ArticleJMIR human factors2022
Barriers to and Facilitators for Acceptance of Comprehensive Clinical Decision Support System-Driven Care Maps for Patients With Thoracic Trauma: Interview Study Among Health Care Providers and Nurses.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Usability Testing of a Mobile App-Based Clinical Decision Support System for Delirium: Randomized Crossover Trial.JMIR aging · 2024Trial
- 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
- Evaluating a Digital Mental Health Tool for Implementation Into New Zealand's Integrated Primary Mental Health and Addictions Service: Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- How Implementation Context Shapes Clinician Acceptance and Engagement with Guideline-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Article
- Leveraging Dual Usability Methods to Evaluate Clinical Decision Support Among Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Clinician Attitudes and Perceptions of Point-of-Care Information Resources and Their Integration Into Electronic Health Records: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Successful Electronic Consultation Service Initiative in Quebec, Canada With Primary Care Physicians' and Specialists' Experiences on Acceptance and Use of Technological Innovation: Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Clinical Decision Support Requirements for Ventricular Tachycardia Diagnosis Within the Frameworks of Knowledge and Practice: Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Beyond technology acceptance-a focused ethnography on the implementation, acceptance and use of new nursing technology in a German hospital.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- An integrative review on the acceptance of artificial intelligence among healthcare professionals in hospitals.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Review
- Re-Aiming Equity Evaluation in Clinical Decision Support: A Scoping Review of Equity Assessments in Surgical Decision Support Systems.Annals of surgery · 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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComprehensive clinical decision support (CDS) care maps can improve the delivery of care and clinical outcomes. However, they are frequently plagued by usability problems and poor user acceptance.
objectiveThis study aims to characterize factors influencing successful design and use of comprehensive CDS care maps and identify themes associated with end-user acceptance of a thoracic trauma CDS care map earlier in the process than has traditionally been done. This was a planned adaptive redesign stage of a User Acceptance and System Adaptation Design development and implementation strategy for a CDS care map. This stage was based on a previously developed prototype CDS care map guided by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.
methodsA total of 22 multidisciplinary end users (physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses) were identified and recruited using snowball sampling. Qualitative interviews were conducted, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Generation of prespecified codes and the interview guide was informed by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology constructs and investigative team experience. Interviews were blinded and double-coded. Thematic analysis of interview scripts was conducted and yielded descriptive themes about factors influencing the construction and potential use of an acceptable CDS care map.
resultsA total of eight dominant themes were identified: alert fatigue (theme 1), automation (theme 2), redundancy (theme 3), minimalistic design (theme 4), evidence based (theme 5), prevent errors (theme 6), comprehensive across the spectrum of disease (theme 7), and malleability (theme 8). Themes 1 to 4 addressed factors directly affecting end users, and themes 5 to 8 addressed factors affecting patient outcomes. More experienced providers prioritized a system that is easy to use. Nurses prioritized a system that incorporated evidence into decision support. Clinicians across specialties, roles, and ages agreed that the amount of extra work generated should be minimal and that the system should help them administer optimal care efficiently.
conclusionsEnd user feedback reinforces attention toward factors that improve the acceptance and use of a CDS care map for patients with thoracic trauma. Common themes focused on system complexity, the ability of the system to fit different populations and settings, and optimal care provision. Identifying these factors early in the development and implementation process may facilitate user-centered design and improve adoption.
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.