» Articles » PMID: 35272667

Do Providers Use Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems? A Systematic Review and Meta-regression of Clinical Decision Support Uptake

Overview
Journal Implement Sci
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2022 Mar 11
PMID 35272667
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are a promising knowledge translation tool, but often fail to meaningfully influence the outcomes they target. Low CDSS provider uptake is a potential contributor to this problem but has not been systematically studied. The objective of this systematic review and meta-regression was to determine reported CDSS uptake and identify which CDSS features may influence uptake.

Methods: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2000 to August 2020. Randomized, non-randomized, and quasi-experimental trials reporting CDSS uptake in any patient population or setting were included. The main outcome extracted was CDSS uptake, reported as a raw proportion, and representing the number of times the CDSS was used or accessed over the total number of times it could have been interacted with. We also extracted context, content, system, and implementation features that might influence uptake, for each CDSS. Overall weighted uptake was calculated using random-effects meta-analysis and determinants of uptake were investigated using multivariable meta-regression.

Results: Among 7995 citations screened, 55 studies involving 373,608 patients and 3607 providers met full inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that overall CDSS uptake was 34.2% (95% CI 23.2 to 47.1%). Uptake was only reported in 12.4% of studies that otherwise met inclusion criteria. Multivariable meta-regression revealed the following factors significantly associated with uptake: (1) formally evaluating the availability and quality of the patient data needed to inform CDSS advice; and (2) identifying and addressing other barriers to the behaviour change targeted by the CDSS.

Conclusions And Relevance: System uptake was seldom reported in CDSS trials. When reported, uptake was low. This represents a major and potentially modifiable barrier to overall CDSS effectiveness. We found that features relating to CDSS context and implementation strategy best predicted uptake. Future studies should measure the impact of addressing these features as part of the CDSS implementation strategy. Uptake reporting must also become standard in future studies reporting CDSS intervention effects.

Registration: Pre-registered on PROSPERO, CRD42018092337.

Citing Articles

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of computerised clinical decision support systems: an umbrella review protocol.

Bohm-Hustede A, Lubasch J, Hoogestraat A, Buhr E, Wulff A Syst Rev. 2025; 14(1):2.

PMID: 39748437 PMC: 11697958. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02745-4.


Towards the Development of the Clinical Decision Support System for the Identification of Respiration Diseases via Lung Sound Classification Using 1D-CNN.

Ali S, Rashid M, Yousuf M, Shams S, Asif M, Rehan M Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(21).

PMID: 39517784 PMC: 11548567. DOI: 10.3390/s24216887.


Barriers, facilitators, and recommendations to increase the use of a clinical decision support tool for managing chronic pain in primary care.

Cuadros P, McCord E, McDonnell C, Apathy N, Sanner L, Adams M Int J Med Inform. 2024; 192:105649.

PMID: 39427385 PMC: 11575684. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105649.


Applying the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability Framework Across Implementation Stages to Identify Key Strategies to Facilitate Clinical Decision Support System Integration Within a Large Metropolitan Health Service:....

Fernando M, Abell B, McPhail S, Tyack Z, Tariq A, Naicker S JMIR Med Inform. 2024; 12:e60402.

PMID: 39419497 PMC: 11528173. DOI: 10.2196/60402.


Implementing Updated Intraamniotic Infection Guidelines at a Large Academic Medical Center.

Smiley C, Rizzuto J, White N, Fiske C, Thompson J, Zhang M Open Forum Infect Dis. 2024; 11(9):ofae475.

PMID: 39252868 PMC: 11382139. DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofae475.


References
1.
Ballard D, Vemula R, Chettipally U, Kene M, Mark D, Elms A . Optimizing Clinical Decision Support in the Electronic Health Record. Clinical Characteristics Associated with the Use of a Decision Tool for Disposition of ED Patients with Pulmonary Embolism. Appl Clin Inform. 2016; 7(3):883-98. PMC: 5052556. DOI: 10.4338/ACI-2016-05-RA-0073. View

2.
Schwarzer G, Chemaitelly H, Abu-Raddad L, Rucker G . Seriously misleading results using inverse of Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta-analysis of single proportions. Res Synth Methods. 2019; 10(3):476-483. PMC: 6767151. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1348. View

3.
van de Velde S, Heselmans A, Delvaux N, Brandt L, Marco-Ruiz L, Spitaels D . A systematic review of trials evaluating success factors of interventions with computerised clinical decision support. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(1):114. PMC: 6102833. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0790-1. View

4.
Shojania K, Jennings A, Mayhew A, Ramsay C, Eccles M, Grimshaw J . Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2010; 182(5):E216-25. PMC: 2842864. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.090578. View

5.
Whittingham M, Stephens P, Bradbury R, Freckleton R . Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour?. J Anim Ecol. 2006; 75(5):1182-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01141.x. View