A Clinical Decision Support System for Chronic Pain Management in Primary Care: Usability testing and its relevance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that are integrated into electronic medical records may be useful for encouraging practice change compliant with clinical practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To engage end users to inform early phase CDSS development through a process of usability testing. METHODS: A sequential exploratory mixed method approach was used. Interprofessional clinician participants (seven in iteration 1 and six in iteration 2) were asked to 'think aloud' while performing various tasks on the CDSS and then complete the System Usability Scale (SUS). Changes were made to the CDSS after each iteration.Results Barriers and facilitators were identified: systemic; user interface (most numerous barriers); content (most numerous facilitators) and technical. The mean SUS score was 81.1 (SD = 12.02) in iteration 1 and 70.40 (SD = 6.78) in iteration 2 (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative data from usability testing were valuable in the CDSS development process. SUS scores were of limited value at this development stage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".