Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35534996›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022

Challenges and opportunities for advancing patient-centered clinical decision support: findings from a horizon scan.

Prashila Dullabh, Shana F Sandberg, Krysta Heaney-Huls, Lauren S Hovey, David F Lobach, Aziz Boxwala, Priyanka J Desai, Elise Berliner, Chris Dymek, Michael I Harrison and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Enhancing Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support by Incorporating Clinical Practice Guidelines.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Prashila DullabhNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Shana F SandbergNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Krysta Heaney-HulsNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Lauren S HoveyNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
David F LobachElimu Informatics, El Cerrito, California, USA.
Aziz BoxwalaElimu Informatics, El Cerrito, California, USA.
Priyanka J DesaiNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1573-4790
Elise BerlinerCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Chris DymekCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Michael I HarrisonCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
James SwigerCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Dean F SittigSchool of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5811-8915
University of Chicago · USAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

NORCNORC at the University of Chicago under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) HHSP233201500023I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe conducted a horizon scan to (1) identify challenges in patient-centered clinical decision support (PC CDS) and (2) identify future directions for PC CDS. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe engaged a technical expert panel, conducted a scoping literature review, and interviewed key informants. We qualitatively analyzed literature and interview transcripts, mapping findings to the 4 phases for translating evidence into PC CDS interventions (Prioritizing, Authoring, Implementing, and Measuring) and to external factors.

resultsWe identified 12 challenges for PC CDS development. Lack of patient input was identified as a critical challenge. The key informants noted that patient input is critical to prioritizing topics for PC CDS and to ensuring that CDS aligns with patients' routine behaviors. Lack of patient-centered terminology standards was viewed as a challenge in authoring PC CDS. We found a dearth of CDS studies that measured clinical outcomes, creating significant gaps in our understanding of PC CDS' impact. Across all phases of CDS development, there is a lack of patient and provider trust and limited attention to patients' and providers' concerns. DISCUSSION: These challenges suggest opportunities for advancing PC CDS. There are opportunities to develop industry-wide practices and standards to increase transparency, standardize terminologies, and incorporate patient input. There is also opportunity to engage patients throughout the PC CDS research process to ensure that outcome measures are relevant to their needs.

conclusionAddressing these challenges and embracing these opportunities will help realize the promise of PC CDS-placing patients at the center of the healthcare system.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansPatient-Centered Care

Identifiers

PMID35534996
PMCPMC9196686
OpenAlexW4226336276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.