Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30792877›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Adaptive design of a clinical decision support tool: What the impact on utilization rates means for future CDS research.

Devin Mann, Rachel Hess, Thomas McGinn, Rebecca Mishuris, Sara Chokshi, Lauren McCullagh, Paul D Smith, Joseph Palmisano, Safiya Richardson, David A Feldstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Devin MannDepartment of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, United States of America.
Rachel HessDepartment of Population Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, United States of America.
Thomas McGinnDivision of General Internal Medicine, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, United States of America.
Rebecca MishurisDepartment of Medicine, Boston University, United States of America.
Sara ChokshiDepartment of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3952-6654
Lauren McCullaghDivision of General Internal Medicine, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, United States of America.
Paul D SmithDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, United States of America.
Joseph PalmisanoDepartment of Medicine, Boston University, United States of America.
Safiya RichardsonDivision of General Internal Medicine, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, United States of America.
David A FeldsteinDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, United States of America.

Funding

Integrated Clinical Prediction Rules: Bringing Evidence to Diverse Primary Care SettingsR01AI108680 · NIAID · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI FELDSTEIN, DAVID ALAN, MANN, DEVIN M · 2014 to 2024
$7.9M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI108680
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe employed an agile, user-centered approach to the design of a clinical decision support tool in our prior integrated clinical prediction rule study, which achieved high adoption rates. To understand if applying this user-centered process to adapt clinical decision support tools is effective in improving the use of clinical prediction rules, we examined utilization rates of a clinical decision support tool adapted from the original integrated clinical prediction rule study tool to determine if applying this user-centered process to design yields enhanced utilization rates similar to the integrated clinical prediction rule study.

resultsWe hypothesized a well-validated, user-centered clinical decision support tool would lead to relatively high adoption rates. Then 6 months post-deployment, integrated clinical prediction rule study tool utilization rates were substantially lower than anticipated based on the original integrated clinical prediction rule study trial (68%) at 17% (Health System A) and 5% (Health System B). User feedback at 6 months resulted in recommendations for tool refinement, which were incorporated when possible into tool design; however, utilization rates at 12 months post-deployment remained low at 14% and 4% respectively. DISCUSSION: Although valuable, findings demonstrate the limitations of a user-centered approach given the complexity of clinical decision support.

conclusionStrategies for addressing persistent external factors impacting clinical decision support adoption should be considered in addition to the user-centered design and implementation of clinical decision support.

Indexed as

clinical decision supporthealth informaticsprovider adoptionusabilityUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID30792877
PMCPMC6376549

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.