Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39178023›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Impacts of Clinical Decision Support Systems on the Relationship, Communication, and Shared Decision-Making Between Health Care Professionals and Patients: Multistakeholder Interview Study.

Florian Funer, Diana Schneider, Nils B Heyen, Heike Aichinger, Andrea Diana Klausen, Sara Tinnemeyer, Wenke Liedtke, Sabine Salloch, Tanja Bratan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Facilitators and Barriers of the Use of Prognostic Models for Clinical Decision Making in Acute Neurologic Care: A Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. From language matters to stigma-free communication in diabetes: Evolution, challenges, and next steps.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Moral diversity and the challenge of responsibility in AI-CDSS.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. [Supporting medical and nursing activities with AI: recommendations for responsible design and use].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024
    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

9 authors.

Florian Funer *Institute for Ethics and History of Medicine, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9242-0827
Diana Schneider *Competence Center Emerging Technologies, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7131-5005
Nils B HeyenCompetence Center Emerging Technologies, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9354-1388
Heike AichingerCompetence Center Emerging Technologies, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7478-7182
Andrea Diana KlausenInstitute for Medical Informatics, University Medical Center - RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0003-4026-8730
Sara TinnemeyerInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0009-0006-2753-0492
Wenke LiedtkeDepartment of Social Work, Protestant University of Applied Sciences Rhineland-Westphalia-Lippe, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1433-658X
Sabine SallochInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2987-2684
Tanja BratanCompetence Center Emerging Technologies, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3558-2373

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are increasingly being introduced into various domains of health care. Little is known so far about the impact of such systems on the health care professional-patient relationship, and there is a lack of agreement about whether and how patients should be informed about the use of CDSSs.

objectiveThis study aims to explore, in an empirically informed manner, the potential implications for the health care professional-patient relationship and to underline the importance of this relationship when using CDSSs for both patients and future professionals.

methodsUsing a methodological triangulation, 15 medical students and 12 trainee nurses were interviewed in semistructured interviews and 18 patients were involved in focus groups between April 2021 and April 2022. All participants came from Germany. Three examples of CDSSs covering different areas of health care (ie, surgery, nephrology, and intensive home care) were used as stimuli in the study to identify similarities and differences regarding the use of CDSSs in different fields of application. The interview and focus group transcripts were analyzed using a structured qualitative content analysis.

resultsFrom the interviews and focus groups analyzed, three topics were identified that interdependently address the interactions between patients and health care professionals: (1) CDSSs and their impact on the roles of and requirements for health care professionals, (2) CDSSs and their impact on the relationship between health care professionals and patients (including communication requirements for shared decision-making), and (3) stakeholders' expectations for patient education and information about CDSSs and their use.

conclusionsThe results indicate that using CDSSs could restructure established power and decision-making relationships between (future) health care professionals and patients. In addition, respondents expected that the use of CDSSs would involve more communication, so they anticipated an increased time commitment. The results shed new light on the existing discourse by demonstrating that the anticipated impact of CDSSs on the health care professional-patient relationship appears to stem less from the function of a CDSS and more from its integration in the relationship. Therefore, the anticipated effects on the relationship between health care professionals and patients could be specifically addressed in patient information about the use of CDSSs.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision Making, SharedDecision Support Systems, ClinicalAdultAgedFemaleFocus GroupsGermanyHealth PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationProfessional-Patient RelationsCDSSclinical decision support systemcommunicationGermanyhealth care professionalspatientsrelationshipsshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID39178023
PMCPMC11380058

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.