ArticleSSM. Qualitative research in health2025
Anticipatory moral distress in machine learning-based clinical decision support tool development: A qualitative analysis.
Article in SSM. Qualitative research in health, 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.
- Pediatric clinician perspectives on clinical decision support tools for chronic kidney disease risk after preterm birth.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- Protecting clinical value judgment in the age of AI.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Tracking inflammation status for improving patient prognosis: A review of current methods, unmet clinical needs and opportunities.Biotechnology advances · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ongoing interest in machine learning systems include the emerging capability to integrate electronic health records to develop clinical decision support (CDS) tools that improve medical care, diagnostics, and therapy. Such CDS tools, which can handle a large quantity of data sources, can advise clinicians and amplify insights on diverse patient risk factors, from physiological challenges to psychosocial vulnerabilities. Despite a growing interest, there are various challenges that hinder the successful use of CDS tools in clinical practice. Among these, a key challenge is hesitance or resistance among end-users to take up tools and integrate their use into practice. The current inquiry applied a framework of the symbolic interaction of participatory experience-based co-design and used an interpretive descriptive approach to analysis of qualitative data, investigating the ethical issues brought to light by clinicians participating in three participatory experience-based co-design focus groups, as a part of the initial development of a CDS tool for detecting risk factors for adverse health outcomes in outpatient obstetric care at a single academically affiliated medical institution. Findings revealed that participants describe their anticipated symbolic relationship with a ML-based CDS tool as either promising or morally distressing. Anticipatory moral distress includes three separate sub-categories: 1)
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.