A scoping review, novel taxonomy and catalogue of implementation frameworks for clinical decision support systems.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL INFORMATICS BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1186/s12911-024-02739-1
Jared M Wohlgemut, Erhan Pisirir, Rebecca S Stoner, Zane B Perkins, William Marsh, Nigel R M Tai, Evangelia Kyrimi
{"title":"A scoping review, novel taxonomy and catalogue of implementation frameworks for clinical decision support systems.","authors":"Jared M Wohlgemut, Erhan Pisirir, Rebecca S Stoner, Zane B Perkins, William Marsh, Nigel R M Tai, Evangelia Kyrimi","doi":"10.1186/s12911-024-02739-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The primary aim of this scoping review was to synthesise key domains and sub-domains described in existing clinical decision support systems (CDSS) implementation frameworks into a novel taxonomy and demonstrate most-studied and least-studied areas. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the frequency and manner of use of each framework, and catalogue frameworks by implementation stage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsychInfo and Embase was conducted on 12/01/2022, limited to English language, including 2000-2021. Each framework was categorised as addressing one or multiple stages of implementation: design and development, evaluation, acceptance and integration, and adoption and maintenance. Key parts of each framework were grouped into domains and sub-domains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3550 titles identified, 58 papers were included. The most-studied implementation stage was acceptance and integration, while the least-studied was design and development. The three main framework uses were: for evaluating adoption, for understanding attitudes toward implementation, and for framework validation. The most frequently used framework was the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Many frameworks have been published to overcome barriers to CDSS implementation and offer guidance towards successful adoption. However, for co-developers, choosing relevant frameworks may be a challenge. A taxonomy of domains addressed by CDSS implementation frameworks is provided, as well as a description of their use, and a catalogue of frameworks listed by the implementation stages they address. Future work should ensure best practices for CDSS design are adequately described, and existing frameworks are well-validated. An emphasis on collaboration between clinician and non-clinician affected parties may help advance the field.</p>","PeriodicalId":9340,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making","volume":"24 1","pages":"323"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11531160/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02739-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The primary aim of this scoping review was to synthesise key domains and sub-domains described in existing clinical decision support systems (CDSS) implementation frameworks into a novel taxonomy and demonstrate most-studied and least-studied areas. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the frequency and manner of use of each framework, and catalogue frameworks by implementation stage.

Methods: A scoping review of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsychInfo and Embase was conducted on 12/01/2022, limited to English language, including 2000-2021. Each framework was categorised as addressing one or multiple stages of implementation: design and development, evaluation, acceptance and integration, and adoption and maintenance. Key parts of each framework were grouped into domains and sub-domains.

Results: Of 3550 titles identified, 58 papers were included. The most-studied implementation stage was acceptance and integration, while the least-studied was design and development. The three main framework uses were: for evaluating adoption, for understanding attitudes toward implementation, and for framework validation. The most frequently used framework was the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Conclusions: Many frameworks have been published to overcome barriers to CDSS implementation and offer guidance towards successful adoption. However, for co-developers, choosing relevant frameworks may be a challenge. A taxonomy of domains addressed by CDSS implementation frameworks is provided, as well as a description of their use, and a catalogue of frameworks listed by the implementation stages they address. Future work should ensure best practices for CDSS design are adequately described, and existing frameworks are well-validated. An emphasis on collaboration between clinician and non-clinician affected parties may help advance the field.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床决策支持系统实施框架的范围综述、新分类法和目录。
背景:本范围综述的主要目的是将现有临床决策支持系统(CDSS)实施框架中描述的关键领域和子领域归纳为一个新的分类法,并展示研究最多和研究最少的领域。次要目标是评估每个框架的使用频率和方式,并按实施阶段对框架进行分类:方法:2022 年 1 月 12 日,对 Pubmed、Scopus、Web of Science、PsychInfo 和 Embase 进行了范围审查,仅限于英语,包括 2000-2021 年。每个框架都被归类为涉及一个或多个实施阶段:设计与开发、评估、接受与整合,以及采用与维护。每个框架的关键部分被分为领域和子领域:在确定的 3550 篇论文中,有 58 篇被收录。研究最多的实施阶段是验收和整合,而研究最少的是设计和开发。框架的三个主要用途是:评估采用情况、了解对实施的态度以及验证框架。最常用的框架是实施研究综合框架:已经发布了许多框架,以克服 CDSS 实施的障碍,并为成功采用提供指导。然而,对于共同开发者来说,选择相关框架可能是一项挑战。本文对 CDSS 实施框架所涉及的领域进行了分类,并对其使用情况进行了说明,还提供了按实施阶段列出的框架目录。未来的工作应确保充分描述 CDSS 设计的最佳实践,并对现有框架进行充分验证。强调临床医生和非临床医生受影响方之间的合作可能有助于推动该领域的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
297
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the design, development, implementation, use, and evaluation of health information technologies and decision-making for human health.
期刊最新文献
Development and validation of a risk nomogram for predicting recurrence in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation after radiofrequency catheter ablation. Classification of pulmonary diseases using machine learning and deep learning models on GLI-2012 standardized spirometry features. Predicting the risk of activities of daily living dysfunction in middle-aged and older adults with comorbid hypertension and diabetes: a national population-based survey analysis. Explainable extratreeclassifier model for early detection of type 2 diabetes: evidence from the PERSIAN Dena Cohort. Harmonizing self-reported and free text medication data: a reproducible pipeline for gerontological research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1