Anticipatory moral distress in machine learning-based clinical decision support tool development: A qualitative analysis

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Clare Whitney , Heidi Preis , Alessa Ramos Vargas
{"title":"Anticipatory moral distress in machine learning-based clinical decision support tool development: A qualitative analysis","authors":"Clare Whitney ,&nbsp;Heidi Preis ,&nbsp;Alessa Ramos Vargas","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Ongoing interest in machine learning systems include the emerging capability to integrate electronic health records to develop clinical decision support (CDS) tools that improve medical care, diagnostics, and therapy. Such CDS tools, which can handle a large quantity of data sources, can advise clinicians and amplify insights on diverse patient risk factors, from physiological challenges to psychosocial vulnerabilities. Despite a growing interest, there are various challenges that hinder the successful use of CDS tools in clinical practice. Among these, a key challenge is hesitance or resistance among end-users to take up tools and integrate their use into practice. The current inquiry applied a framework of the symbolic interaction of participatory experience-based co-design and used an interpretive descriptive approach to analysis of qualitative data, investigating the ethical issues brought to light by clinicians participating in three participatory experience-based co-design focus groups, as a part of the initial development of a CDS tool for detecting risk factors for adverse health outcomes in outpatient obstetric care at a single academically affiliated medical institution. Findings revealed that participants describe their anticipated symbolic relationship with a ML-based CDS tool as either promising or morally distressing. Anticipatory moral distress includes three separate sub-categories: 1) <em>clinical conflict</em> with clinical assessment and judgment, 2) <em>partial conflict</em> with comprehensive clinical considerations, and 3) <em>resource conflict</em> with structural barriers related to care delivery. Future work should include utilizing participatory experience-based co-design with end users to identify relevant context and institution-specific priorities and concerns from the beginning of CDS tool development and to continue co-design throughout the development process.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100540"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321525000186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ongoing interest in machine learning systems include the emerging capability to integrate electronic health records to develop clinical decision support (CDS) tools that improve medical care, diagnostics, and therapy. Such CDS tools, which can handle a large quantity of data sources, can advise clinicians and amplify insights on diverse patient risk factors, from physiological challenges to psychosocial vulnerabilities. Despite a growing interest, there are various challenges that hinder the successful use of CDS tools in clinical practice. Among these, a key challenge is hesitance or resistance among end-users to take up tools and integrate their use into practice. The current inquiry applied a framework of the symbolic interaction of participatory experience-based co-design and used an interpretive descriptive approach to analysis of qualitative data, investigating the ethical issues brought to light by clinicians participating in three participatory experience-based co-design focus groups, as a part of the initial development of a CDS tool for detecting risk factors for adverse health outcomes in outpatient obstetric care at a single academically affiliated medical institution. Findings revealed that participants describe their anticipated symbolic relationship with a ML-based CDS tool as either promising or morally distressing. Anticipatory moral distress includes three separate sub-categories: 1) clinical conflict with clinical assessment and judgment, 2) partial conflict with comprehensive clinical considerations, and 3) resource conflict with structural barriers related to care delivery. Future work should include utilizing participatory experience-based co-design with end users to identify relevant context and institution-specific priorities and concerns from the beginning of CDS tool development and to continue co-design throughout the development process.
基于机器学习的临床决策支持工具开发中的预期道德困境:定性分析
对机器学习系统的持续兴趣包括整合电子健康记录以开发临床决策支持(CDS)工具的新兴能力,这些工具可以改善医疗保健,诊断和治疗。此类CDS工具可以处理大量数据源,可以为临床医生提供建议,并扩大对从生理挑战到社会心理脆弱性等各种患者风险因素的见解。尽管兴趣日益浓厚,但仍有各种挑战阻碍了临床实践中成功使用CDS工具。其中,一个关键的挑战是最终用户在使用工具并将其集成到实践中时的犹豫或抵制。当前的调查应用了参与式基于经验的共同设计的符号交互框架,并使用了解释性描述方法来分析定性数据,调查了参与三个参与式基于经验的共同设计焦点小组的临床医生所揭示的伦理问题。作为初步开发的CDS工具的一部分,该工具用于在单一学术附属医疗机构的门诊产科护理中发现不利健康结果的风险因素。研究结果显示,参与者将他们与基于ml的CDS工具的预期符号关系描述为有希望的或道德上令人痛苦的。预期性道德痛苦包括三个独立的子类别:1)临床冲突与临床评估和判断,2)局部冲突与综合临床考虑,3)资源冲突与结构性障碍有关的护理提供。未来的工作应包括与最终用户利用参与式的基于经验的协同设计,从CDS工具开发开始就确定相关的背景和机构特定的优先事项和关注点,并在整个开发过程中继续进行协同设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信