ArticleBJGP open2019
Understanding implementation and usefulness of electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) for melanoma in English primary care: a qualitative investigation.
Article in BJGP open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Why aren't they used? Systematic review of barriers to implementation of clinical decision support systems for early cancer detection in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Pooled it
- The implementation challenge of computerised clinical decision support systems for the detection of disease in primary care: systematic review and recommendations.Implementation science : IS · 2025Pooled it
- Stakeholder Perspectives of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Factors shaping the implementation and use of Clinical Cancer Decision Tools by GPs in primary care: a qualitative framework synthesis.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.Annals of family medicinePooled it
- Assessing the implementation of a clinical decision support tool in primary care for diabetes prevention: a qualitative interview study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Trial
- Electronic clinical decision support tool for assessing stomach symptoms in primary care (ECASS): a feasibility study.BMJ open · 2021Trial
- Evaluating the use of the consolidated framework for implementation research in primary care settings: a systematic review.Implementation science communications · 2026Review
- A scoping review, novel taxonomy and catalogue of implementation frameworks for clinical decision support systems.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.Cancers · 2023Review
- Advances in Early Detection of Melanoma and the Future of At-Home Testing.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Interventions to improve early cancer diagnosis of symptomatic individuals: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTimely diagnosis of the serious skin cancer melanoma can improve patient outcomes. Clinical guidelines suggest that GPs use checklists, such as the 7-point checklist (7PCL), to assess pigmented lesions. In 2016, the 7PCL was disseminated by EMIS as an electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) tool.
aimTo understand GP and patient perspectives on the implementation and usefulness of the eCDS. DESIGN &
settingSemi-structured interviews with GPs and patients were undertaken. The interviews took place in four general practices in the south east of England following consultations using the eCDS for suspicious pigmented lesions.
methodData were collected from semi-structured face-to-face interviews with GPs and from telephone interviews with patients. They were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the analysis using thematic approaches.
resultsA total of 14 interviews with GPs and 14 interviews with patients were undertaken. Most GPs reported that, as the eCDS was embedded in the medical record, it was useful, easy to use, time-efficient, and could facilitate patient-GP communication. They were less clear that it could meet policy or patient needs to improve early diagnosis, and some felt that it could lead to unnecessary referrals. Few felt that it had been sufficiently implemented at practice level. More felt confident with their own management of moles, and that the eCDS could be most useful for borderline decision-making. No patients were aware that the eCDS had been used during their consultation.
conclusionSuccessful implementation of a new tool, such as eCDS for melanoma, requires GPs to perceive its value and understand how it can best be integrated into clinical practice. Disseminating a tool without such explanations is unlikely to promote its adoption into routine practice.
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.