Clinical Decision Support Systems for Maternity Care: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal EClinicalMedicine

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Sep 19

PMID 39296586

Authors

Neil Cockburn

Cristina Osborne

Supun Withana

Amy Elsmore

Ramya Nanjappa

Matthew South

William Parry-Smith

Beck Taylor

Joht Singh Chandan

Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The use of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) is increasing throughout healthcare and may be able to improve safety and outcomes in maternity care, but maternity care has key differences to other disciplines that complicate the use of CDSS. We aimed to identify evaluated CDSS and synthesise evidence of their impact on maternity care.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review for articles published before 24th May 2024 that described i) CDSS that ii) investigated the impact of their use iii) in maternity settings. Medline, CINAHL, CENTRAL and HMIC were searched for articles relating to evaluations of CDSS in maternity settings, with forward- and backward-citation tracing conducted for included articles. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool, and CDSS were described according to the clinical problem, purpose, design, and technical environment. Quantitative results from articles reporting appropriate data were meta-analysed to estimate odds of a CDSS achieving its desired outcome using a multi-level random effects model, first by individual CDSS and then across all CDSS. PROSPERO ID: CRD42022348157.

Findings: We screened 12,039 papers and included 87 articles describing 47 unique CDSS. 24 articles (28%) described randomised controlled trials, 30 (34%) described non-randomised interventional studies, 10 (11%) described mixed methods studies, 10 (11%) described qualitative studies, 7 (8%) described quantitative descriptive studies, and 7 (8%) described economic evaluations. 49 (56%) were in High-Income Countries and 38 (44%) in Low- and Middle-Income countries, with no CDSS trialled in both income categories. Meta-analysis of 35 included studies found an odds ratio for improved outcomes of 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.24-2.30). There was substantial variation in effects, aims, CDSS types, context, study designs, and outcomes.

Interpretation: Most CDSS evaluations showed improvements in outcomes, but there was heterogeneity in all aspects of design and evaluation of systems. CDSS are increasingly important in delivering healthcare, and Electronic Health Records and mHealth will increase their availability, but traditional epidemiological methods may be limited in guiding design and demonstrating effectiveness due to rapid CDSS development lifecycles and the complex systems in which they are embedded. Development methods that are attentive to context, such as Human Centred Design, will help to meet this need.

Funding: None.

Citing Articles

A scoping review of digital technologies in antenatal care: recent progress and applications of digital technologies.

Mohamed H, Ismail A, Sutan R, Rahman R, Juval K BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025; 25(1):153.

PMID: 39948493 PMC: 11827299. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-025-07209-8.

References

Bobdiwala S, Guha S, Van Calster B, Ayim F, Mitchell-Jones N, Al-Memar M . The clinical performance of the M4 decision support model to triage women with a pregnancy of unknown location as at low or high risk of complications. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(7):1425-35. PMC: 4901883. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew105. View

Oliver K, Lorenc T, Tinkler J, Bonell C . Understanding the unintended consequences of public health policies: the views of policymakers and evaluators. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19(1):1057. PMC: 6685223. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7389-6. View

Hollinghurst S, Emmett C, Peters T, Watson H, Fahey T, Murphy D . Economic evaluation of the DiAMOND randomized trial: cost and outcomes of 2 decision aids for mode of delivery among women with a previous cesarean section. Med Decis Making. 2010; 30(4):453-63. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09353195. View

Usmanova G, Lalchandani K, Srivastava A, Joshi C, Bhatt D, Bairagi A . The role of digital clinical decision support tool in improving quality of intrapartum and postpartum care: experiences from two states of India. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1):278. PMC: 8028806. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-03710-y. View

Brocklehurst P, Field D, Greene K, Juszczak E, Kenyon S, Linsell L . Computerised interpretation of the fetal heart rate during labour: a randomised controlled trial (INFANT). Health Technol Assess. 2018; 22(9):1-186. DOI: 10.3310/hta22090. View

Vousden N, Lawley E, Seed P, Gidiri M, Charantimath U, Makonyola G . Exploring the effect of implementation and context on a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial of a vital sign triage device in routine maternity care in low-resource settings. Implement Sci. 2019; 14(1):38. PMC: 6471783. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0885-3. View

Veglia M, Cavallaro A, Papageorghiou A, Black R, Impey L . Small-for-gestational-age babies after 37 weeks: impact study of risk-stratification protocol. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 52(1):66-71. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17544. View

Vousden N, Lawley E, Seed P, Gidiri M, Goudar S, Sandall J . Incidence of eclampsia and related complications across 10 low- and middle-resource geographical regions: Secondary analysis of a cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2019; 16(3):e1002775. PMC: 6440614. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002775. View

Wang J, Michael Shabot M, Duncan R, Polaschek J, Jones D . A clinical rules taxonomy for the implementation of a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002; :860-3. PMC: 2244545. View

10.

Abejirinde I, De Brouwere V, van Roosmalen J, van der Heiden M, Apentibadek N, Bardaji A . Viability of diagnostic decision support for antenatal care in rural settings: findings from the Bliss4Midwives Intervention in Northern Ghana. J Glob Health. 2019; 9(1):010420. PMC: 6437754. DOI: 10.7189/jogh.09.010420. View

11.

McNabb M, Chukwu E, Ojo O, Shekhar N, Gill C, Salami H . Assessment of the quality of antenatal care services provided by health workers using a mobile phone decision support application in northern Nigeria: a pre/post-intervention study. PLoS One. 2015; 10(5):e0123940. PMC: 4420494. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123940. View

12.

Bobdiwala S, Christodoulou E, Farren J, Mitchell-Jones N, Kyriacou C, Al-Memar M . Triaging women with pregnancy of unknown location using two-step protocol including M6 model: clinical implementation study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 55(1):105-114. DOI: 10.1002/uog.20420. View

13.

Kennedy H, Balaam M, Dahlen H, Declercq E, de Jonge A, Downe S . The role of midwifery and other international insights for maternity care in the United States: An analysis of four countries. Birth. 2020; 47(4):332-345. DOI: 10.1111/birt.12504. View

14.

Relph S, Coxon K, Vieira M, Copas A, Healey A, Alagna A . Effect of the Growth Assessment Protocol on the DEtection of Small for GestatioNal age fetus: process evaluation from the DESiGN cluster randomised trial. Implement Sci. 2022; 17(1):60. PMC: 9446790. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01228-1. View

15.

Aninanya G, Otupiri E, Howard N . Effects of combined decision-support and performance-based incentives on reported client satisfaction with maternal health services in primary facilities: A quasi-experimental study in the Upper East Region of Ghana. PLoS One. 2021; 16(4):e0249778. PMC: 8057590. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249778. View

16.

Wyatt J, Liu J . Basic concepts in medical informatics. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002; 56(11):808-12. PMC: 1732047. DOI: 10.1136/jech.56.11.808. View

17.

Whybrow R, Webster L, Seed P, Sandall J, Chappell L . The effectiveness of decision aids for pregnancy related decision-making in women with pre-pregnancy morbidity; systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022; 22(1):81. PMC: 8801107. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-04402-x. View

18.

Amoakoh H, Klipstein-Grobusch K, Agyepong I, Zuithoff N, Amoakoh-Coleman M, Kayode G . The effect of an mHealth clinical decision-making support system on neonatal mortality in a low resource setting: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2019; 12:31-42. PMC: 6677648. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.05.010. View

19.

Melas C, Zampetakis L, Dimopoulou A, Moustakis V . Modeling the acceptance of clinical information systems among hospital medical staff: an extended TAM model. J Biomed Inform. 2011; 44(4):553-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2011.01.009. View

20.

Ignatov P, Atanasov B . [Indirect standard cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus indirect quantitative cardiotocography--a randomized comparative study in intrapartum monitoring]. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2012; 51(5):3-10. View