Cited by 78Electronic Health Records SystemsAntibiotic Use and ResistanceArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Factors That Impact the Adoption of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) for Antibiotic Management

Open access
Laka, Mah, Milazzo, Adriana, Merlin, Tracy·2021·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract

The study evaluated individual and setting-specific factors that moderate clinicians’ perception regarding use of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) for antibiotic management. A cross-sectional online survey examined clinicians’ perceptions about CDSS implementation for antibiotic management in Australia. Multivariable logistic regression determined the association between drivers of CDSS adoption and different moderators. Clinical experience, CDSS use and care setting were important predictors of clinicians’ perception concerning CDSS adoption. Compared to nonusers, CDSS users were less likely to lack confidence in CDSS (OR = 0.63, 95%, CI = 0.32, 0.94) and consider it a threat to professional autonomy (OR = 0.47, 95%, CI = 0.08, 0.83). Conversely, there was higher likelihood in experienced clinicians (>20 years) to distrust CDSS (OR = 1.58, 95%, CI = 1.08, 2.23) due to fear of comprising their clinical judgement (OR = 1.68, 95%, CI = 1.27, 2.85). In primary care, clinicians were more likely to perceive time constraints (OR = 1.96, 95%, CI = 1.04, 3.70) and patient preference (OR = 1.84, 95%, CI = 1.19, 2.78) as barriers to CDSS adoption for antibiotic prescribing. Our findings provide differentiated understanding of the CDSS implementation landscape by identifying different individual, organisational and system-level factors that influence system adoption. The individual and setting characteristics can help understand the variability in CDSS adoption for antibiotic management in different clinicians.

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 · 10.3390/ijerph18041901

Cites

57 of 57 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [39]Corbin J. Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA, USA 2014
  2. [55]Afonso C.M. Roldán Salgueiro J.L. Sánchez Franco M.J. González M.d.l.O. The moderator role of gender in the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (utaut): A study on users of electronic document management systems Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Partial Least Squares and Related Methods Houston, TX, USA 19–22 May 2012

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Laka, M., Milazzo, A., & Merlin, T.
Affiliations
The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
Merlin, Tracy
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-02-16
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
1901
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3129286046
Cited by
78
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 2
FWCI
10.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Hand Therapy Association
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
clinical decision support systems, antibiotic prescribing, technology adoption, clinician perceptions, professional autonomy, trust in AI, clinical experience, primary care, care environment, implementation barriers, patient preferences, time constraints
MeSH terms
Anti-Bacterial Agents, Australia, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Primary Health Care, 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