Victoria A Shaffer1,2, C Adam Probst3, Edgar C Merkle2, Hal R Arkes4, Mitchell A Medow5. 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri(VAS) 2. Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri (VAS, ECM) 3. Office of Patient Safety, Baylor Healthcare System, Dallas, Texas (CAP) 4. Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio (HRA) 5. College of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts (MAM)
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better understand 1) why patients have a negative perception of the use of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and 2) what contributes to the documented heterogeneity in the evaluations of physicians who use a CDSS. METHODS: Three vignette-based studies examined whether negative perceptions stemmed directly from the use of a computerized decision aid or the need to seek external advice more broadly (experiment 1) and investigated the contributing role of 2 individual difference measures, attitudes toward statistics (ATS; experiment 2) and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale (MHLC; experiment 3), to these findings. RESULTS: A physician described as making an unaided diagnosis was rated significantly more positively on a number of attributes than a physician using a computerized decision aid but not a physician who sought the advice of an expert colleague (experiment 1). ATS were unrelated to perceptions of decision aid use (experiment 2); however, greater internal locus of control was associated with more positive feelings about unaided care and more negative feelings about care when a decision aid was used (experiment 3). CONCLUSION: Negative perceptions of computerized decision aid use may not be a product of the need to seek external advice more generally but may instead be specific to the use of a nonhuman tool and may be associated with individual differences in locus of control. Together, these 3 studies may be used to guide education efforts for patients.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand 1) why patients have a negative perception of the use of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and 2) what contributes to the documented heterogeneity in the evaluations of physicians who use a CDSS. METHODS: Three vignette-based studies examined whether negative perceptions stemmed directly from the use of a computerized decision aid or the need to seek external advice more broadly (experiment 1) and investigated the contributing role of 2 individual difference measures, attitudes toward statistics (ATS; experiment 2) and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale (MHLC; experiment 3), to these findings. RESULTS: A physician described as making an unaided diagnosis was rated significantly more positively on a number of attributes than a physician using a computerized decision aid but not a physician who sought the advice of an expert colleague (experiment 1). ATS were unrelated to perceptions of decision aid use (experiment 2); however, greater internal locus of control was associated with more positive feelings about unaided care and more negative feelings about care when a decision aid was used (experiment 3). CONCLUSION: Negative perceptions of computerized decision aid use may not be a product of the need to seek external advice more generally but may instead be specific to the use of a nonhuman tool and may be associated with individual differences in locus of control. Together, these 3 studies may be used to guide education efforts for patients.
Authors: Paul K J Han; Nathan F Dieckmann; Christina Holt; Caitlin Gutheil; Ellen Peters Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Qian Yang; John Zimmerman; Aaron Steinfeld; Lisa Carey; James F Antaki Journal: ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.351
Authors: Negin Hajizadeh; Rafael E Perez Figueroa; Lauren M Uhler; Erin Chiou; Jennifer E Perchonok; Enid Montague Journal: J Particip Med Date: 2013-03-06
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Margaux Genoff Garzon; Joy S Westerman; Elyse Shuk; Jennifer L Hay; Chasity Walters; Elena Elkin; Corinna Bertelsen; Jessica Cho; Bobby Daly; Ayca Gucalp; Andrew D Seidman; Marjorie G Zauderer; Andrew S Epstein; Mark G Kris Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: C M den Bakker; F G Schaafsma; J A F Huirne; E C J Consten; H B A C Stockmann; C J Rodenburg; G J de Klerk; H J Bonjer; J R Anema Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 4.430