Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33427686›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Development and Implementation of a Decision Support System to Improve Control of Hypertension and Diabetes in a Resource-Constrained Area in Brazil: Mixed Methods Study.

Milena Soriano Marcolino, João Antonio Queiroz Oliveira, Christiane Corrêa Rodrigues Cimini, Junia Xavier Maia, Vânia Soares Oliveira Almeida Pinto, Thábata Queiroz Vivas Sá, Kaique Amancio, Lissandra Coelho, Leonardo Bonisson Ribeiro, Clareci Silva Cardoso and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Hypertension control in resource-constrained settings: Bridging socioeconomic gaps with predictive insights.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Milena Soriano MarcolinoMedical School, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4278-3771
João Antonio Queiroz OliveiraMedical School, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3116-4713
Christiane Corrêa Rodrigues CiminiMedical School, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Teófilo Otoni, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1973-1343
Junia Xavier MaiaTelehealth Center, University Hospital, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9293-5257
Vânia Soares Oliveira Almeida PintoMedical School, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Teófilo Otoni, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4440-0976
Thábata Queiroz Vivas SáTelehealth Center, University Hospital, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-1103-919X
Kaique AmancioMedical School, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8131-8173
Lissandra CoelhoMedical School, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Teófilo Otoni, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8640-5495
Leonardo Bonisson RibeiroTelehealth Center, University Hospital, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9035-0722
Clareci Silva CardosoMedical School, Universidade Federal de São João del-Rei, Divinópolis, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0689-1644
Antonio Luiz RibeiroMedical School, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2740-0042
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRUniversidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri · BRFederal University of São João del-Rei · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe low levels of control of hypertension and diabetes mellitus are a challenge that requires innovative strategies to surpass barriers of low sources, distance, and quality of health care.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to develop a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for diabetes and hypertension management in primary care, to implement it in a resource-constrained region, and to evaluate its usability and health care practitioner satisfaction.

methodsThis mixed methods study is a substudy of HealthRise Brazil Project, a multinational study designed to implement pilot programs to improve screening, diagnosis, management, and control of hypertension and diabetes among underserved communities. Following the identification of gaps in usual care, a team of clinicians established the software functional requirements. Recommendations from evidence-based guidelines were reviewed and organized into a decision algorithm, which bases the CDSS reminders and suggestions. Following pretesting and expert panel assessment, pilot testing was conducted in a quasi-experimental study, which included 34 primary care units of 10 municipalities in a resource-constrained area in Brazil. A Likert-scale questionnaire evaluating perceived feasibility, usability, and utility of the application and professionals' satisfaction was applied after 6 months. In the end-line assessment, 2 focus groups with primary care physicians and nurses were performed.

resultsA total of 159 reminders and suggestions were created and implemented for the CDSS. At the 6-month assessment, there were 1939 patients registered in the application database and 2160 consultations were performed by primary care teams. Of the 96 health care professionals who were invited for the usability assessment, 26% (25/96) were physicians, 46% (44/96) were nurses, and 28% (27/96) were other health professionals. The questionnaire included 24 items on impressions of feasibility, usability, utility, and satisfaction, and presented global Cronbach α of .93. As for feasibility, all professionals agreed (median scores of 4 or 5) that the application could be used in primary care settings and it could be easily incorporated in work routines, but physicians claimed that the application might have caused significant delays in daily routines. As for usability, overall evaluation was good and it was claimed that the application was easy to understand and use. All professionals agreed that the application was useful (score 4 or 5) to promote prevention, assist treatment, and might improve patient care, and they were overall satisfied with the application (median scores between 4 and 5). In the end-line assessment, there were 4211 patients (94.82% [3993/4211] with hypertension and 24.41% [1028/4211] with diabetes) registered in the application's database and 7960 consultations were performed by primary health care teams. The 17 participants of the focus groups were consistent to affirm they were very satisfied with the CDSS.

conclusionsThe CDSS was applicable in the context of primary health care settings in low-income regions, with good user satisfaction and potential to improve adherence to evidence-based practices.

Indexed as

AdultBrazilData AnalysisDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDiabetes MellitusFemaleHumansHypertensionMalePilot ProjectsSurveys and Questionnairesclinical decision support systemsdiabetes mellitusevidence-based practicehypertensionpatient care managementprimary health caretelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33427686
PMCPMC7834943
OpenAlexW3089013769

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.