Developing a User-Centered Digital Clinical Decision Support App for Evidence-Based Medication Recommendations for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Prototype User Testing and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Closing the gap between care recommended by evidence-based guidelines and care delivered in practice is an ongoing challenge across systems and delivery models. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are widely deployed to augment clinicians in their complex decision-making processes. Despite published success stories, the poor usability of many CDSSs has contributed to fragmented workflows and alert fatigue. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate the application of a user-centered design (UCD) process in the development of a standards-based medication recommender for type 2 diabetes mellitus in a simulated setting. The prototype app was evaluated for effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 8 clinical leaders with 8 rounds of iterative user testing with 2-8 prescribers in each round to inform app development. With the resulting prototype app, we conducted a validation study with 43 participants. The participants were assigned to one of two groups and completed a 2-hour remote user testing session. Both groups reviewed mock patient facts and ordered diabetes medications for the patients. The Traditional group used a mock electronic health record (EHR) for the review in Period 1 and used the prototype app in Period 2, while the Tool group used the prototype app during both time periods. The perceived cognitive load associated with task performance during each period was assessed with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index. Participants also completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and Kano Survey. RESULTS: Average SUS scores from the questionnaire, taken at the end of 5 of the 8 user testing sessions, ranged from 68-86. The results of the validation study are as follows: percent adherence to evidence-based guidelines was greater with the use of the prototype app than with the EHR across time periods with the Traditional group (prototype app mean 96.2 vs EHR mean 72.0, P<.001) and between groups during Period 1 (Tool group mean 92.6 vs Traditional group mean 72.0, P<.001). Task completion times did not differ between groups (P=.23), but the Tool group completed medication ordering more quickly in Period 2 (Period 1 mean 130.7 seconds vs Period 2 mean 107.7 seconds, P<.001). Based on an adjusted α level owing to violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance (Ps>.03), there was no effect on screens viewed and on perceived cognitive load (all Ps>.14). CONCLUSIONS: Through deployment of the UCD process, a point-of-care medication recommender app holds promise of improving adherence to evidence-based guidelines; in this case, those from the American Diabetes Association. Task-time performance suggests that with practice the T2DM app may support a more efficient ordering process for providers, and SUS scores indicate provider satisfaction with the app.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".