MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413396773 · doi:10.2196/69603

Organizational Climate and Decision Aid Sustainability in Lupus Care: Mixed Methods Study

2025· article· en· W4413396773 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aizhan Karabukayeva, Larry R. Hearld, Nathan Carroll, Reena Joseph Kelly, Jasvinder A. Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsSustainabilitySystemic lupus erythematosusBusinessMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Digital decision aids (DAs) are increasingly used in health care to support shared decision-making and promote patient engagement. In the context of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a complex autoimmune disease characterized by diverse symptoms and uncertain prognoses, DAs offer guidance to patients in navigating treatment risks and benefits. Although numerous studies have examined the initial implementation of evidence-based tools, there is limited evidence on the organizational factors that influence their long-term sustainability in clinical practice. This gap is particularly salient for digital interventions, where integration into routine workflows and ongoing use require alignment with clinic readiness and culture. This study focuses on an evidence-based, electronic DA designed to support patients with lupus and investigates how dimensions of organizational climate, particularly learning climate and change readiness, are associated with the tool's sustained use across diverse practice settings. Objective: This study aims to examine the relationship among the learning climate, change readiness climate, and perceived permanence of a DA for patients with lupus in 15 geographically diverse rheumatology clinics in the United States. Methods: This study was conducted as part of a broader multisite implementation project. We used a concurrent mixed methods design, integrating longitudinal quantitative survey data with qualitative interviews. Quantitative data were collected via web-based surveys at 3 time points (6-, 12-, and 24-mo postimplementation) from physicians, nurses, medical assistants, and administrative personnel (n=204 responses across rounds). The primary outcome was perceived DA permanence, measured with a validated 5-item scale. Independent variables included internal and external learning climates, change commitment, and change efficacy. Data were aggregated to the clinic level and analyzed using generalized estimating equations with clustered SEs. Qualitative data were collected through 36 semistructured interviews with clinic staff to explore contextual factors affecting sustainment. Results: Quantitative findings revealed that change efficacy climate was significantly associated with greater perceived permanence of the DA (β=4.00; P<.001) while internal (β=-1.39; P<.05) and external learning climates (β=-2.11; P<.01) were negatively associated. Change in commitment was not statistically significant. Qualitative data highlighted challenges to sustainment, including poor workflow integration, lack of physician buy-in, and limited applicability of the DA to certain patient populations. Conclusions: Sustaining digital health tools like DAs requires not only technical integration but also a supportive organizational climate. This study demonstrates that perceptions of a clinic's collective ability to sustain change (change efficacy) are critical while learning climates may expose barriers that hinder long-term use. These findings underscore the importance of assessing organizational readiness and tailoring implementation strategies to foster DA sustainment in real-world settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.418 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→