Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42274158›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Uptake of Clinical Decision Support Systems Among Health Care Professionals in Six European Countries and the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey Within the I-CARE4OLD Project.

Collin Jc Exmann, Anna-Maria Hiltunen, Ira Haavisto, Anna Salminen, Maikki Messo, Mikko Nuutinen, Mark Hoogendoorn, Wiebe Boorsma, Elizabeth P Howard, Vanja Pešić and 10 more

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. 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

20 authors.

Collin Jc ExmannDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1007-7282
Anna-Maria HiltunenNordic Healthcare group, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0509-1899
Ira HaavistoNordic Healthcare group, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6948-845X
Anna SalminenNordic Healthcare group, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5726-8330
Maikki MessoNordic Healthcare group, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9499-8861
Mikko NuutinenNordic Healthcare group, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7429-3710
Mark HoogendoornDeparment of computer science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3356-3574
Wiebe BoorsmaDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8619-6661
Elizabeth P HowardHebrew senior life, The Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6282-7551
Vanja PešićBoston College School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9593-336X
Mor AlonChecker Software Solutions, Profility Inc, Haifa, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8548-0727
Federica MammarellaFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0396-6946
Rosa LiperotiFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3740-1687
Olena ŠvihnosováDepartment of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, 1st Faculty of medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6032-1901
Daniela FialováDepartment of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, 1st Faculty of medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5638-9690
Natalia DrapałaLaboratory for Research on Aging Society, Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Medical Faculty, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3642-6079
Katarzyna SzczerbińskaLaboratory for Research on Aging Society, Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Medical Faculty, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0004-3858
Anja DeclercqLUCAS, Center for Care Research and Consultancy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3136-124X
Hein Pj van HoutDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2495-4808
Johanna De Almeida MelloLUCAS, Center for Care Research and Consultancy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1262-318X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS), such as clinical decision rules, algorithms, or machine learning-based applications, has gained attention in recent years. However, their adoption and effectiveness may vary across different health care systems and settings. For a CDSS to be adopted, it must effectively address the practical issues encountered by professionals; however, little research has been done to identify these needs and requirements.

objectiveThis study aims to describe and compare the current use of various decision-support and prediction tools in long-term care for older people across health professionals from 6 European countries and the United States.

methodsThis study analyzed survey data from a CDSS pilot study in a purposive sample of health professionals working with older adults with complex chronic conditions from six European countries and the United States. The survey included participants' general background information, their current use of decision support tools, and their attitudes on the potential benefits of CDSS. About 20 participants were sampled per country. Closed responses were analyzed using correlation coefficients and regression models, while open-ended responses were clustered in a qualitative manner, categorizing each response.

resultsA total of 151 professionals (mean age 45.5, SD 11.6 years, 71.5%, 108/151 female) participated in the pilot study. Most participants were physicians (85/151, 56.3%) or nurses (57/151, 37.7%). About 51% (78/151) of the participants reported using CDSS, while 22.4% (34/151) used predictive CDSS, showing important variation across samples from the seven countries. The regression model for comfort with technology showed a positive association for openness to new technologies (β=0.622; P<.001), although an inverse significant association was found for age (β=-0.022; P<.001). No significant associations were found for the actual use of CDSS. Participants reported using CDSS mainly for diagnostic purposes or for guideline implementation, not aimed at prognostic information. In contrast, examples of prognostic tools were most frequently mentioned by respondents as being valuable improvements to clinical practice.

conclusionsWhile some countries' samples reported well-integrated digital health infrastructures and higher CDSS adoption rates, others still face challenges in implementing these. However, we found multiple examples of emerging tools, and at the same time, an important demand for predictive CDSS. Our findings highlight the need for improvement of current CDSS implementation and both development and implementation of particularly predictive CDSS.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDigital HealthHealth PersonnelAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesdecision support systemshome careinnovationlong term caremachine learningolder adultsprediction models

Identifiers

PMID42274158
PMCPMC13305472

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.