Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35550304›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

Factors Influencing Clinician Trust in Predictive Clinical Decision Support Systems for In-Hospital Deterioration: Qualitative Descriptive Study.

Jessica M Schwartz, Maureen George, Sarah Collins Rossetti, Patricia C Dykes, Simon R Minshall, Eugene Lucas, Kenrick D Cato

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The 'Hippocratic Oath' for AI-based clinical decision support systems.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Jessica M SchwartzDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1457-5724
Maureen GeorgeSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9234-7842
Sarah Collins RossettiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2632-8867
Patricia C DykesBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-0732
Simon R MinshallSchool of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2197-6013
Eugene LucasDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1028-8410
Kenrick D CatoSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0704-3826

Funding

Reducing Health Disparities Through Informatics - Genomics SupplementT32NR007969 · NINR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SUZANNE BAKKEN, Rebecca Schnall · 2002 to 2026
$7.9M
Communicating Narrative Concerns Entered by RNs (CONCERN)R01NR016941 · NINR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Kenrick Dwain Cato, Sarah Collins Rossetti · 2017 to 2026
$6.7M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR016941NINR NIH HHS T32 NR007969
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinician trust in machine learning-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) for predicting in-hospital deterioration (a type of predictive CDSS) is essential for adoption. Evidence shows that clinician trust in predictive CDSSs is influenced by perceived understandability and perceived accuracy.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the phenomenon of clinician trust in predictive CDSSs for in-hospital deterioration by confirming and characterizing factors known to influence trust (understandability and accuracy), uncovering and describing other influencing factors, and comparing nurses' and prescribing providers' trust in predictive CDSSs.

methodsWe followed a qualitative descriptive methodology conducting directed deductive and inductive content analysis of interview data. Directed deductive analyses were guided by the human-computer trust conceptual framework. Semistructured interviews were conducted with nurses and prescribing providers (physicians, physician assistants, or nurse practitioners) working with a predictive CDSS at 2 hospitals in Mass General Brigham.

resultsA total of 17 clinicians were interviewed. Concepts from the human-computer trust conceptual framework-perceived understandability and perceived technical competence (ie, perceived accuracy)-were found to influence clinician trust in predictive CDSSs for in-hospital deterioration. The concordance between clinicians' impressions of patients' clinical status and system predictions influenced clinicians' perceptions of system accuracy. Understandability was influenced by system explanations, both global and local, as well as training. In total, 3 additional themes emerged from the inductive analysis. The first, perceived actionability, captured the variation in clinicians' desires for predictive CDSSs to recommend a discrete action. The second, evidence, described the importance of both macro- (scientific) and micro- (anecdotal) evidence for fostering trust. The final theme, equitability, described fairness in system predictions. The findings were largely similar between nurses and prescribing providers.

conclusionsAlthough there is a perceived trade-off between machine learning-based CDSS accuracy and understandability, our findings confirm that both are important for fostering clinician trust in predictive CDSSs for in-hospital deterioration. We found that reliance on the predictive CDSS in the clinical workflow may influence clinicians' requirements for trust. Future research should explore the impact of reliance, the optimal explanation design for enhancing understandability, and the role of perceived actionability in driving trust.

Indexed as

clinical decision support systemsinpatientmachine learningnursesphysiciansqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID35550304
PMCPMC9136656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.