S Alphonse Zakane1,2, Lars L Gustafsson2, Ali Sie1, Göran Tomson3,4, Svetla Loukanova5, Pia Bastholm-Rahmner4. 1. 1. Centre de Recherche en Santé de Nouna, BP 02 Nouna, Burkina Faso. 2. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital , SE-141 86, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Health Systems and Policy, Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden. 4. 4. Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre (MMC), Karolinska Institutet, SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Marsilius-Arkaden, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, D-69120 Heidelberg.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Maternal and neonatal mortality is high in sub-Saharan Africa. To support Healthcare Workers (HCWs), a computerized decision support system (CDSS) was piloted at six rural maternal care units in Burkina Faso. During the two years of the study period, it was apparent from reports that the CDSS was not used regularly in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore the reasons why HCWs failed to use the CDSS. METHODS: A workshop, organized as group discussions and a plenary session, was performed with 13 participants to understand their experience with the CDSS and suggest improvements if pertinent. Workshop transcripts were analyzed thematically. Socio-demographic and usage patterns of the CDSS were examined by a questionnaire and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: The participants reported that the contextual basic conditions for using the CDSS were not fulfilled. These included unreliable power supply, none user-friendly partograph, the CDSS was not integrated with workflow and staff lacked motivational incentives. Despite these limitations, the HCWs reported learning benefits from guidance and alerts in the CDSS. Using the CDSS enabled them to discover problems earlier as they learned to focus on symptoms to prevent harmful situations. CONCLUSION: The CDSS was not tailored to the needs and context of the users. The HCWs, defined their needs and suggested how the CDSS should be re-designed. This suggests that the successful and regular usage of any CDSS in rural settings requires the involvement of users throughout the construction and pilot-testing phases and not only during the early prototype design period.
OBJECTIVE: Maternal and neonatal mortality is high in sub-Saharan Africa. To support Healthcare Workers (HCWs), a computerized decision support system (CDSS) was piloted at six rural maternal care units in Burkina Faso. During the two years of the study period, it was apparent from reports that the CDSS was not used regularly in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore the reasons why HCWs failed to use the CDSS. METHODS: A workshop, organized as group discussions and a plenary session, was performed with 13 participants to understand their experience with the CDSS and suggest improvements if pertinent. Workshop transcripts were analyzed thematically. Socio-demographic and usage patterns of the CDSS were examined by a questionnaire and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: The participants reported that the contextual basic conditions for using the CDSS were not fulfilled. These included unreliable power supply, none user-friendly partograph, the CDSS was not integrated with workflow and staff lacked motivational incentives. Despite these limitations, the HCWs reported learning benefits from guidance and alerts in the CDSS. Using the CDSS enabled them to discover problems earlier as they learned to focus on symptoms to prevent harmful situations. CONCLUSION: The CDSS was not tailored to the needs and context of the users. The HCWs, defined their needs and suggested how the CDSS should be re-designed. This suggests that the successful and regular usage of any CDSS in rural settings requires the involvement of users throughout the construction and pilot-testing phases and not only during the early prototype design period.
Authors: O J Gadabu; R C Manjomo; S G Mwakilama; G P Douglas; A D Harries; C Moyo; L D Makonokaya; S Kang'oma; P Chitedze; F B Chinsinga Journal: Public Health Action Date: 2014-09-21
Authors: Carmen Carroll; Phil Marsden; Pat Soden; Emma Naylor; John New; Tim Dornan Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Ellen Kilsdonk; Linda W Peute; Rinke J Riezebos; Leontien C Kremer; Monique W M Jaspers Journal: Artif Intell Med Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 5.326
Authors: Jamie J Coleman; Heleen van der Sijs; Walter E Haefeli; Sarah P Slight; Sarah E McDowell; Hanna M Seidling; Birgit Eiermann; Jos Aarts; Elske Ammenwerth; Ann Slee; Robin E Ferner; Robin E Ferner; Ann Slee Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Nhi Dinh; Smisha Agarwal; Lisa Avery; Priya Ponnappan; Judith Chelangat; Paul Amendola; Alain Labrique; Linda Bartlett Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-06-20