SynthesisJMIR formative research2026
Real-World Performance Measurement of Patient-Centered Clinical Decision Support Tools: Qualitative Study.
Synthesis in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPatient-centered clinical decision support (PC CDS) includes digital technology designed to give patients, caregivers, and clinicians evidence-based, patient-specific clinical guidance to inform care decisions. PC CDS interventions cover a range of use cases, but gaps in measurement make it difficult to assess the impact of these technologies on patient and clinician decision-making, care processes, and outcomes.
objectiveThis study aimed to identify common measurement areas used in PC CDS projects, as well as measurement gaps, and to develop recommendations for future advancement of PC CDS measurement.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of 20 exemplary PC CDS projects funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Digital Healthcare Research Program using predefined inclusion criteria. We reviewed published project materials (n=40) to gather information on the type of data, technology, and measures used, as well as conditions and populations addressed. Next, we identified a purposive sample of 9 projects and conducted key informant interviews with the principal investigators to gather perspectives on PC CDS performance measures and measurement-related limitations and challenges. We conducted a qualitative thematic synthesis to identify key themes from the reviewed material and interviews related to commonly used measures and measurement gaps in relation to a PC CDS performance measurement framework. We also gathered feedback on findings from a seven-member technical expert committee.
resultsOverall, usability was the most common area of measurement across PC CDS design, development, implementation, and use phases. Projects focusing on designing and developing PC CDS technology also frequently measured acceptability, while projects focusing on implementation and evaluation frequently measured patient health outcomes, patient engagement, and clinician performance. Informants reported challenges with measuring the safety, timeliness, and cost of PC CDS technology. They also expressed the need for new measurement approaches to capture long-term health outcomes, benchmarks for meaningful patient engagement, and perspectives from people with limited digital or health literacy.
conclusionsProject investigators are using numerous measures to assess real-world PC CDS interventions, yet there are several measurement areas that need more development. The findings revealed six important next steps for future development of PC CDS performance measurement that can significantly advance the use of technologies that promote patient-centered care: (1) tracking technical performance postimplementation, (2) evaluating interventions in lower-resourced health care settings, (3) conducting more cost assessments to inform scalability, (4) streamlining privacy and security management for external data storage, (5) refining and developing standardized patient engagement measures, and (6) adapting measurement tools to populations with limited English proficiency or digital and/or health literacy.
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.