Cited by 24Electronic Health Records SystemsTechnology and Human Factors in Education and HealthArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

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

Open access
Fico, Giuseppe, Hernanzez, Liss, Cancela, Jorge, Dagliati, Arianna, Sacchi, Lucia, Martinez-Millana, Antonio, Posada, Jorge, Manero, Lidia +13 more·2019·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12911-019-0887-8

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multiple authors in the included studies indicated that usability tests should be conducted with a broad range of stakeholders, not only end users such as patients, but also caregivers, managers, technology developers, and experts on content and design.

    “First, multiple authors indicated that usability tests should be conducted with a broad range of stakeholders: not only end users such as patients, but also caregivers, managers, technology developers, and experts on content and design”
  • Multiple authors in the included studies stated that ideally, multiple methods should be combined to paint a full picture of a prototype's usability.

    “Second, authors stated that ideally, multiple methods should be combined to paint a full picture of a prototype’s usability”
  • Authors stated that values should be formulated in such a way that they are neither too specific to prevent overlap with requirements nor too broad and vague.

    “First, authors stated that values should be formulated in such a way that they are neither too specific to prevent overlap with requirements nor too broad and vague.”
  • When shaping a multi-method or mixed methods development process, an iterative and flexible development approach is key.

    “the lessons learned illustrated that when shaping a multi-method or mixed methods development process, an iterative and flexible development approach is key [33,54,55,64,113,115].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fico, G., Hernanzez, L., Cancela, J., Dagliati, A., Sacchi, L., Martinez-Millana, A., Posada, J., Manero, L., Verdú, J., Facchinetti, A., Ottaviano, M., Zarkogianni, K., Nikita, K., Groop, L., Gabriel-Sanchez, R., Chiovato, L., Traver, V., Merino-Torres, J. F., Cobelli, C., Bellazzi, R., & Arredondo, M. T.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Pavia (IT)
  • Medtronic (Spain) (ES)
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • National Technical University of Athens (GR)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri (IT)
  • Universitat Politècnica de València (ES)
  • Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe (ES)
Corresponding author
Fico, Giuseppe
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2019-08-16
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
163-163
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2968940548
Cited by
22
References
46
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivo Digital UPM (Universidad Politécnica de Madrid) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • RiuNet (Universitat Politècnica de València) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
FP7 International Cooperation (600914)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, clinical decision support systems, risk prediction model, diabetes screening, risk stratification, user needs, usability, user experience, visual analytics, digital health adoption, primary and secondary care, health information systems, MOSAIC project
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Computer Simulation, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Software, Telemedicine, Risk Assessment, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review