Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39445034›Full record

ReviewJAMIA open2024

Advancing patient-centered clinical decision support in today's health care ecosystem: key themes from the Clinical Decision Support Innovation Collaborative's 2023 Annual Meeting.

Prashila Dullabh, Rina Dhopeshwarkar, Elizabeth Cope, Nicole Gauthreaux, Courtney Zott, Caroline Peterson, Desirae Leaphart, Sarah Hoyt, Amy Hammer, Sofia Ryan and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

14 authors.

Prashila DullabhHealth Sciences Department, NORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States.
Rina DhopeshwarkarHealth Sciences Department, NORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States.
Elizabeth CopeAcademyHealth, Washington, DC 20006, United States.
Nicole GauthreauxHealth Sciences Department, NORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5743-0640
Courtney ZottHealth Sciences Department, NORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States.
Caroline PetersonHealth Sciences Department, NORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States.
Desirae LeaphartHealth Sciences Department, NORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States.
Sarah HoytAcademyHealth, Washington, DC 20006, United States.
Amy HammerAcademyHealth, Washington, DC 20006, United States.
Sofia RyanHealth Sciences Department, NORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States.
James SwigerCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD 20857, United States.
Edwin A LomotanCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD 20857, United States.
Priyanka DesaiHealth Sciences Department, NORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1573-4790
CDSiC Annual Meeting Planning Committee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This perspective summarizes key themes that arose from stakeholder discussions at the inaugural Clinical Decision Support Innovation Collaborative (CDSiC) 2023 Annual Meeting. The CDSiC is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-funded innovation hub for patient-centered clinical decision support (PC CDS). Materials and Methods: The meeting took place on May 16-17, 2023, and engaged 73 participants that represented a range of stakeholder groups including researchers, informaticians, federal representatives, clinicians, patients, and electronic health record developers. Each meeting session was recorded and had 2 notetakers. CDSiC leadership analyzed the compiled meeting notes to synthesize key themes. Results: Participants discussed 7 key opportunities to advance PC CDS: (1) establish feedback loops between patients and clinicians; (2) develop new workflows; (3) expand the evidence base; (4) adapt the CDS Five Rights for the patient perspective; (5) advance health equity; (6) explore perceptions on the use of artificial intelligence; and (7) encourage widespread use and scalability of PC CDS. Discussion and Conclusion: Innovative approaches are needed to ensure patients' and caregivers' voices are meaningfully included to advance PC CDS.

Indexed as

clinical decision support systemspatient-centered carevalue-based health care

Identifiers

PMID39445034
PMCPMC11498195

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.