ArticleJAMIA open2025
Help us document what we already do: pilot study of clinical decision support tools targeting social risk-informed care.
Article in JAMIA open, 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.
- Social Risk-Informed Decision Support and Blood Pressure Control in a Primary Care Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of family medicine · 2026Trial
- "The start of something that I hope could be greater": Health information technology tools for social care.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2025Article
- Applying Realist Retroduction to EHR-Based Clinical Decision Support Tool Development.International journal of qualitative methods · 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
Objective: Little is known about how clinical decision support (CDS) tools can support care teams in changing clinical decisions to account for patients' social risks. We piloted a suite of electronic health record (EHR)-based CDS tools designed to facilitate social risk-informed care decisions to assess how the tools were used in practice and how they could be improved. Materials and Methods: After developing CDS tools through a process involving clinic staff and patient engagement, the tools were implemented in three community health center clinics. Data from staff interviews, observations of meetings with clinic staff, and the EHR were used to understand tool use patterns, and to yield insights that were then used to inform tool revisions. Results: The overarching suggestion derived from the study data was that the tools should shift from making care recommendations to instead supporting documentation of social risk-related actions that clinical team members had already taken. Other revisions were guided by four additional insights: the CDS tools should: (1) facilitate documentation in standardized, short formats, (2) make documentation easy and consistent, (3) support work distribution across care team members, and (4) ensure documentation could serve multiple purposes. Discussion: The CDS tools were revised to improve usefulness and acceptability for primary care teams in community clinics that serve patients with social risks. Numerous challenges exist in designing tools that can accommodate diverse clinics and workflows. Conclusion: These findings provide insights on how CDS tools can be optimized for social risk-informed care while minimizing care team burdens.
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.