Upgrading clinical decision support with published evidence

what can make the biggest difference?

E. Andrew Balas, Kui Chun Su, Jan Frederik Solem, Zong Rong Li, Gordon Brown

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background To enhance clinical decision support, presented messages are increasingly supplemented with information from the medical literature. The goal of this study was to identify types of evidence that can lead to the biggest difference. Methods Seven versions of a questionnaire were mailed to randomly selected active family practice physicians and internists across the United States. They were asked about the perceived values of evidence from randomized controlled trials, locally developed recommendations, no evidence, cost-effectiveness studies, expert opinion, epidemiologic studies, and clinical studies. Analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons were used for statistical testing. Results Seventy-six (52%) physicians responded On a Likert scale from one to six, randomized controlled clinical trial was the highest rated evidence (mean 5.07, SD±1.14). Such evidence was significantly superior to locally developed recommendations and no evidence at all (P<.05). The interaction was also strong between the types of evidence and clinical areas (P=.0001). Conclusion While most health care organizations present data without interpretation or simply try to enforce locally developed recommendations, such approaches appear to be inferior to techniques of reporting data with pertinent controlled evidence from the literature. Investigating physicians' perceptions is likely to benefit the design of computer generated messages.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationStudies in Health Technology and Informatics
Pages845-848
Number of pages4
Volume52
EditionPt2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1998
Externally publishedYes
Event9th World Congress on Medical Informatics, MedInfo 1998 - Seoul, Korea, Republic of
Duration: Aug 18 1998Aug 22 1998

Other

Other9th World Congress on Medical Informatics, MedInfo 1998
CountryKorea, Republic of
CitySeoul
Period8/18/988/22/98

Fingerprint

Clinical Decision Support Systems
Cost effectiveness
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Health care
Randomized Controlled Trials
Physicians
Family Practice
Family Physicians
Expert Testimony
Testing
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Epidemiologic Studies
Analysis of Variance
Research Design
Organizations
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Clinical trial
  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Epidemiologic study
  • Evidence
  • Expert opinion
  • Perception
  • Physicians
  • Preference
  • Randomized controlled trial

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Health Informatics
  • Health Information Management

Cite this

Balas, E. A., Su, K. C., Solem, J. F., Li, Z. R., & Brown, G. (1998). Upgrading clinical decision support with published evidence: what can make the biggest difference? In Studies in Health Technology and Informatics (Pt2 ed., Vol. 52, pp. 845-848) https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-896-0-845

Upgrading clinical decision support with published evidence : what can make the biggest difference? / Balas, E. Andrew; Su, Kui Chun; Solem, Jan Frederik; Li, Zong Rong; Brown, Gordon.

Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. Vol. 52 Pt2. ed. 1998. p. 845-848.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Balas, EA, Su, KC, Solem, JF, Li, ZR & Brown, G 1998, Upgrading clinical decision support with published evidence: what can make the biggest difference? in Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. Pt2 edn, vol. 52, pp. 845-848, 9th World Congress on Medical Informatics, MedInfo 1998, Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 8/18/98. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-896-0-845
Balas EA, Su KC, Solem JF, Li ZR, Brown G. Upgrading clinical decision support with published evidence: what can make the biggest difference? In Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. Pt2 ed. Vol. 52. 1998. p. 845-848 https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-896-0-845
Balas, E. Andrew ; Su, Kui Chun ; Solem, Jan Frederik ; Li, Zong Rong ; Brown, Gordon. / Upgrading clinical decision support with published evidence : what can make the biggest difference?. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. Vol. 52 Pt2. ed. 1998. pp. 845-848
@inbook{73f169fc3478440a94076345bf69d17e,
title = "Upgrading clinical decision support with published evidence: what can make the biggest difference?",
abstract = "Background To enhance clinical decision support, presented messages are increasingly supplemented with information from the medical literature. The goal of this study was to identify types of evidence that can lead to the biggest difference. Methods Seven versions of a questionnaire were mailed to randomly selected active family practice physicians and internists across the United States. They were asked about the perceived values of evidence from randomized controlled trials, locally developed recommendations, no evidence, cost-effectiveness studies, expert opinion, epidemiologic studies, and clinical studies. Analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons were used for statistical testing. Results Seventy-six (52{\%}) physicians responded On a Likert scale from one to six, randomized controlled clinical trial was the highest rated evidence (mean 5.07, SD±1.14). Such evidence was significantly superior to locally developed recommendations and no evidence at all (P<.05). The interaction was also strong between the types of evidence and clinical areas (P=.0001). Conclusion While most health care organizations present data without interpretation or simply try to enforce locally developed recommendations, such approaches appear to be inferior to techniques of reporting data with pertinent controlled evidence from the literature. Investigating physicians' perceptions is likely to benefit the design of computer generated messages.",
keywords = "Clinical trial, Cost-effectiveness, Epidemiologic study, Evidence, Expert opinion, Perception, Physicians, Preference, Randomized controlled trial",
author = "Balas, {E. Andrew} and Su, {Kui Chun} and Solem, {Jan Frederik} and Li, {Zong Rong} and Gordon Brown",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3233/978-1-60750-896-0-845",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9051994079",
volume = "52",
pages = "845--848",
booktitle = "Studies in Health Technology and Informatics",
edition = "Pt2",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Upgrading clinical decision support with published evidence

T2 - what can make the biggest difference?

AU - Balas, E. Andrew

AU - Su, Kui Chun

AU - Solem, Jan Frederik

AU - Li, Zong Rong

AU - Brown, Gordon

PY - 1998/1/1

Y1 - 1998/1/1

N2 - Background To enhance clinical decision support, presented messages are increasingly supplemented with information from the medical literature. The goal of this study was to identify types of evidence that can lead to the biggest difference. Methods Seven versions of a questionnaire were mailed to randomly selected active family practice physicians and internists across the United States. They were asked about the perceived values of evidence from randomized controlled trials, locally developed recommendations, no evidence, cost-effectiveness studies, expert opinion, epidemiologic studies, and clinical studies. Analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons were used for statistical testing. Results Seventy-six (52%) physicians responded On a Likert scale from one to six, randomized controlled clinical trial was the highest rated evidence (mean 5.07, SD±1.14). Such evidence was significantly superior to locally developed recommendations and no evidence at all (P<.05). The interaction was also strong between the types of evidence and clinical areas (P=.0001). Conclusion While most health care organizations present data without interpretation or simply try to enforce locally developed recommendations, such approaches appear to be inferior to techniques of reporting data with pertinent controlled evidence from the literature. Investigating physicians' perceptions is likely to benefit the design of computer generated messages.

AB - Background To enhance clinical decision support, presented messages are increasingly supplemented with information from the medical literature. The goal of this study was to identify types of evidence that can lead to the biggest difference. Methods Seven versions of a questionnaire were mailed to randomly selected active family practice physicians and internists across the United States. They were asked about the perceived values of evidence from randomized controlled trials, locally developed recommendations, no evidence, cost-effectiveness studies, expert opinion, epidemiologic studies, and clinical studies. Analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons were used for statistical testing. Results Seventy-six (52%) physicians responded On a Likert scale from one to six, randomized controlled clinical trial was the highest rated evidence (mean 5.07, SD±1.14). Such evidence was significantly superior to locally developed recommendations and no evidence at all (P<.05). The interaction was also strong between the types of evidence and clinical areas (P=.0001). Conclusion While most health care organizations present data without interpretation or simply try to enforce locally developed recommendations, such approaches appear to be inferior to techniques of reporting data with pertinent controlled evidence from the literature. Investigating physicians' perceptions is likely to benefit the design of computer generated messages.

KW - Clinical trial

KW - Cost-effectiveness

KW - Epidemiologic study

KW - Evidence

KW - Expert opinion

KW - Perception

KW - Physicians

KW - Preference

KW - Randomized controlled trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887664207&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887664207&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3233/978-1-60750-896-0-845

DO - 10.3233/978-1-60750-896-0-845

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9051994079

SN - 9789051994070

VL - 52

SP - 845

EP - 848

BT - Studies in Health Technology and Informatics

ER -