What do healthcare professionals need to turn risk models for type 2 diabetes into usable computerized clinical decision support systems? Lessons learned from the MOSAIC project.
Computerized decision support systems
Human centred design
Multi-disciplinary approach
Risk modelling
Type 2 diabetes
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 08 2019
16 08 2019
Historique:
received:
11
09
2018
accepted:
02
08
2019
entrez:
18
8
2019
pubmed:
20
8
2019
medline:
19
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To understand user needs, system requirements and organizational conditions towards successful design and adoption of Clinical Decision Support Systems for Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) care built on top of computerized risk models. The holistic and evidence-based CEHRES Roadmap, used to create eHealth solutions through participatory development approach, persuasive design techniques and business modelling, was adopted in the MOSAIC project to define the sequence of multidisciplinary methods organized in three phases, user needs, implementation and evaluation. The research was qualitative, the total number of participants was ninety, about five-seventeen involved in each round of experiment. Prediction models for the onset of T2D are built on clinical studies, while for T2D care are derived from healthcare registries. Accordingly, two set of DSSs were defined: the first, T2D Screening, introduces a novel routine; in the second case, T2D Care, DSSs can support managers at population level, and daily practitioners at individual level. In the user needs phase, T2D Screening and solution T2D Care at population level share similar priorities, as both deal with risk-stratification. End-users of T2D Screening and solution T2D Care at individual level prioritize easiness of use and satisfaction, while managers prefer the tools to be available every time and everywhere. In the implementation phase, three Use Cases were defined for T2D Screening, adapting the tool to different settings and granularity of information. Two Use Cases were defined around solutions T2D Care at population and T2D Care at individual, to be used in primary or secondary care. Suitable filtering options were equipped with "attractive" visual analytics to focus the attention of end-users on specific parameters and events. In the evaluation phase, good levels of user experience versus bad level of usability suggest that end-users of T2D Screening perceived the potential, but they are worried about complexity. Usability and user experience were above acceptable thresholds for T2D Care at population and T2D Care at individual. By using a holistic approach, we have been able to understand user needs, behaviours and interactions and give new insights in the definition of effective Decision Support Systems to deal with the complexity of T2D care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To understand user needs, system requirements and organizational conditions towards successful design and adoption of Clinical Decision Support Systems for Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) care built on top of computerized risk models.
METHODS
The holistic and evidence-based CEHRES Roadmap, used to create eHealth solutions through participatory development approach, persuasive design techniques and business modelling, was adopted in the MOSAIC project to define the sequence of multidisciplinary methods organized in three phases, user needs, implementation and evaluation. The research was qualitative, the total number of participants was ninety, about five-seventeen involved in each round of experiment.
RESULTS
Prediction models for the onset of T2D are built on clinical studies, while for T2D care are derived from healthcare registries. Accordingly, two set of DSSs were defined: the first, T2D Screening, introduces a novel routine; in the second case, T2D Care, DSSs can support managers at population level, and daily practitioners at individual level. In the user needs phase, T2D Screening and solution T2D Care at population level share similar priorities, as both deal with risk-stratification. End-users of T2D Screening and solution T2D Care at individual level prioritize easiness of use and satisfaction, while managers prefer the tools to be available every time and everywhere. In the implementation phase, three Use Cases were defined for T2D Screening, adapting the tool to different settings and granularity of information. Two Use Cases were defined around solutions T2D Care at population and T2D Care at individual, to be used in primary or secondary care. Suitable filtering options were equipped with "attractive" visual analytics to focus the attention of end-users on specific parameters and events. In the evaluation phase, good levels of user experience versus bad level of usability suggest that end-users of T2D Screening perceived the potential, but they are worried about complexity. Usability and user experience were above acceptable thresholds for T2D Care at population and T2D Care at individual.
CONCLUSIONS
By using a holistic approach, we have been able to understand user needs, behaviours and interactions and give new insights in the definition of effective Decision Support Systems to deal with the complexity of T2D care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31419982
doi: 10.1186/s12911-019-0887-8
pii: 10.1186/s12911-019-0887-8
pmc: PMC6697904
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
163Références
Implement Sci. 2011 Aug 03;6:92
pubmed: 21824386
BMJ. 2011 Nov 28;343:d7163
pubmed: 22123912
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Feb;38(1):1-3
pubmed: 15694880
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 May 1;25(5):538-547
pubmed: 29409033
Diabetes Care. 2004 Sep;27(9):2262-5
pubmed: 15333499
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2015 Dec;62(12):2735-49
pubmed: 26292334
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Feb;38(1):18-25
pubmed: 15694882
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Jun;38(3):213-9
pubmed: 15896694
Int J Med Inform. 2015 Dec;84(12):1009-18
pubmed: 26391601
JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1223-38
pubmed: 15755945
JMIR Res Protoc. 2013 Jun 24;2(1):e21
pubmed: 23796508
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Jun;38(3):229-38
pubmed: 15896696
J Med Syst. 2015 Sep;39(9):98
pubmed: 26254254
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Feb;38(1):34-50
pubmed: 15694884
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Jun;38(3):200-12
pubmed: 15896693
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Jun;38(3):189-99
pubmed: 15896692
BMJ. 2012 Sep 18;345:e5900
pubmed: 22990994
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015;2015:2131-4
pubmed: 26736710
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Feb;38(1):61-74
pubmed: 15694886
J Biomed Inform. 2015 Feb;53:3-14
pubmed: 25541081
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Feb;38(1):4-17
pubmed: 15694881
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Feb;38(1):75-87
pubmed: 15694887
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Feb;38(1):26-33
pubmed: 15694883
BMJ. 2013 Feb 14;346:f657
pubmed: 23412440
Cogn Process. 2009 Aug;10(3):193-7
pubmed: 19565283
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 05;13(4):e111
pubmed: 22155738
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Jun;38(3):244-55
pubmed: 15896698
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015;2015:2119-22
pubmed: 26736707
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018 Jan;15(1):15-26
pubmed: 29243500