Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41813251›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Interorganizational Mechanisms for Developing and Implementing Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: Exploratory, Qualitative Case Study.

Jesse J M M Santema, Jeroen D H van Wijngaarden, Eric G Hiddink, Fleur Deken, Maaike Kleinsmann, Hendrikus J A van Os

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. 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. Article
  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

6 authors.

Jesse J M M SantemaIndustrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 5, Delft, South Holland, 2628 CD, The Netherlands, 31 612815254.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8744-3466
Jeroen D H van WijngaardenHealth Services Management & Organization, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, South Holland, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8432-6611
Eric G HiddinkNational eHealth Living Lab, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, South Holland, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-2057-1954
Fleur DekenSchool of Business and Economics, Knowledge, Information and Innovation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4278-3202
Maaike KleinsmannIndustrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 5, Delft, South Holland, 2628 CD, The Netherlands, 31 612815254.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4120-5048
Hendrikus J A van OsNational eHealth Living Lab, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, South Holland, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8911-8608

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have the potential to improve patient safety and reduce costs in primary care. However, CDSS adoption remains limited due to development and implementation challenges. CDSSs are complex interventions involving multiple interacting components that require technological innovation and behavioral and organizational change. Additionally, the primary care context is considered a complex system with high care demand, fragmented structures, and many independent yet interdependent organizations. Established determinant frameworks for implementing and scaling up complex health care interventions support the identification of implementation determinants. However, they offer limited guidance on the underlying processes of these determinants, such as the implementation processes involved in complex interorganizational collaboration in primary care. Objective: This study examined how an interorganizational collaboration in Dutch primary care (Gezonde zorg, Gezonde regio [GzGr]) achieved an iterative CDSS development and implementation. We aimed to identify the mechanisms that supported the collaboration in overcoming challenges. Methods: We performed an exploratory process-level case study. Data were collected through 15 semistructured interviews. The nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability framework was used to ensure comprehensive topic coverage during the interviews, but not as an analytical framework. We triangulated the interviews with internal and external documents and expert input. Using a thematic, inductive approach, we developed a chronological overview of the collaboration and identified mechanisms offering insights into how GzGr navigated complexity in the development and implementation of CDSS. Results: We identified two mechanisms: (1) enacting an interorganizational value model and (2) iterative, co-creative experimentation. First, GzGr was driven by a coalition of the willing (ie, individuals willing to take an extra step), with shared goals that prioritized collective benefit while respecting organizational values. They established shared principles that translated the broad GzGr mission into concrete CDSS development choices, while also guiding strategic expansion by involving mission-aligned, innovative organizations. Second, after initial prototypes, GzGr established an iterative learning and improvement experimentation for both the technology and the collaboration. This process allowed for rapid feedback, validation of added value, and ongoing refinement. Additionally, this experimentation approached the development and implementation phase as a continuous process involving multistakeholders, supporting both the technology and the collaboration. Conclusions: This study identified 2 mechanisms that sustained interorganizational collaboration and CDSS development. These mechanisms connected collaborative and technical changes across people, technology, and organizational levels, enabling technological viability, stakeholder value, and multilevel support. The mechanisms operated both within and between organizations through iterative cycles of development and implementation. Practical implications include involving multilevel, innovative, and influential stakeholders; maintaining alignment through an orchestrating actor; and adopting an iterative approach between development and implementation. Our findings extend existing determinant frameworks by offering process-level insights into how such mechanisms help overcome challenges in the development and implementation of CDSS within interorganizational collaborations.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalPrimary Health CareCooperative BehaviorHumansNetherlandsOrganizational Case StudiesQualitative Researchclinical decision support systemsintegration of businessintegration of peopleintegration of technologyinterorganizational collaborationiterative development and implementationmechanisms of changemultilevel stakeholder involvementprocess-level analysis

Identifiers

PMID41813251
PMCPMC12978902

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.