Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29891466›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2018

Development of a Tailored Intervention With Computerized Clinical Decision Support to Improve Quality of Care for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: Multi-Method Study.

Stijn Van de Velde, Tiina Kortteisto, David Spitaels, Gro Jamtvedt, Pavel Roshanov, Ilkka Kunnamo, Bert Aertgeerts, Per Olav Vandvik, Signe Flottorp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. 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

9 authors.

Stijn Van de VeldeCentre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8908-3823
Tiina KortteistoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3130-6032
David SpitaelsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7900-7533
Gro JamtvedtOslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6013-7429
Pavel RoshanovDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3908-1955
Ilkka KunnamoDuodecim, Scientific Society of Finnish Physicians, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4817-6991
Bert AertgeertsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1142-5402
Per Olav VandvikCentre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8958-2710
Signe FlottorpCentre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2961-7461

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice patterns greatly diverge from evidence-based recommendations to manage knee osteoarthritis conservatively before resorting to surgery.

objectiveThis study aimed to tailor a guideline-based computerized decision support (CDS) intervention that facilitates the conservative management of knee osteoarthritis.

methodsExperts with backgrounds in clinical medicine, research, implementation, or health informatics suggested the most important recommendations for implementation, how to develop an implementation strategy, and how to form the CDS algorithms. In 6 focus group sessions, 8 general practitioners and 22 patients from Norway, Belgium, and Finland discussed the suggested CDS intervention and identified factors that would be most critical for the success of the intervention. The focus group moderators used the GUideline Implementation with DEcision Support checklist, which we developed to support consideration of CDS success factors.

resultsThe experts prioritized 9 out of 22 recommendations for implementation. We formed the concept for 6 CDS algorithms to support implementation of these recommendations. The focus group suggested 59 unique factors that could affect the success of the presented CDS intervention. Five factors (out of the 59) were prioritized by focus group participants in every country, including the perceived potential to address the information needs of both patients and general practitioners; the credibility of CDS information; the timing of CDS for patients; and the need for personal dialogue about CDS between the general practitioner and the patient.

conclusionsThe focus group participants supported the CDS intervention as a tool to improve the quality of care for patients with knee osteoarthritis through shared, evidence-based decision making. We aim to develop and implement the CDS based on these study results. Future research should address optimal ways to (1) provide patient-directed CDS, (2) enable more patient-specific CDS within the context of patient complexity, and (3) maintain user engagement with CDS over time.

Indexed as

decision support systems, clinicalevidence-based medicinefocus groupsguideline adherenceosteoarthritis, kneepractice guidelines as topic

Identifiers

PMID29891466
PMCPMC6018233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.