Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Med Decis Making. 2001 Sep-Oct;21(5):344-56.

Effect of written and computerized decision support aids for the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research depression guidelines on the evaluation of hypothetical clinical scenarios.

Author information

  • 1The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA. medow.1@osu.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of written and computerized decision support aids (DSAs) based on U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research depression guidelines.

METHODS:

Fifty-six internal medicine residents were randomized to evaluate clinical scenarios using either a written or a computerized DSA after first assessing scenarios without a DSA. The paired difference between aided and unaided scores was determined for diagnostic accuracy, treatment selection, severity and subtype classification, antipsychotic use, and mental health consultations.

RESULTS:

Diagnostic accuracy with the written DSA increased from 64% to 73%, and with the computerized DSA decreased from 67% to 64% (P=0.0065). Residents using the computerized DSA (vs. no DSA) requested fewer consultations (65% vs. 52%, P=0.028). In post hoc analysis, the written DSA increased sensitivity (66% to 89%, P<0.001) and the computerized DSA improved specificity (66% to 86%, P=0.0020) but reduced sensitivity (67% to 49%, P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS:

A written DSA improved diagnostic accuracy, whereas a computerized DSA did not. However, the computerized DSA improved specificity and reduced mental health consultations.

PMID:
11575484
DOI:
10.1177/0272989X0102100501
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Atypon
    Loading ...
    Support Center