ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2026
Digital clinical decision support to save costs: a qualitative evaluation of the views of frontline healthcare professionals.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Does digital clinical decision support, known as computerized assistance, have the potential to lessen the burden of practicing physicians and improve clinical outcomes?Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital clinical decision support (CDS) can improve clinical decision-making, prescribing, diagnostic accuracy, and guideline adherence. Its potential to reduce healthcare costs has received less attention, and the mechanisms by which cost savings might occur remain poorly understood. This study explored resident doctors' experiences of using CDS to improve care and reduce costs.
methodsA qualitative study was carried out. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted by videoconference with resident doctors who were users of a digital CDS resource. Interviews explored experiences of CDS use, perceptions of cost implications, and barriers and enablers to cost-conscious care. Transcripts were analyzed using constant comparative analysis with open, axial, and selective coding.
resultsTwenty-two resident doctors participated. Four main themes emerged. First, cost savings occurred indirectly through improved clinical decisions, including avoidance of unnecessary investigations, referrals, overtreatment, and inappropriate admissions. Second, workflow integration was central to achieving these outcomes; participants emphasized accessibility and integration with electronic systems. Third, CDS complemented rather than replaced clinical expertise, acting as an adjunct to decision-making. Fourth, organizational culture shaped adoption. DISCUSSION: Resident doctors viewed CDS primarily as a means of improving care rather than reducing costs. Cost savings were perceived as secondary benefits arising from better clinical decisions.
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.