Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42106719›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026

A care quality dashboard for general practitioners managing patients with diabetes mellitus type 2: user-centered design and prototype evaluation.

Lola Jo Ackermann, Odile-Florence Giger, Marinja Principe, Michael Brändle, Mia Jovanova, Tobias Kowatsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Lola Jo AckermannSchool of Medicine, University of St.Gallen, St.Gallen, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0001-0600-6839
Odile-Florence GigerInstitute of Technology Management, University of St.Gallen, St.Gallen, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0005-7660-864X
Marinja PrincipeInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0002-5699-7375
Michael BrändleHOCH Health Ostschweiz, Cantonal Hospital St.Gallen, St.Gallen, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3228-0313
Mia Jovanova *School of Medicine, University of St.Gallen, St.Gallen, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3634-4449
Tobias Kowatsch *School of Medicine, University of St.Gallen, St.Gallen, Switzerland. tkowatsch@ethz.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-5939-4145

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes mellitus type 2 (T2D) is a growing burden in Switzerland, where general practitioners (GPs) face increasing workload. To evaluate the quality of T2D care, the Swiss Society of Endocrinology and Diabetology (SGED) developed the SGED score to help GPs overview aggregated patient parameters at the practice level. However, the practical use of the SGED score is hampered by paper-based workflows and fragmented documentation. Currently, no dashboard exists to specifically visualize the SGED score, which overviews aggregated population parameters such as HbA1c or blood pressure. To address this gap, this study examined: (1) what functional requirements healthcare professionals consider essential for such a potential SGED dashboard, and (2) how do healthcare professionals evaluate the usability and clinical relevance of an iteratively developed dashboard prototype.

methodsWe employed an iterative, user-centered three-step approach involving 10 semi-structured interviews with 14 Swiss T2D healthcare professionals. Step 1 involved defining the project scope, identifying predefined functional requirements, and developing an initial SGED score dashboard prototype. Step 2 collected user-generated requirements and prioritized all requirements using the "Must Have", "Should Have", "Could Have", "Won't Have" (MoSCoW) method. In step 3, the high-fidelity Figma dashboard prototype was iteratively refined based on the requirements and interviewee feedback.

resultsKey functional requirements of the digital SGED score included reminder and alert functions for missing or overdue SGED-relevant assessments, color-coded critical values such as low nephropathy screening rates, demographic overviews, trend analyses of SGED indicators at practice level, benchmarking within practice networks, and exportable reports. Additional needs emerged for patient-level views, integrated checklists, inclusion of comorbidities, and personal or practice-specific goal-setting features. Iterative refinements based on user feedback improved clarity, usability, and visual appeal. Some participants highlighted the dashboard's intuitive design, clear and diverse visualizations, and benchmarking functionalities, describing it as both engaging and efficient. Others raised concerns about limited suitability for daily clinical workflows, potential integration challenges with existing systems, and the need for interactive, patient-centered features to support routine care.

conclusionThe proposed SGED score dashboard could enhance T2D care through features like population overviews, long-term visualizations, and anonymized benchmarking, meaning the ability to compare a practice's SGED performance with those of other practices. Successful clinical adoption will heavily depend on interoperability and seamless integration into existing workflows. The identified requirements provide a foundation for future digital T2D management systems.

Indexed as

Dashboard SystemsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2General PractitionersQuality of Health CareUser-Centered DesignHumansSwitzerlandDashboardDiabetes mellitus type 2InterviewsPrototypeQualitative methodsSGED scoreSwitzerlandUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID42106719
PMCPMC13326401

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.