Clinician Perceptions of a Computerized Decision Support System for Pediatric Type 2 Diabetes ScreeningFunding This project was funded by the Indiana University School of Medicine. This study was also supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (grant R01DK092717). The funding sources had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing the manuscript, and decision to submit the article for publication.
18 February 2020
26 March 2020
13 May 2020 (online)
Objective With the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in youth, primary care providers must identify patients at high risk and implement evidence-based screening promptly. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) provide clinicians with personalized reminders according to best evidence. One example is the Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation (CHICA) system, which, as we have previously shown, significantly improves screening for T2D. Given that the long-term success of any CDSS depends on its acceptability and its users' perceptions, we examined what clinicians think of the CHICA diabetes module.
Methods CHICA users completed an annual quality improvement and satisfaction questionnaire. Between May and August of 2015 and 2016, the survey included two statements related to the T2D-module: (1) “CHICA improves my ability to identify patients who might benefit from screening for T2D” and (2) “CHICA makes it easier to get the lab tests necessary to identify patients who have diabetes or prediabetes.” Answers were scored using a 5-point Likert scale and were later converted to a 2-point scale: agree and disagree. The Pearson chi-square test was used to assess the relationship between responses and the respondents. Answers per cohort were compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test.
Results The majority of respondents (N = 60) agreed that CHICA improved their ability to identify patients who might benefit from screening but disagreed as to whether it helped them get the necessary laboratories. Scores were comparable across both years.
Conclusion CHICA was endorsed as being effective for T2D screening. Research is needed to improve satisfaction for getting laboratories with CHICA.
Protection of Human and Animal Subjects
The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. The Indiana University Institutional Review Board approved this study.
- 1 Dabelea D, Mayer-Davis EJ, Saydah S. , et al; SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. Prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among children and adolescents from 2001 to 2009. JAMA 2014; 311 (17) 1778-1786
- 2 Skinner AC, Skelton JA. Prevalence and trends in obesity and severe obesity among children in the United States, 1999-2012. JAMA Pediatr 2014; 168 (06) 561-566
- 3 Rodbard HW. Diabetes screening, diagnosis, and therapy in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes. Medscape J Med 2008; 10 (08) 184
- 4 Arslanian S, Bacha F, Grey M, Marcus MD, White NH, Zeitler P. Evaluation and management of youth-onset type 2 diabetes: a position statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (12) 2648-2668
- 5 American Diabetes Association. 13. Children and Adolescents: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020 . Diabetes Care 2020; 43 (Suppl. 01) S163-S182
- 6 Lee JM, Eason A, Nelson C, Kazzi NG, Cowan AE, Tarini BA. Screening practices for identifying type 2 diabetes in adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2014; 54 (02) 139-143
- 7 Anand SG, Mehta SD, Adams WG. Diabetes mellitus screening in pediatric primary care. Pediatrics 2006; 118 (05) 1888-1895
- 8 Hannon TS, Dugan TM, Saha CK, McKee SJ, Downs SM, Carroll AE. Effectiveness of computer automation for the diagnosis and management of childhood type 2 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr 2017; 171 (04) 327-334
- 9 Anand V, Biondich PG, Liu G, Rosenman M, Downs SM. Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation: the CHICA system. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 107 (Pt 1): 187-191
- 10 Anand V, Carroll AE, Biondich PG, Dugan TM, Downs SM. Pediatric decision support using adapted Arden Syntax. Artif Intell Med 2018; 92: 15-23
- 11 Carroll AE, Biondich PG, Anand V. , et al. Targeted screening for pediatric conditions with the CHICA system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18 (04) 485-490
- 12 Downs SM, Uner H. Expected value prioritization of prompts and reminders. Proc AMIA Symp 2002; 2000: 215-219
- 13 American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020 . Diabetes Care 2020; 43 (Suppl. 01) S14-S31
- 14 Grout RW, Cheng ER, Carroll AE, Bauer NS, Downs SM. A six-year repeated evaluation of computerized clinical decision support system user acceptability. Int J Med Inform 2018; 112: 74-81
- 15 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
- 16 Belamarich PF, Gandica R, Stein REK, Racine AD. Drowning in a sea of advice: pediatricians and American Academy of Pediatrics policy statements. Pediatrics 2006; 118 (04) e964-e978
- 17 Barlow SE, Dietz WH, Klish WJ, Trowbridge FL. Medical evaluation of overweight children and adolescents: reports from pediatricians, pediatric nurse practitioners, and registered dietitians. Pediatrics 2002; 110 (1 Pt 2): 222-228
- 18 O'Connor P. Opportunities to increase the effectiveness of EHR-based diabetes clinical decision support. Appl Clin Inform 2011; 2 (03) 350-354
- 19 O'Connor PJ, Sperl-Hillen JM, Fazio CJ, Averbeck BM, Rank BH, Margolis KL. Outpatient diabetes clinical decision support: current status and future directions. Diabet Med 2016; 33 (06) 734-741
- 20 Ateya MB, Aiyagari R, Moran C, Singer K. Insulin bolus calculator in a pediatric hospital. Safety and user perceptions. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (02) 529-540
- 21 Donsa K, Beck P, Plank J. , et al. A toolbox to improve algorithms for insulin-dosing decision support. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5 (02) 548-556
- 22 Kantor M, Wright A, Burton M. , et al. Comparison of computer-based clinical decision support systems and content for diabetes mellitus. Appl Clin Inform 2011; 2 (03) 284-303
- 23 Conway N, Adamson KA, Cunningham SG. , et al. Decision support for diabetes in scotland: implementation and evaluation of a clinical decision support system. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 12 (02) 381-388