ArticleJMIR human factors2022
Developing a User-Centered Digital Clinical Decision Support App for Evidence-Based Medication Recommendations for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Prototype User Testing and Validation Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06410755 (Research on Evaluation of Home-based Rehabilitation Monitoring System With Wearable Devices and Self-Report Application), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Research on Evaluation of Home-based Rehabilitation Monitoring System With Wearable Devices and Self-Report Application
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Can Clinical Outcomes Be Improved, and Inpatient Length of Stay Reduced for Adults With Diabetes? A Systematic Review.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2022Pooled it
- Examining Care Planning Efficiency and Clinical Decision Support Adoption in a System Tailoring to Nurses' Graph Literacy: National, Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Developing an AI-Assisted Tool That Identifies Patients With Multimorbidity and Complex Polypharmacy to Improve the Process of Medication Reviews: Qualitative Interview and Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Structured panendoscopy reports improve report completeness and documentation time.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Designing and testing clinical simulations of an early warning system for implementation in acute care settings.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- A Randomised Control Trial to Explore the Impact and Efficacy of the Healum Collaborative Care Planning Software and App on Condition Management in the Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Population in NHS Primary Care.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2023Article
- Enhancing type 2 diabetes treatment through digital plans of care. First results from the East Cheshire Study of an App to support people in the management of type 2 diabetes.Cardiovascular endocrinology & metabolism · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClosing the gap between care recommended by evidence-based guidelines and care delivered in practice is an ongoing challenge across systems and delivery models. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are widely deployed to augment clinicians in their complex decision-making processes. Despite published success stories, the poor usability of many CDSSs has contributed to fragmented workflows and alert fatigue.
objectiveThis study aimed to validate the application of a user-centered design (UCD) process in the development of a standards-based medication recommender for type 2 diabetes mellitus in a simulated setting. The prototype app was evaluated for effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction.
methodsWe conducted interviews with 8 clinical leaders with 8 rounds of iterative user testing with 2-8 prescribers in each round to inform app development. With the resulting prototype app, we conducted a validation study with 43 participants. The participants were assigned to one of two groups and completed a 2-hour remote user testing session. Both groups reviewed mock patient facts and ordered diabetes medications for the patients. The Traditional group used a mock electronic health record (EHR) for the review in Period 1 and used the prototype app in Period 2, while the Tool group used the prototype app during both time periods. The perceived cognitive load associated with task performance during each period was assessed with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index. Participants also completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and Kano Survey.
resultsAverage SUS scores from the questionnaire, taken at the end of 5 of the 8 user testing sessions, ranged from 68-86. The results of the validation study are as follows: percent adherence to evidence-based guidelines was greater with the use of the prototype app than with the EHR across time periods with the Traditional group (prototype app mean 96.2 vs EHR mean 72.0, P<.001) and between groups during Period 1 (Tool group mean 92.6 vs Traditional group mean 72.0, P<.001). Task completion times did not differ between groups (P=.23), but the Tool group completed medication ordering more quickly in Period 2 (Period 1 mean 130.7 seconds vs Period 2 mean 107.7 seconds, P<.001). Based on an adjusted α level owing to violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance (Ps>.03), there was no effect on screens viewed and on perceived cognitive load (all Ps>.14).
conclusionsThrough deployment of the UCD process, a point-of-care medication recommender app holds promise of improving adherence to evidence-based guidelines; in this case, those from the American Diabetes Association. Task-time performance suggests that with practice the T2DM app may support a more efficient ordering process for providers, and SUS scores indicate provider satisfaction with the app.
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.