ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Context factors in clinical decision-making: a scoping review.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel intelligent hybrid reinforcement learning framework for autonomous decision making in complex health cognitive systems.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Descriptive Qualitative Study of Patient and Carer Perspectives on the Acceptability of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Prescribing variation across Europe: Insights into prescribing practices and educational needs.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Disagreement between human and AI evaluation of treatment plans.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Infectious Diseases Orchestrator: Embracing AI Literacy in the Agentic Era.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Maternity Care Access and Infant Mortality.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Applying ChatGPT to plan and create a realistic collection of virtual patients for clinical reasoning training.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy differences in detecting wound maceration between humans and artificial intelligence: the role of human expertise revisited.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Current status and solutions for the overuse of emergency CT in pediatric patients with abdominal pain.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.