Barriers to the Use of Clinical Decision Support for the Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism: Qualitative Interview Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians often disregard potentially beneficial clinical decision support (CDS). OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to explore the psychological and behavioral barriers to the use of a CDS tool. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving emergency medicine physicians and physician assistants. A semistructured interview guide was created based on the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation-Behavior model. Interviews focused on the barriers to the use of a CDS tool built based on Wells' criteria for pulmonary embolism to assist clinicians in establishing pretest probability of pulmonary embolism before imaging. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 12 clinicians. Six barriers were identified, including (1) Bayesian reasoning, (2) fear of missing a pulmonary embolism, (3) time pressure or cognitive load, (4) gestalt includes Wells' criteria, (5) missed risk factors, and (6) social pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians highlighted several important psychological and behavioral barriers to CDS use. Addressing these barriers will be paramount in developing CDS that can meet its potential to transform clinical care.
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 | 0.035 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".