Development of a Tailored Intervention With Computerized Clinical Decision Support to Improve Quality of Care for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: Multi-Method Study

Stakeholder Perspectives of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence

BACKGROUND

The rhetoric surrounding clinical artificial intelligence (AI) often exaggerates its effect on real-world care. Limited understanding of the factors that influence its implementation can perpetuate this.

OBJECTIVE

In this qualitative systematic review, we aimed to identify key stakeholders, consolidate their perspectives on clinical AI implementation, and characterize the evidence gaps that future qualitative research should target.

METHODS

Ovid-MEDLINE, EBSCO-CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, Science Citation Index-Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for primary qualitative studies on individuals' perspectives on any application of clinical AI worldwide (January 2014-April 2021). The definition of clinical AI includes both rule-based and machine learning-enabled or non-rule-based decision support tools. The language of the reports was not an exclusion criterion. Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, and full-text screening with a third arbiter of disagreement. Two reviewers assigned the Joanna Briggs Institute 10-point checklist for qualitative research scores for each study. A single reviewer extracted free-text data relevant to clinical AI implementation, noting the stakeholders contributing to each excerpt. The best-fit framework synthesis used the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. To validate the data and improve accessibility, coauthors representing each emergent stakeholder group codeveloped summaries of the factors most relevant to their respective groups.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 4437 deduplicated articles, with 111 (2.5%) eligible for inclusion (median Joanna Briggs Institute 10-point checklist for qualitative research score, 8/10). Five distinct stakeholder groups emerged from the data: health care professionals (HCPs), patients, carers and other members of the public, developers, health care managers and leaders, and regulators or policy makers, contributing 1204 (70%), 196 (11.4%), 133 (7.7%), 129 (7.5%), and 59 (3.4%) of 1721 eligible excerpts, respectively. All stakeholder groups independently identified a breadth of implementation factors, with each producing data that were mapped between 17 and 24 of the 27 adapted Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability subdomains. Most of the factors that stakeholders found influential in the implementation of rule-based clinical AI also applied to non-rule-based clinical AI, with the exception of intellectual property, regulation, and sociocultural attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical AI implementation is influenced by many interdependent factors, which are in turn influenced by at least 5 distinct stakeholder groups. This implies that effective research and practice of clinical AI implementation should consider multiple stakeholder perspectives. The current underrepresentation of perspectives from stakeholders other than HCPs in the literature may limit the anticipation and management of the factors that influence successful clinical AI implementation. Future research should not only widen the representation of tools and contexts in qualitative research but also specifically investigate the perspectives of all stakeholder HCPs and emerging aspects of non-rule-based clinical AI implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42021256005; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=256005.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/33145.

A practical guide to interpreting and applying systematic reviews of qualitative studies in rheumatology

While patient-centered care is widely advocated in the management of rheumatic diseases, it can be challenging to implement, particularly for patients with complex systemic conditions. Patient-centered care involves identifying and integrating the patient's experiences, attitudes, and preferences in decision-making. Qualitative research is used to describe patient perspectives and priorities that may not always be expressed in clinical settings. Systematic reviews of qualitative studies can provide new and more comprehensive evidence of patients' beliefs and priorities across different populations and healthcare settings and are increasingly being reported across medical specialties, including rheumatology. In rheumatology, they have been used to examine topics including medication-taking and adherence, coping with systemic sclerosis and conservative management and exercise in osteoarthritis. By referencing recent examples of systematic qualitative reviews in the rheumatology literature, this article will outline the methodology and methods used, and provide an approach to guide the appraisal of reviews. We aim to give the reader a practical understanding of systematic reviews of qualitative literature and elucidate how knowledge gained from such reviews can be applied to improve the care of patients with rheumatic conditions.

Evidence-based Clinical Decision Support Systems for the prediction and detection of three disease states in critical care: A systematic literature review

Background: Clinical decision support (CDS) systems have emerged as tools providing intelligent decision making to address challenges of critical care. CDS systems can be based on existing guidelines or best practices; and can also utilize machine learning to provide a diagnosis, recommendation, or therapy course. Methods: This research aimed to identify evidence-based study designs and outcome measures to determine the clinical effectiveness of clinical decision support systems in the detection and prediction of hemodynamic instability, respiratory distress, and infection within critical care settings. PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were systematically searched to identify primary research published in English between 2013 and 2018. Studies conducted in the USA, Canada, UK, Germany and France with more than 10 participants per arm were included. Results: In studies on hemodynamic instability, the prediction and management of septic shock were the most researched topics followed by the early prediction of heart failure. For respiratory distress, the most popular topics were pneumonia detection and prediction followed by pulmonary embolisms. Given the importance of imaging and clinical notes, this area combined Machine Learning with image analysis and natural language processing. In studies on infection, the most researched areas were the detection, prediction, and management of sepsis, surgical site infections, as well as acute kidney injury. Overall, a variety of Machine Learning algorithms were utilized frequently, particularly support vector machines, boosting techniques, random forest classifiers and neural networks. Sensitivity, specificity, and ROC AUC were the most frequently reported performance measures. Conclusion: This review showed an increasing use of Machine Learning for CDS in all three areas. Large datasets are required for training these algorithms; making it imperative to appropriately address, challenges such as class imbalance, correct labelling of data and missing data. Recommendations are formulated for the development and successful adoption of CDS systems.

Evidence-based Clinical Decision Support Systems for the prediction and detection of three disease states in critical care: A systematic literature review

Background: Clinical decision support (CDS) systems have emerged as tools providing intelligent decision making to address challenges of critical care. CDS systems can be based on existing guidelines or best practices; and can also utilize machine learning to provide a diagnosis, recommendation, or therapy course. Methods: This research aimed to identify evidence-based study designs and outcome measures to determine the clinical effectiveness of clinical decision support systems in the detection and prediction of hemodynamic instability, respiratory distress, and infection within critical care settings. PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were systematically searched to identify primary research published in English between 2013 and 2018. Studies conducted in the USA, Canada, UK, Germany and France with more than 10 participants per arm were included. Results: In studies on hemodynamic instability, the prediction and management of septic shock were the most researched topics followed by the early prediction of heart failure. For respiratory distress, the most popular topics were pneumonia detection and prediction followed by pulmonary embolisms. Given the importance of imaging and clinical notes, this area combined Machine Learning with image analysis and natural language processing. In studies on infection, the most researched areas were the detection, prediction, and management of sepsis, surgical site infections, as well as acute kidney injury. Overall, a variety of Machine Learning algorithms were utilized frequently, particularly support vector machines, boosting techniques, random forest classifiers and neural networks. Sensitivity, specificity, and ROC AUC were the most frequently reported performance measures. Conclusion: This review showed an increasing use of Machine Learning for CDS in all three areas. Large datasets are required for training these algorithms; making it imperative to appropriately address, challenges such as class imbalance, correct labelling of data and missing data. Recommendations are formulated for the development and successful adoption of CDS systems.

The GUIDES checklist: development of a tool to improve the successful use of guideline-based computerised clinical decision support

Background

Computerised decision support (CDS) based on trustworthy clinical guidelines is a key component of a learning healthcare system. Research shows that the effectiveness of CDS is mixed.

Multifaceted context, system, recommendation and implementation factors may potentially affect the success of CDS interventions. This paper describes the development of a checklist that is intended to support professionals to implement CDS successfully.

Methods

We developed the checklist through an iterative process that involved a systematic review of evidence and frameworks, a synthesis of the success factors identified in the review, feedback from an international expert panel that evaluated the checklist in relation to a list of desirable framework attributes, consultations with patients and healthcare consumers and pilot testing of the checklist.

Results

We screened 5347 papers and selected 71 papers with relevant information on success factors for guideline-based CDS. From the selected papers, we developed a 16-factor checklist that is divided in four domains, i.e. the CDS context, content, system and implementation domains. The panel of experts evaluated the checklist positively as an instrument that could support people implementing guideline-based CDS across a wide range of settings globally. Patients and healthcare consumers identified guideline-based CDS as an important quality improvement intervention and perceived the GUIDES checklist as a suitable and useful strategy.

Conclusions

The GUIDES checklist can support professionals in considering the factors that affect the success of CDS interventions. It may facilitate a deeper and more accurate understanding of the factors shaping CDS effectiveness. Relying on a structured approach may prevent that important factors are missed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0772-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.