Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39899342›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems: Interview Study.

Godwin Denk Giebel, Pascal Raszke, Hartmuth Nowak, Lars Palmowski, Michael Adamzik, Philipp Heinz, Marianne Tokic, Nina Timmesfeld, Frank Brunkhorst, Jürgen Wasem and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Pediatrics 4.0: the Transformative Impacts of the Latest Industrial Revolution on Pediatrics.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Godwin Denk GiebelInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4182-1927
Pascal RaszkeInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-6538-0733
Hartmuth NowakDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6509-1463
Lars PalmowskiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-9553-6575
Michael AdamzikDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7188-4873
Philipp HeinzKnappschaft Kliniken GmbH, Recklinghausen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-5331-5785
Marianne TokicDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9789-575X
Nina TimmesfeldDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5175-4326
Frank BrunkhorstGerman Sepsis Society, Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8132-8651
Jürgen WasemInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9653-168X
Nikola BlaseInstitute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3774-5009

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigitalization is currently revolutionizing health care worldwide. A promising technology in this context is artificial intelligence (AI). The application of AI can support health care providers in their daily work in various ways. The integration of AI is particularly promising in clinical decision support systems (CDSSs). While the opportunities of this technology are numerous, the problems should not be overlooked.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify challenges and barriers in the context of AI-based CDSSs from the perspectives of experts across various disciplines.

methodsSemistructured expert interviews were conducted with different stakeholders. These included representatives of patients, physicians and caregivers, developers of AI-based CDSSs, researchers (studying AI in health care and social and health law), quality management and quality assurance representatives, a representative of an ethics committee, a representative of a health insurance fund, and medical product consultants. The interviews took place on the web and were recorded, transcribed, and subsequently subjected to a qualitative content analysis based on the method by Kuckartz. The analysis was conducted using MAXQDA software. Initially, the problems were separated into "general," "development," and "clinical use." Finally, a workshop within the project consortium served to systematize the identified problems.

resultsA total of 15 expert interviews were conducted, and 309 expert statements with reference to problems and barriers in the context of AI-based CDSSs were identified. These emerged in 7 problem categories: technology (46/309, 14.9%), data (59/309, 19.1%), user (102/309, 33%), studies (17/309, 5.5%), ethics (20/309, 6.5%), law (33/309, 10.7%), and general (32/309, 10.4%). The problem categories were further divided into problem areas, which in turn comprised the respective problems.

conclusionsA large number of problems and barriers were identified in the context of AI-based CDSSs. These can be systematized according to the point at which they occur ("general," "development," and "clinical use") or according to the problem category ("technology," "data," "user," "studies," "ethics," "law," and "general"). The problems identified in this work should be further investigated. They can be used as a basis for deriving solutions to optimize development, acceptance, and use of AI-based CDSSs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/preprints.62704.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansInterviews as Topicartificial intelligenceclinical decision support systemdecision supportdigital healthdigitalizationhealth carehealth informaticsinnovationmachine learningqualitativequality assurancesemistructured interviewtechnologyweb-based

Identifiers

PMID39899342
PMCPMC11833262

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.