Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29854164›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2017

Thinking Together: Modeling Clinical Decision-Support as a Sociotechnical System.

Mustafa I Hussain, Tera L Reynolds, Fatemeh E Mousavi, Yunan Chen, Kai Zheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Mustafa I HussainUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Tera L ReynoldsUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Fatemeh E MousaviUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Yunan ChenUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Kai ZhengUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computerized clinical decision-support systems are members of larger sociotechnical systems, composed of human and automated actors, who send, receive, and manipulate artifacts. Sociotechnical consideration is rare in the literature. This makes it difficult to comparatively evaluate the success of CDS implementations, and it may also indicate that sociotechnical context receives inadequate consideration in practice. To facilitate sociotechnical consideration, we developed the Thinking Together model, a flexible diagrammatical means of representing CDS systems as sociotechnical systems. To develop this model, we examined the literature with the lens of Distributed Cognition (DCog) theory. We then present two case studies of vastly different CDSSs, one almost fully automated and the other with minimal automation, to illustrate the flexibility of the Thinking Together model. We show that this model, informed by DCog and the CDS literature, are capable of supporting both research, by enabling comparative evaluation, and practice, by facilitating explicit sociotechnical planning and communication.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalMan-Machine SystemsCommunicationHumansMedical Order Entry SystemsPsychological TheoryThinking

Identifiers

PMID29854164
PMCPMC5977688

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.