ArticleHealth policy and technology2024
"Following the data": perceptions of and willingness to use clinical decision support tools to inform HIV care among Haitian clinicians.
Article in Health policy and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Human-Centered AI in Clinical Decision Support: Sociocognitive Human-in-the-Loop Study in HIV Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and experiences with differentiated service delivery of HIV care in Kisumu County, Kenya: A mixed methods study, 2014-2021.PLOS global public health · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools can support HIV care, including through case tracking, treatment and medication monitoring, and promoting provider compliance with care guidelines. There has been limited research into the technical, organizational, and behavioral factors that impact perceptions of and willingness to use CDS tools at scale in resource-limited settings, including in Haiti. Methods: Our sample included fifteen purposively chosen Haitian HIV program experts, including active clinicians and HIV program managers. Participants completed structured quantitative surveys and one-on-one qualitative semi-structured interviews. Results: Study participants had high levels of familiarity and experience with CDS tools. The primary motivator for CDS tool use was a perceived benefit to quality of care, including improved provider time use, efficiency, and decision-making ability, and patient outcomes. Participants highlighted decision-making autonomy and how CDS tools could support provider decision making but should not supplant provider knowledge and experience. Participants highlighted the need for sufficient provider training/sensitization, inclusion of providers in the system design process, and prioritization of tool user-friendliness as key mechanisms to drive tool use and impact. Some participants noted that systemic issues, such as limited laboratory capacity, may reduce the usefulness of CDS alerts, particularly concerning differentiated care and priority viral load testing. Conclusion: Respondents had largely positive perceptions of EMRs and CDS tools, particularly due to perceived improvements in quality of care. To improve tool use, stakeholders should prioritize tool user-friendliness and provider training. Addressing systemic health system issues is necessary to unlock the full potential of these tools.
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.