Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40098142›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Context factors in clinical decision-making: a scoping review.

Katharina Schuler, Ian-C Jung, Maria Zerlik, Waldemar Hahn, Martin Sedlmayr, Brita Sedlmayr

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Katharina SchulerInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biometry, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. Katharina.schuler1@tu-dresden.de.
Ian-C JungInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biometry, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Maria ZerlikInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biometry, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Waldemar HahnInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biometry, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Martin SedlmayrInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biometry, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Brita SedlmayrInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biometry, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical decision support systems (CDSS) frequently exhibit insufficient contextual adaptation, diminishing user engagement. To enhance the sensitivity of CDSS to contextual conditions, it is crucial first to develop a comprehensive understanding of the context factors influencing the clinical decision-making process. Therefore, this study aims to systematically identify and provide an extensive overview of contextual factors affecting clinical decision-making from the literature, enabling their consideration in the future implementation of CDSS.

methodsA scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines to identify context factors in the clinical decision-making process. Searches were performed across nine databases: PubMed, APA PsycInfo, APA PsyArticles, PSYINDEX, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and LIVIVO. The search strategy focused on combined terms related to contextual factors and clinical decision-making. Included articles were original research articles written in English or German that involved empirical investigations related to clinical decision-making. The identified context factors were categorized using the card sorting method to ensure accurate classification.

resultsThe data synthesis included 84 publications, from which 946 context factors were extracted. These factors were assigned to six primary entities through card sorting: patient, physician, patient's family, institution, colleagues, and disease treatment. The majority of the identified context factors pertained to individual characteristics of the patient, such as health status and demographic attributes, as well as individual characteristics of the physician, including demographic data, skills, and knowledge.

conclusionThis study provides a comprehensive overview of context factors in clinical decision-making previously investigated in the literature, highlighting the complexity and diversity of contextual influences on the decision-making process. By offering a detailed foundation of identified context factors, this study paves the way for future research to develop more effective, context-sensitive CDSS, enhancing personalized medicine and optimizing clinical outcomes with implications for practice and policy.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansClinical decision-makingClinical decision support systemsContext factorsPatient-centered careReview

Identifiers

PMID40098142
PMCPMC11912758

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.