Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Computer-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review.
Blum, David; Raj, Sunil X; Oberholzer, Rolf; Riphagen, Ingrid I; Strasser, Florian; Kaasa, Stein.
Afiliação
  • Blum D; Faculty of Medicine, European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, University Hospital in Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway. david.blum@ntnu.no.
  • Raj SX; Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine NTNU, Faculty of Medicine, European Palliative Research Center, 7491, Trondheim, Norway. david.blum@ntnu.no.
  • Oberholzer R; Faculty of Medicine, European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, University Hospital in Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway. sunil.raj@ntnu.no.
  • Riphagen II; Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. rolf.oberholzer@gmail.com.
  • Strasser F; Unit for Applied Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. Ingrid.i.riphagen@ntnu.no.
  • Kaasa S; Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. florian.strasser@kssg.ch.
Patient ; 8(5): 397-409, 2015 Oct.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25432150
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based treatment guidelines embedded in computer-based clinical decision support systems (CCDSS) may improve patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We systematically reviewed the literature for content and application of CCDSS, and their effects on PRO. METHODS: A systematic review in MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted according to PRISMA standards. Searches were limited to the publication period 1996-May 2014 and the English language. The search terms covered "computerized clinical decision systems" and "patient-reported outcomes". Screening and extraction was done independently by two reviewers according to predefined inclusion (computer and guideline) and exclusion criteria (no trial, no PRO). Study and CCDSS quality was rated according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: The database searches identified 1,331 references. Eighty-seven full-text articles were analyzed. The main reason for exclusion was no PRO as a study outcome measure. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 13,480 patients. Nine studies used a computerized device to fill in data; in four studies, this was used by the patients themselves. Most of the studies presented the data to the clinician at point of care and incorporated international guidelines. Three studies showed a positive effect on PRO, but only on symptoms. Overall, no negative effects were reported. There was no association with study quality or year of study publication. CONCLUSION: There are marginal positive effects of CCDSS on specific PRO. Factors that facilitate the use and effect are identified. Easy to use systems with difficult to ignore evidence-based advice need to be developed and tested.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Sistemas de Apoio a Decisões Clínicas / Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências / Avaliação de Resultados da Assistência ao Paciente Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Sistemas de Apoio a Decisões Clínicas / Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências / Avaliação de Resultados da Assistência ao Paciente Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article