MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4220749473 · doi:10.2196/30946

Implementing Machine Learning Models for Suicide Risk Prediction in Clinical Practice: Focus Group Study With Hospital Providers

2022· article· en· W4220749473 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kate H. Bentley, Kelly L. Zuromski, Rebecca G. Fortgang, Emily Madsen, Daniel Kessler, Hyunjoon Lee, Matthew K. Nock, Ben Y. Reis, Víctor M. Castro, Jordan W. Smoller

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute of Mental Health
Mots-clésFocus groupRisk assessmentSuicide preventionMedicinePoison controlMedical educationPsychologyMedical emergencyNursingComputer scienceComputer security

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Interest in developing machine learning models that use electronic health record data to predict patients' risk of suicidal behavior has recently proliferated. However, whether and how such models might be implemented and useful in clinical practice remain unknown. To ultimately make automated suicide risk-prediction models useful in practice, and thus better prevent patient suicides, it is critical to partner with key stakeholders, including the frontline providers who will be using such tools, at each stage of the implementation process. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this focus group study is to inform ongoing and future efforts to deploy suicide risk-prediction models in clinical practice. The specific goals are to better understand hospital providers' current practices for assessing and managing suicide risk; determine providers' perspectives on using automated suicide risk-prediction models in practice; and identify barriers, facilitators, recommendations, and factors to consider. METHODS: We conducted 10 two-hour focus groups with a total of 40 providers from psychiatry, internal medicine and primary care, emergency medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology departments within an urban academic medical center. Audio recordings of open-ended group discussions were transcribed and coded for relevant and recurrent themes by 2 independent study staff members. All coded text was reviewed and discrepancies were resolved in consensus meetings with doctoral-level staff. RESULTS: Although most providers reported using standardized suicide risk assessment tools in their clinical practices, existing tools were commonly described as unhelpful and providers indicated dissatisfaction with current suicide risk assessment methods. Overall, providers' general attitudes toward the practical use of automated suicide risk-prediction models and corresponding clinical decision support tools were positive. Providers were especially interested in the potential to identify high-risk patients who might be missed by traditional screening methods. Some expressed skepticism about the potential usefulness of these models in routine care; specific barriers included concerns about liability, alert fatigue, and increased demand on the health care system. Key facilitators included presenting specific patient-level features contributing to risk scores, emphasizing changes in risk over time, and developing systematic clinical workflows and provider training. Participants also recommended considering risk-prediction windows, timing of alerts, who will have access to model predictions, and variability across treatment settings. CONCLUSIONS: Providers were dissatisfied with current suicide risk assessment methods and were open to the use of a machine learning-based risk-prediction system to inform clinical decision-making. They also raised multiple concerns about potential barriers to the usefulness of this approach and suggested several possible facilitators. Future efforts in this area will benefit from incorporating systematic qualitative feedback from providers, patients, administrators, and payers on the use of these new approaches in routine care, especially given the complex, sensitive, and unfortunately still stigmatized nature of suicide risk.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,014
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,542
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0140,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,115
Tête enseignante GPT0,485
Écart entre enseignants0,370 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations27
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Formative ResearchMême sujetSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesTravaux en français237 207