ArticleJMIR formative research2021
Attitudes of Patients and Health Professionals Regarding Screening Algorithms: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- An optimized framework for processing multicentric polysomnographic data incorporating expert human oversight.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Article
- Prioritization of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A qualitative exploration of patients' perspectives.PloS one · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs a preamble to an attempt to develop a tool that can aid health professionals at hospitals in identifying whether the patient may have an alcohol abuse problem, this study investigates opinions and attitudes among both health professionals and patients about using patient data from electronic health records (EHRs) in an algorithm screening for alcohol problems.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes and opinions of patients and health professionals at hospitals regarding the use of previously collected data in developing and implementing an algorithmic helping tool in EHR for screening inexpedient alcohol habits; in addition, the study aims to analyze how patients would feel about asking and being asked about alcohol by staff, based on a notification in the EHR from such a tool.
methodsUsing semistructured interviews, we interviewed 9 health professionals and 5 patients to explore their opinions and attitudes about an algorithm-based helping tool and about asking and being asked about alcohol usage when being given a reminder from this type of tool. The data were analyzed using an ad hoc method consistent with a close reading and meaning condensing.
resultsThe health professionals were both positive and negative about a helping tool grounded in algorithms. They were optimistic about the potential of such a tool to save some time by providing a quick overview if it was easy to use but, on the negative side, noted that this type of helping tool might take away the professionals' instinct. The patients were overall positive about the helping tool, stating that they would find this tool beneficial for preventive care. Some of the patients expressed concerns that the information provided by the tool could be misused.
conclusionsWhen developing and implementing an algorithmic helping tool, the following aspects should be considered: (1) making the helping tool as transparent in its recommendations as possible, avoiding black boxing, and ensuring room for professional discretion in clinical decision making; and (2) including and taking into account the attitudes and opinions of patients and health professionals in the design and development process of such an algorithmic helping tool.
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.