ArticleBMJ open2020
Mixed-methods approach to understanding clinician macrocognition in the design of a clinical decision support tool: a study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applying cognitive task analysis to health services research.Health services research · 2023Article
- Understanding Clinician Macrocognition to Inform the Design of a Congenital Heart Disease Clinical Decision Support System.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Decision-centered design of a clinical decision support system for acute management of pediatric congenital heart disease.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe anatomic variants of congenital heart disease (CHD) are multiple. The increased survival of these patients and disposition into communities has led to an increase in their acute presentation to non-CHD experts in primary care clinics and emergency departments. Given the vulnerability and fragility of these patients in the face of acute illness, new clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are urgently needed to better translate the best practice recommendations for the care of these patients. This study aims to understand the perceived confidence and macrocognitive processes of non-CHD experts (emergency medicine physicians) and CHD experts (paediatric cardiac intensivists) when treating children with CHD during acute illness and apply this to optimise the design of a CDSS (MyHeartPass METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The first phase of the study involves a survey of non-CHD experts and CHD experts to understand their perceived confidence as it relates to treating acutely ill patients with CHD. The second phase is a qualitative cognitive task analysis using critical decision method to characterise and compare the macrocognitive processes used by non-CHD experts and CHD experts during the critical decision making. In phases 3 and 4, heuristic evaluation and usability testing of the CDSS will be completed. These results will be used to inform design changes to the chosen CDSS (MyHeartPass ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval from The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, Canada has been obtained for all phases. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. On successful completion of these studies, it is anticipated that there will be a controlled implementation of the redesigned CDSS.
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.