ArticleBMC health services research2025
Qualitative study on physicians' acceptance of a clinical decision support system for anemia management in patients receiving hemodialysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical decision support systems (CDSS) for renal anemia among hemodialysis patients are gaining clinical attention. However, wide adoption remains challenging, and critical factors concerning physician acceptance remain elusive. This qualitative study conducted in-depth interviews with nephrologists to determine the relevant factors influencing physician acceptance.
methodsSeventeen nephrologists in the hemodialysis center at Far Eastern Memorial Hospital participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews to explore their views and concerns regarding CDSS. The qualitative study was performed under the well-established framework of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT).
resultsThe majority of participating physicians (14 of the 17) believed that a CDSS could streamline their workflow and save time. All participants agreed that robust clinical evidence of CDSS efficacy was critical to enhance CDSS acceptance. In addition, physicians noted that CDSS provides educational value, promotes patient safety and quality of care, and aligns with future technological trends. Despite these benefits, physicians raised concerns regarding dependence, distrust, and potential interference, which related to the physician professionalism. The UTAUT model should be extended with additional construct of autonomy in recognition of physician professionalism.
conclusionThis qualitative study revealed that nephrologists expressed positive views on the CDSS for anemia management. They acknowledged that the CDSS could enhance their work efficiency, improve patient safety, enhance care quality, and provide educational value. To optimize the acceptance of the CDSS under the UTAUT-Autonomy framework, the design and implementation of the CDSS should also address three additional key factors: over-dependence, distrust, and workflow interruption.
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.