Facilitators and Barriers of the Use of Prognostic Models for Clinical Decision Making in Acute Neurologic Care: A Systematic Review.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-29 DOI:10.1177/0272989X251343027
Ellen X Y Hu, Evelien S van Hoorn, Isabel R A Retel Helmrich, Susanne Muehlschlegel, Judith A C Rietjens, Hester F Lingsma
{"title":"Facilitators and Barriers of the Use of Prognostic Models for Clinical Decision Making in Acute Neurologic Care: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Ellen X Y Hu, Evelien S van Hoorn, Isabel R A Retel Helmrich, Susanne Muehlschlegel, Judith A C Rietjens, Hester F Lingsma","doi":"10.1177/0272989X251343027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundPrognostic models are crucial for predicting patient outcomes and aiding clinical decision making. Despite their availability in acute neurologic care, their use in clinical practice is limited, with insufficient reflection on reasons for this scarce implementation.PurposeTo summarize facilitators and barriers among clinicians affecting the use of prognostic models in acute neurologic care.Data SourcesSystematic searches were conducted in Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until February 2024.Study SelectionEligible studies included those providing clinicians' perspectives on the use of prognostic models in acute neurologic care.Data ExtractionData were extracted concerning study characteristics, study aim, data collection and analysis, prognostic models, participant characteristics, facilitators, and barriers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Qualsyst tool.Data SynthesisFindings were structured around the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology framework. Identified facilitators included improved communication with patients and surrogate decision makers (<i>n</i> = 9), reassurance of clinical judgment (<i>n</i> = 6) perceived improved patient outcomes (<i>n</i> = 4), standardization of care (<i>n</i> = 4), resource optimization (<i>n</i> = 3), and extension of clinical knowledge (<i>n</i> = 3). Barriers included perceived misinterpretation during risk communication (<i>n</i> = 3), mistrust in data (<i>n</i> = 3), perceived reduction of clinicians' autonomy (<i>n</i> = 3), and ethical considerations (<i>n</i> = 2). In total, 15 studies were included, with all but 1 demonstrating good methodological quality. None were excluded due to poor quality ratings.LimitationsThis review identifies limitations, including study heterogeneity, exclusion of gray literature, and the scarcity of evaluations on model implementation.ConclusionsUnderstanding facilitators and barriers may enhance prognostic model development and implementation. Bridging the gap between development and clinical use requires improved collaboration among researchers, clinicians, patients, and surrogate decision makers.HighlightsThis is the first systematic review to summarize published facilitators and barriers affecting the use of prognostic models in acute neurologic care from the clinicians' perspective.Commonly reported barriers and facilitators were consistent with several domains of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model, including effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions, with the focus on the performance expectancy domain.Future implementation research including collaboration with researchers from different fields, clinicians, patients, and their surrogate decision makers may be highly valuable for future model development and implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"753-770"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12260205/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251343027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundPrognostic models are crucial for predicting patient outcomes and aiding clinical decision making. Despite their availability in acute neurologic care, their use in clinical practice is limited, with insufficient reflection on reasons for this scarce implementation.PurposeTo summarize facilitators and barriers among clinicians affecting the use of prognostic models in acute neurologic care.Data SourcesSystematic searches were conducted in Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until February 2024.Study SelectionEligible studies included those providing clinicians' perspectives on the use of prognostic models in acute neurologic care.Data ExtractionData were extracted concerning study characteristics, study aim, data collection and analysis, prognostic models, participant characteristics, facilitators, and barriers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Qualsyst tool.Data SynthesisFindings were structured around the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology framework. Identified facilitators included improved communication with patients and surrogate decision makers (n = 9), reassurance of clinical judgment (n = 6) perceived improved patient outcomes (n = 4), standardization of care (n = 4), resource optimization (n = 3), and extension of clinical knowledge (n = 3). Barriers included perceived misinterpretation during risk communication (n = 3), mistrust in data (n = 3), perceived reduction of clinicians' autonomy (n = 3), and ethical considerations (n = 2). In total, 15 studies were included, with all but 1 demonstrating good methodological quality. None were excluded due to poor quality ratings.LimitationsThis review identifies limitations, including study heterogeneity, exclusion of gray literature, and the scarcity of evaluations on model implementation.ConclusionsUnderstanding facilitators and barriers may enhance prognostic model development and implementation. Bridging the gap between development and clinical use requires improved collaboration among researchers, clinicians, patients, and surrogate decision makers.HighlightsThis is the first systematic review to summarize published facilitators and barriers affecting the use of prognostic models in acute neurologic care from the clinicians' perspective.Commonly reported barriers and facilitators were consistent with several domains of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model, including effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions, with the focus on the performance expectancy domain.Future implementation research including collaboration with researchers from different fields, clinicians, patients, and their surrogate decision makers may be highly valuable for future model development and implementation.

在急性神经系统护理中使用预后模型进行临床决策的促进因素和障碍:一项系统综述。
预后模型对于预测患者预后和辅助临床决策至关重要。尽管它们在急性神经系统护理中可用,但它们在临床实践中的使用是有限的,对这种稀缺实施的原因没有充分的反思。目的总结影响临床医生在急性神经内科护理中使用预后模型的因素和障碍。从成立到2024年2月,在Embase、Medline ALL、Web of Science Core Collection和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials中进行了系统检索。研究选择:符合条件的研究包括临床医生对急性神经系统护理中使用预后模型的观点。数据提取提取有关研究特征、研究目的、数据收集和分析、预后模型、参与者特征、促进因素和障碍的数据。使用Qualsyst工具评估偏倚风险。数据综合研究结果是围绕技术接受和使用的统一理论框架构建的。确定的促进因素包括改善与患者和替代决策者的沟通(n = 9),保证临床判断(n = 6),改善患者预后(n = 4),标准化护理(n = 4),资源优化(n = 3)和扩展临床知识(n = 3)。障碍包括风险沟通过程中感知到的误解(n = 3)、对数据的不信任(n = 3)、临床医生自主性的降低(n = 3)和伦理考虑(n = 2)。总共纳入了15项研究,除1项研究外,其余研究均具有良好的方法学质量。没有一例因质量评分差而被排除在外。本综述确定了局限性,包括研究异质性、灰色文献的排除以及模型实施评估的稀缺性。结论了解促进因素和障碍因素可以促进预后模型的开发和实施。弥合开发和临床使用之间的差距需要改善研究人员、临床医生、患者和替代决策者之间的合作。这是第一个系统综述,从临床医生的角度总结了已发表的影响急性神经系统护理中使用预后模型的促进因素和障碍。通常报告的障碍和促进因素与技术接受和使用统一理论模型的几个领域是一致的,包括努力预期、社会影响和促进条件,重点是绩效预期领域。未来的实施研究,包括与来自不同领域的研究人员、临床医生、患者及其代理决策者的合作,可能对未来模型的开发和实施非常有价值。
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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信