4.7 Article

Nudging within learning health systems: next generation decision support to improve cardiovascular care

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 43, 期 13, 页码 1296-+

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac030

关键词

Nudge; Nudge theory; Clinical decision support system; Electronic health record; Learning health system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We believe that the use of nudge theory as part of clinical decision support systems can help reduce the evidence-practice gap in healthcare. By testing nudges on all stakeholders, they can improve the implementation of known evidence and generate new insights in areas without a robust evidence base.
The increasing volume and richness of healthcare data collected during routine clinical practice have not yet translated into significant numbers of actionable insights that have systematically improved patient outcomes. An evidence-practice gap continues to exist in healthcare. We contest that this gap can be reduced by assessing the use of nudge theory as part of clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Deploying nudges to modify clinician behaviour and improve adherence to guideline-directed therapy represents an underused tool in bridging the evidence-practice gap. In conjunction with electronic health records (EHRs) and newer devices including artificial intelligence algorithms that are increasingly integrated within learning health systems, nudges such as CDSS alerts should be iteratively tested for all stakeholders involved in health decision-making: clinicians, researchers, and patients alike. Not only could they improve the implementation of known evidence, but the true value of nudging could lie in areas where traditional randomized controlled trials are lacking, and where clinical equipoise and variation dominate. The opportunity to test CDSS nudge alerts and their ability to standardize behaviour in the face of uncertainty may generate novel insights and improve patient outcomes in areas of clinical practice currently without a robust evidence base.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据