AIM: To design and evaluate a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to support cardiovascular risk prevention in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A preliminary requirements specification and three prototype CDSS interface designs were developed. Seven patients and seven clinicians conducted 'usability tests' on five different task scenarios with the CDSS prototypes to test its effectiveness, efficiency and 'user-friendliness'. Structured, qualitative questions explored their preferences for the different designs and overall impressions of clinical usefulness. RESULTS: Patients and clinicians were enthusiastic about the CDSS and used it confidently after a short learning period. Some patients had difficulty interpreting clinical data, but most were keen to see the CDSS used to help them understand their diabetes, provided a clinician explained their results. Clinicians' main concern was that the CDSS would increase consultation times. Changes suggested by users were incorporated into the final interface design. CONCLUSION: We have successfully incorporated patients' and clinicians' views into the design of a CDSS, but it was an arduous process.
AIM: To design and evaluate a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to support cardiovascular risk prevention in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A preliminary requirements specification and three prototype CDSS interface designs were developed. Seven patients and seven clinicians conducted 'usability tests' on five different task scenarios with the CDSS prototypes to test its effectiveness, efficiency and 'user-friendliness'. Structured, qualitative questions explored their preferences for the different designs and overall impressions of clinical usefulness. RESULTS:Patients and clinicians were enthusiastic about the CDSS and used it confidently after a short learning period. Some patients had difficulty interpreting clinical data, but most were keen to see the CDSS used to help them understand their diabetes, provided a clinician explained their results. Clinicians' main concern was that the CDSS would increase consultation times. Changes suggested by users were incorporated into the final interface design. CONCLUSION: We have successfully incorporated patients' and clinicians' views into the design of a CDSS, but it was an arduous process.
Authors: S Alphonse Zakane; Lars L Gustafsson; Ali Sie; Göran Tomson; Svetla Loukanova; Pia Bastholm-Rahmner Journal: Online J Public Health Inform Date: 2017-09-08
Authors: Regitze A S Pals; Ulla M Hansen; Clea B Johansen; Christian S Hansen; Marit E Jørgensen; Jesper Fleischer; Ingrid Willaing Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Hana Bangash; Laurie Pencille; Justin H Gundelach; Ahmed Makkawy; Joseph Sutton; Lenae Makkawy; Ozan Dikilitas; Stephen Kopecky; Robert Freimuth; Pedro J Caraballo; Iftikhar J Kullo Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2020-07-23
Authors: Michael P Craven; Jacob A Andrews; Alexandra R Lang; Sara K Simblett; Stuart Bruce; Sarah Thorpe; Til Wykes; Richard Morriss; Chris Hollis Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2020-11-26