ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2017
Thinking Together: Modeling Clinical Decision-Support as a Sociotechnical System.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
29854164PMC5977688What 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.