Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28915822›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

What hinders the uptake of computerized decision support systems in hospitals? A qualitative study and framework for implementation.

Elisa G Liberati, Francesca Ruggiero, Laura Galuppo, Mara Gorli, Marien González-Lorenzo, Marco Maraldi, Pietro Ruggieri, Hernan Polo Friz, Giuseppe Scaratti, Koren H Kwag and 2 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 168 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
168citing papers in PubMed, 11 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.

NCT04356274 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Participatory System Dynamics vs Audit and Feedback: A Cluster Randomized Trial of Mechanisms of Implementation Change to Expand Reach of Evidence-based Addiction and Mental Health Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorPalo Alto Veterans Institute for ResearchRan2019 to 2027Enrolled720ConditionsPTSD, Depression, Alcohol Use Disorder, Opioid Use DisorderArmsParticipatory System Dynamics (PSD), Audit and Feedback (AF)
NCT07398235 completednot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

A Qualitative Study to Explore the Barriers to Adoption of Clinical Decision Support Systems

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorMedway NHS Foundation TrustRan2026 to 2026Enrolled18ConditionsClinical Decision Support System (CDSS)ArmsSemi-structured interview
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

168 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  16. Clinical Decision Support Intervention for Rib Fracture Treatment.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2020
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

108 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors.

Elisa G LiberatiCambridge Centre for Health Services Research (CCHSR), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. egl24@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Francesca RuggieroUnità di Epidemiologia Clinica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Laura GaluppoDipartimento di Psicologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Agostino Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan, Italy.
Mara GorliDipartimento di Psicologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Agostino Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan, Italy.
Marien González-LorenzoDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Carlo Pascal 36, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Marco MaraldiClinica Ortopedica, Università degli Studi di Padova, Via Giustiniani 3, 35128, Padova, Italy.
Pietro RuggieriClinica Ortopedica, Università degli Studi di Padova, Via Giustiniani 3, 35128, Padova, Italy.
Hernan Polo FrizDipartimento Internistico, Ospedale di Vimercate, Via Santi Cosma e Damiano 10, 20871, Vimercate, Italy.
Giuseppe ScarattiDipartimento di Psicologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Agostino Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan, Italy.
Koren H KwagMedical School of International Health, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653, 84105, Beersheva, Israel.
Roberto VespignaniIRST Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori IRCCS, Via Piero Maroncelli 40, 47014, Meldola, Italy.
Lorenzo MojaUnità di Epidemiologia Clinica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT097899
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvanced Computerized Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) assist clinicians in their decision-making process, generating recommendations based on up-to-date scientific evidence. Although this technology has the potential to improve the quality of patient care, its mere provision does not guarantee uptake: even where CDSSs are available, clinicians often fail to adopt their recommendations. This study examines the barriers and facilitators to the uptake of an evidence-based CDSS as perceived by diverse health professionals in hospitals at different stages of CDSS adoption.

methodsQualitative study conducted as part of a series of randomized controlled trials of CDSSs. The sample includes two hospitals using a CDSS and two hospitals that aim to adopt a CDSS in the future. We interviewed physicians, nurses, information technology staff, and members of the boards of directors (n = 30). We used a constant comparative approach to develop a framework for guiding implementation.

resultsWe identified six clusters of experiences of, and attitudes towards CDSSs, which we label as "positions." The six positions represent a gradient of acquisition of control over CDSSs (from low to high) and are characterized by different types of barriers to CDSS uptake. The most severe barriers (prevalent in the first positions) include clinicians' perception that the CDSSs may reduce their professional autonomy or may be used against them in the event of medical-legal controversies. Moving towards the last positions, these barriers are substituted by technical and usability problems related to the technology interface. When all barriers are overcome, CDSSs are perceived as a working tool at the service of its users, integrating clinicians' reasoning and fostering organizational learning.

conclusionsBarriers and facilitators to the use of CDSSs are dynamic and may exist prior to their introduction in clinical contexts; providing a static list of obstacles and facilitators, irrespective of the specific implementation phase and context, may not be sufficient or useful to facilitate uptake. Factors such as clinicians' attitudes towards scientific evidences and guidelines, the quality of inter-disciplinary relationships, and an organizational ethos of transparency and accountability need to be considered when exploring the readiness of a hospital to adopt CDSSs.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalHospitalsHealth Plan ImplementationHumansQualitative ResearchClinical decision support systemsEvidence-based medicineHealthcare professionsHealth information technologyQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID28915822
PMCPMC5602839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.