↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of multiple-domain covering computerized decision support systems in primary care: a focus group study on perceived barriers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementation of multiple-domain covering computerized decision support systems in primary care: a focus group study on perceived barriers
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0205-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marjolein Lugtenberg, Jan-Willem Weenink, Trudy van der Weijden, Gert P. Westert, Rudolf B. Kool

Abstract

Despite the widespread availability of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) in various healthcare settings, evidence on their uptake and effectiveness is still limited. Most barrier studies focus on CDSSs that are aimed at a limited number of decision points within selected small-scale academic settings. The aim of this study was to identify the perceived barriers to using large-scale implemented CDSSs covering multiple disease areas in primary care. Three focus group sessions were conducted in which 24 primary care practitioners (PCPs) participated (general practitioners, general practitioners in training and practice nurses), varying from 7 to 9 per session. In each focus group, barriers to using CDSSs were discussed using a semi-structured literature-based topic list. Focus group discussions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently performed thematic content analysis using the software program Atlas.ti 7.0. Three groups of barriers emerged, related to 1) the users' knowledge of the system, 2) the users' evaluation of features of the system (source and content, format/lay out, and functionality), and 3) the interaction of the system with external factors (patient-related and environmental factors). Commonly perceived barriers were insufficient knowledge of the CDSS, irrelevant alerts, too high intensity of alerts, a lack of flexibility and learning capacity of the CDSS, a negative effect on patient communication, and the additional time and work it requires to use the CDSS. Multiple types of barriers may hinder the use of large-scale implemented CDSSs covering multiple disease areas in primary care. Lack of knowledge of the system is an important barrier, emphasizing the importance of a proper introduction of the system to the target group. Furthermore, barriers related to a lack of integration into daily practice seem to be of primary concern, suggesting that increasing the system's flexibility and learning capacity in order to be able to adapt the decision support to meet the varying needs of different users should be the main target of CDSS interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 26 23%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Computer Science 10 9%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,698,802
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,215
of 1,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,088
of 279,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#26
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,989 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.