Anticipatory moral distress in machine learning-based clinical decision support tool development: A qualitative analysis

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SSM. Qualitative research in health Pub Date : 2025-02-19 DOI:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100540
Clare Whitney , Heidi Preis , Alessa Ramos Vargas
{"title":"Anticipatory moral distress in machine learning-based clinical decision support tool development: A qualitative analysis","authors":"Clare Whitney ,&nbsp;Heidi Preis ,&nbsp;Alessa Ramos Vargas","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Ongoing interest in machine learning systems include the emerging capability to integrate electronic health records to develop clinical decision support (CDS) tools that improve medical care, diagnostics, and therapy. Such CDS tools, which can handle a large quantity of data sources, can advise clinicians and amplify insights on diverse patient risk factors, from physiological challenges to psychosocial vulnerabilities. Despite a growing interest, there are various challenges that hinder the successful use of CDS tools in clinical practice. Among these, a key challenge is hesitance or resistance among end-users to take up tools and integrate their use into practice. The current inquiry applied a framework of the symbolic interaction of participatory experience-based co-design and used an interpretive descriptive approach to analysis of qualitative data, investigating the ethical issues brought to light by clinicians participating in three participatory experience-based co-design focus groups, as a part of the initial development of a CDS tool for detecting risk factors for adverse health outcomes in outpatient obstetric care at a single academically affiliated medical institution. Findings revealed that participants describe their anticipated symbolic relationship with a ML-based CDS tool as either promising or morally distressing. Anticipatory moral distress includes three separate sub-categories: 1) <em>clinical conflict</em> with clinical assessment and judgment, 2) <em>partial conflict</em> with comprehensive clinical considerations, and 3) <em>resource conflict</em> with structural barriers related to care delivery. Future work should include utilizing participatory experience-based co-design with end users to identify relevant context and institution-specific priorities and concerns from the beginning of CDS tool development and to continue co-design throughout the development process.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100540"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321525000186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ongoing interest in machine learning systems include the emerging capability to integrate electronic health records to develop clinical decision support (CDS) tools that improve medical care, diagnostics, and therapy. Such CDS tools, which can handle a large quantity of data sources, can advise clinicians and amplify insights on diverse patient risk factors, from physiological challenges to psychosocial vulnerabilities. Despite a growing interest, there are various challenges that hinder the successful use of CDS tools in clinical practice. Among these, a key challenge is hesitance or resistance among end-users to take up tools and integrate their use into practice. The current inquiry applied a framework of the symbolic interaction of participatory experience-based co-design and used an interpretive descriptive approach to analysis of qualitative data, investigating the ethical issues brought to light by clinicians participating in three participatory experience-based co-design focus groups, as a part of the initial development of a CDS tool for detecting risk factors for adverse health outcomes in outpatient obstetric care at a single academically affiliated medical institution. Findings revealed that participants describe their anticipated symbolic relationship with a ML-based CDS tool as either promising or morally distressing. Anticipatory moral distress includes three separate sub-categories: 1) clinical conflict with clinical assessment and judgment, 2) partial conflict with comprehensive clinical considerations, and 3) resource conflict with structural barriers related to care delivery. Future work should include utilizing participatory experience-based co-design with end users to identify relevant context and institution-specific priorities and concerns from the beginning of CDS tool development and to continue co-design throughout the development process.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
期刊最新文献
Anticipatory moral distress in machine learning-based clinical decision support tool development: A qualitative analysis Exercising an individualized process of agency in restoring a self and repairing a daily life disrupted by fibromyalgia: A narrative analysis The rural risk of digital exclusion: A case study of municipal digital health and social care services in Denmark The arrhythmia of bodily urgency: Using rhythmanalysis to understand the organisation of care people living with dementia experience within acute hospital wards An exploration of discrimination in healthcare for young women in Scotland: An intersectional study
×
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:481959085
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