| Literature DB >> 30907740 |
Daniel Vitório Silveira1,2,3, Milena Soriano Marcolino1,2,3, Elaine Leandro Machado2, Camila Gonçalves Ferreira2, Maria Beatriz Moreira Alkmim1,2,3, Elmiro Santos Resende2,4, Bárbara Couto Carvalho2, André Pires Antunes2,5, Antonio Luiz Pinho Ribeiro1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite being an important cardiovascular risk factor, hypertension has low control levels worldwide. Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) might be effective in reducing blood pressure with a potential impact in reducing cardiovascular risk.Entities:
Keywords: cardiovascular disease; clinical decision support system; hypertension; telemedicine
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30907740 PMCID: PMC6452279 DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.9869
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1TeleHAS open screen and main menu.
Figure 2TeleHAS previous diseases and alerts menu.
Figure 3Study design.
Expert panel perception of TeleHAS for each screen (n=5).
| Screen | Rating | ||
| Very adequate, n (%) | Adequate, n (%) | Inadequate, n (%) | |
| Initial menu | 3 (60) | 2(40) | 0 (0) |
| Identification | 3 (60) | 2 (40) | 0 (0) |
| Comorbidities | 1 (20) | 4 (80) | 0 (0) |
| Physical exam | 0 (0) | 4 (80) | 1 (20) |
| Medicine | 2 (40) | 3 (60) | 0 (0) |
| Complementary exams | 1 (20) | 4 (80) | 0 (0) |
Characteristics of primary care physicians in the study (n=10).
| Variable | Value, n (%) | |
| Sex, female | 8 (80) | |
| <5 | 7 (70) | |
| 5-10 | 1 (10) | |
| >10 | 2 (20) | |
| Angiology | 1 (10) | |
| Family medicine | 2 (20) | |
| Geriatrics | 1 (10) | |
| Occupational medicine | 1 (10) | |
| Pediatrics | 1 (10) | |
| Nonea | 4 (40) | |
| Inadequate | 2 (20) | |
| Satisfactory | 4 (40) | |
| Good | 3 (30) | |
| Excellent | 1 (10) | |
| Use of any form of technology before TeleHAS, yes | 9 (90) | |
| Computer available in the workplace for routine use, yes | 0 (0) | |
| Internet access in the workplace, yes | 5 (50) | |
| Daily | 9 (90) | |
| Monthly | 1 (10) | |
| Completed continuing education on management of hypertension or cardiovascular risk in the last year, yes | 6 (60) | |
| Guidelines | 3 (30) | |
| Books | 2 (20) | |
| Articles | 1 (10) | |
| Congress | 1 (10) | |
aResidency is not a prerequisite for doctors who work in primary care in Brazil.
Feasibility score on a 5-point scale by item (n=10).
| Item | Score mean |
| The CDSSa can be used in the primary care setting. | 4.5 |
| It can be used in home visits. | 4.2 |
| It is easy to incorporate in work routine. | 4.0 |
| Internet connection is not essential for the use of the CDSS. | 3.6 |
| The CDSS does not cause significant delays in daily routine. | 3.0 |
aCDSS: clinical decision support system.
Utility score on a 5-point scale by item (n=10).
| Item | Score mean |
| I believe that the CDSSa might improve the treatment of hypertensive patients. | 4.5 |
| Reading the recommendations of the CDSS, I had access to new information on hypertension and cardiovascular risk. | 4.1 |
| According to my previous knowledge, I believe the recommendations generated by the CDSS are appropriate. | 4.1 |
| The CDSS was useful to calculate the cardiovascular risk of hypertensive patients. | 3.8 |
| The CDSS was useful to promote cardiovascular disease prevention actions among my patients. | 4.3 |
| The CDSS helped me treat my patients. | 4.6 |
| I used the recommendations to modify the behavior of my patients. | 4.0 |
| I would recommend the CDSS to my colleagues. | 4.7 |
aCDSS: clinical decision support system.
Usability score on a 5-point scale by item (n=10).
| Item | Score mean |
| My overall evaluation of the CDSSa is good. | 4.5 |
| The CDSS screens are easy to understand. | 4.5 |
| The definitions of comorbidities are clear and unambiguous. | 4.1 |
| The CDSS fields are easy to complete. | 4.3 |
| The CDSS is intuitive and requires no previous training to use. | 3.4 |
| The CDSS is stable, and no errors occur during use. | 3.0 |
aCDSS: clinical decision support system.