ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023
Improving computerized decision support system interventions: a qualitative study combining the theoretical domains framework with the GUIDES Checklist.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can improve care by bridging knowledge to practice gaps. However, the real-world uptake of such systems in health care settings has been suboptimal. We sought to: (1) use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify determinants (barriers/enablers) of uptake of the Electronic Asthma Management System (eAMS) CDSS; (2) match identified TDF belief statements to elements in the Guideline Implementation with Decision Support (GUIDES) Checklist; and (3) explore the relationship between the TDF and GUIDES frameworks and the usefulness of this sequential approach for identifying opportunities to improve CDSS uptake.
methodsIn Phase 1, we conducted semistructured interviews with primary care physicians in Toronto, Canada regarding the uptake of the eAMS CDSS. Using content analysis, two coders independently analyzed interview transcripts guided by the TDF to generate themes representing barriers and enablers to CDSS uptake. In Phase 2, the same reviewers independently mapped each belief statement to a GUIDES domain and factor. We calculated the proportion of TDF belief statements that linked to each GUIDES domain and the proportion of TDF domains that linked to GUIDES factors (and vice-versa) and domains.
resultsWe interviewed 10 participants before data saturation. In Phase 1, we identified 53 belief statements covering 12 TDF domains; 18 (34.0%) were barriers, and 35 (66.0%) were enablers. In Phase 2, 41 statements (77.4%) linked to at least one GUIDES factor, while 12 (22.6%) did not link to any specific factor. The GUIDES Context Domain was linked to the largest number of belief statements (19/53; 35.8%). Each TDF domain linked to one or more GUIDES factor, with 6 TDF domains linking to more than 1 factor and 8 TDF domains linking to more than 1 GUIDES domain.
conclusionsThe TDF provides unique insights into barriers and enablers to CDSS uptake, which can then be mapped to GUIDES domains and factors to identify required changes to CDSS context, content, and system. This can be followed by conventional mapping of TDF domains to behaviour change techniques to optimize CDSS implementation. This novel step-wise approach combines two established frameworks to optimize CDSS interventions, and requires prospective validation.
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.