Plummer Street, Mailcode 152, Sepulveda, CA 91343, USA. Electronic address: julianbrunner@ucla.edu.
Emmeline ChuangDepartment of Health Policy and Management, University of California, Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles Young Dr. S., Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Caroline GoldzweigCedars-Sinai Medical Center,8700 Beverly Blvd., Suite 2211, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA, USA.
Cindy L CainDepartment of Health Policy and Management, University of California, Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles Young Dr. S., Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Catherine SugarDepartment of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles Young Dr. S., Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Elizabeth M YanoVA HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (Sepulveda Campus),16111 Plummer Street, Mailcode 152, Sepulveda, CA 91343, USA.

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR001883 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ALEX BUI, Nina Thawata Harawa · 2016 to 2026
$8.6M
UCLA Clinical and Translational Science InstituteTL1TR000121 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DUBINETT, STEVEN M. · 2012 to 2015
$2.7M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000121NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001883
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA growing literature has demonstrated the ability of user-centered design to make clinical decision support systems more effective and easier to use. However, studies of user-centered design have rarely examined more than a handful of sites at a time, and have frequently neglected the implementation climate and organizational resources that influence clinical decision support. The inclusion of such factors was identified by a systematic review as "the most important improvement that can be made in health IT evaluations."

objectives(1) Identify the prevalence of four user-centered design practices at United States Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics and assess the perceived utility of clinical decision support at those clinics; (2) Evaluate the association between those user-centered design practices and the perceived utility of clinical decision support.

methodsWe analyzed clinic-level survey data collected in 2006-2007 from 170 VA primary care clinics. We examined four user-centered design practices: 1) pilot testing, 2) provider satisfaction assessment, 3) formal usability assessment, and 4) analysis of impact on performance improvement. We used a regression model to evaluate the association between user-centered design practices and the perceived utility of clinical decision support, while accounting for other important factors at those clinics, including implementation climate, available resources, and structural characteristics. We also examined associations separately at community-based clinics and at hospital-based clinics.

resultsUser-centered design practices for clinical decision support varied across clinics: 74% conducted pilot testing, 62% conducted provider satisfaction assessment, 36% conducted a formal usability assessment, and 79% conducted an analysis of impact on performance improvement. Overall perceived utility of clinical decision support was high, with a mean rating of 4.17 (±.67) out of 5 on a composite measure. "Analysis of impact on performance improvement" was the only user-centered design practice significantly associated with perceived utility of clinical decision support, b=.47 (p<.001). This association was present in hospital-based clinics, b=.34 (p<.05), but was stronger at community-based clinics, b=.61 (p<.001).

conclusionsOur findings are highly supportive of the practice of analyzing the impact of clinical decision support on performance metrics. This was the most common user-centered design practice in our study, and was the practice associated with higher perceived utility of clinical decision support. This practice may be particularly helpful at community-based clinics, which are typically less connected to VA medical center resources.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalResearch DesignUser-Computer InterfaceHospitalsHumansPatient-Centered CarePrimary Health CareQuality ImprovementUnited StatesClinical decision supportHuman factorsUsabilityUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID28599817
PMCPMC5836500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.