ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2018
A six-year repeated evaluation of computerized clinical decision support system user acceptability.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 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
- Effect of a Computer-Based Decision Support Intervention on Autism Spectrum Disorder Screening in Pediatric Primary Care Clinics: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2019Trial
- A Systematic Review of Factors Affecting Utilization of Decision Support Systems: The Interplay Between Technology, Users, and the Healthcare Environment.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Enhancing quality of antimicrobial prescribing through 'Ask Eolas' (language model): a user-testing and simulation evaluation.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2026Article
- From prediction to action: a retrospective observational study on the real-world implementation of Critical Interventions (CrIs), an AI-based clinical decision support system changing clinical behavior in the emergency department.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Observational
- Visual analysis of research hot topics and trends of clinical decision support system based on CiteSpace.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Review
- Cardiologist perceptions on automated alerts and messages to improve heart failure care.American heart journal · 2025Article
- Physicians' Perspectives on AI in Clinical Decision Support Systems: Interview Study of the CURATE.AI Personalized Dose Optimization Platform.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Acceptance of clinical decision support system to prevent venous thromboembolism among nurses: an extension of the UTAUT model.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- The development and implementation of a guideline-based clinical decision support system to improve empirical antibiotic prescribing.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- State of the practice of health information systems: a survey study amongst health care professionals in intellectual disability care.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Designing a reference architecture for health information systems.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Evaluation Framework for Successful Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Clinical Decision Support Systems: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Can Big Data guide prognosis and clinical decisions in epilepsy?Epilepsia · 2021Review
- Improving Patient-Centered Communication about Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy through Computerized Clinical Decision Support.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
- Clinical Decision Support and Implications for the Clinician Burnout Crisis.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2020Review
- Clinician Perceptions of a Computerized Decision Support System for Pediatric Type 2 Diabetes Screening.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLong-term acceptability among computerized clinical decision support system (CDSS) users in pediatrics is unknown. We examine user acceptance patterns over six years of our continuous computerized CDSS integration and updates. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsers of Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation (CHICA), a CDSS integrated into clinical workflows and used in several urban pediatric community clinics, completed annual surveys including 11 questions covering user acceptability. We compared responses across years within a single healthcare system and between two healthcare systems. We used logistic regression to assess the odds of a favorable response to each question by survey year, clinic role, part-time status, and frequency of CHICA use.
resultsData came from 380 completed surveys between 2011 and 2016. Responses were significantly more favorable for all but one measure by 2016 (OR range 2.90-12.17, all p < 0.01). Increasing system maturity was associated with improved perceived function of CHICA (OR range 4.24-7.58, p < 0.03). User familiarity was positively associated with perceived CDSS function (OR range 3.44-8.17, p < 0.05) and usability (OR range 9.71-15.89, p < 0.01) opinions.
conclusionWe present a long-term, repeated follow-up of user acceptability of a CDSS. Favorable opinions of the CDSS were more likely in frequent users, physicians and advanced practitioners, and full-time workers. CHICA acceptability increased as it matured and users become more familiar with it. System quality improvement, user support, and patience are important in achieving wide-ranging, sustainable acceptance of CDSS.
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.