ArticlePrimary health care research & development2025
Digital health technology use in Australian general practice (GP) consultations: a cross-sectional analysis of the medicine in Australia: balancing employment and life study.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Appropriateness and utility of a clinical decision support system at the digital front door.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Electronic Access to and Exchange of Patient Information Among Physicians Practising in Canada.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2026Article
- Using general practice data for chronic disease prevalence: the impact of record linkage on estimation accuracy.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe use of technology including digital decision support tools has become more ubiquitous in general practice. Australian GPs' use of digital decision support tools, the sentiments, and associations with practitioner and practice characteristics. Positive and negative sentiments were considered facilitators and barriers to the uptake of digital decision support tools.
methodsSecondary analysis of a cross-sectional study was undertaken with data from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) survey was analysed. 3,126 GPs responded from a total of 27,829 participants representing all types of physicians, surveyed in September 2018. Descriptive statistics was used to examine facilitators and barriers to GP uptake of digital decision support tools, and multivariable logistic regression was used to examine its associations with practitioner and practice characteristics.
results2240 GPs in this study (83.8%) reported using digital decision support tools with largely positive sentiments regarding technology use in consultations. Reservations include privacy concerns, system incompatibility, and lack of support. Those using digital decision support tools were more likely to be female, younger and bulk-billing. DISCUSSION: Perceived facilitators of digital decision support tools in Australian general practice include improvements in patient outcomes, satisfaction, care processes, and saving time. Barriers include concerns about data privacy, lack of support, incompatibility, and being time-consuming. There was higher uptake amongst bulk-billing and female practitioners. Further research on the clinical usefulness of digital decision support tools and its impact on decision-making in general practice would be of value.
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.