Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29025114›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2018

Comprehensive process model of clinical information interaction in primary care: results of a "best-fit" framework synthesis.

Tiffany C Veinot, Charles R Senteio, David Hanauer, Julie C Lowery

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Psychosocial information use for clinical decisions in diabetes care.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    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

4 authors.

Tiffany C VeinotSchool of Information and School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Charles R SenteioDepartment of Library and Information Science, School of Communication and Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
David HanauerDepartment of Pediatrics, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Julie C LoweryCenter for Clinical Management, Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To describe a new, comprehensive process model of clinical information interaction in primary care (Clinical Information Interaction Model, or CIIM) based on a systematic synthesis of published research. Materials and Methods: We used the "best fit" framework synthesis approach. Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Library and Information Science Abstracts, Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts, and Engineering Village. Two authors reviewed articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data abstraction and content analysis of 443 published papers were used to create a model in which every element was supported by empirical research. Results: The CIIM documents how primary care clinicians interact with information as they make point-of-care clinical decisions. The model highlights 3 major process components: (1) context, (2) activity (usual and contingent), and (3) influence. Usual activities include information processing, source-user interaction, information evaluation, selection of information, information use, clinical reasoning, and clinical decisions. Clinician characteristics, patient behaviors, and other professionals influence the process. Discussion: The CIIM depicts the complete process of information interaction, enabling a grasp of relationships previously difficult to discern. The CIIM suggests potentially helpful functionality for clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to support primary care, including a greater focus on information processing and use. The CIIM also documents the role of influence in clinical information interaction; influencers may affect the success of CDSS implementations. Conclusion: The CIIM offers a new framework for achieving CDSS workflow integration and new directions for CDSS design that can support the work of diverse primary care clinicians.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalMedical InformaticsPrimary Health CareDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareHumansInformation Seeking BehaviorModels, TheoreticalWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID29025114
PMCPMC7646963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.