ArticleJAMIA open2024
Application of a user experience design approach for an EHR-based clinical decision support system.
Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human-Centered design requirements for clinical decision support in cardiac surgery perfusion.Human factors in healthcare · 2026Article
- VA Clinicians' Perspectives on Low-Value Health Service Use in the Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Parent-Reported Usability of a Patient Portal-Based Asthma Care Tool for Parents of Children With Asthma.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Article
- Development of web- and mobile-based shared decision-making tools in the neurological intensive care unit.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025Review
- Potential of patient portals to enhance adolescent asthma care engagement.Health care transitions · 2025Article
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
Objective: We applied a user experience (UX) design approach to clinical decision support (CDS) tool development for the specific use case of pediatric asthma. Our objective was to understand physicians' workflows, decision-making processes, barriers (ie, pain points), and facilitators to increase usability of the tool. Materials and methods: We used a mixed-methods approach with semi-structured interviews and surveys. The coded interviews were synthesized into physician-user journey maps (ie, visualization of a process to accomplish goals) and personas (ie, user types). Interviews were conducted via video. We developed physician journey maps and user personas informed by their goals, systems interactions, and experiences with pediatric asthma management. Results: The physician end-user personas identified were: efficiency, relationship, and learning. Features of a potential asthma CDS tool sought varied by physician practice type and persona. It was important to the physician end-user that the asthma CDS tool demonstrate value by lowering workflow friction (ie, difficulty or obstacles), improving the environment surrounding physicians and patients, and using it as a teaching tool. Customizability versus standardization were important considerations for uptake. Discussion: Different values and motivations of physicians influence their use and interaction with the EHR and CDS tools. These different perspectives can be captured by applying a UX design approach to the development process. For example, with the importance of customizability, one approach may be to build a core module with variations depending on end-user preference. Conclusion: A UX approach can drive design to help understand physician-users and meet their needs; ultimately with the goal of increased uptake.
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.