Measuring what matters- patient and clinician priorities for clinical decision support interactions: a modified Delphi study

Patient-centered clinical decision support (PC CDS) is a spectrum of digital tools intended to support patient and clinician decision making. Patient-clinician interaction is key to PC CDS, and patient-clinician interaction measurement areas assess how PC CDS impacts the care process and experiences a patient has accessing and receiving healthcare. Identifying measures that assess if and how PC CDS influences outcomes is essential to measuring impact, but it is unclear what outcomes patients and physicians consider important. This study aimed to develop a prioritized list of measurement areas informed by patients and primary care physicians (PCPs) to inform considerations for measuring patient-clinician interaction for PC CDS. We conducted a modified Delphi study to understand patients’ and PCPs’ perspectives on the importance of fifteen previously identified patient-clinician interaction measurement areas for PC CDS. We conducted a three-round process with nine patients and nine PCP participants: (1) rating importance of measurement areas, (2) online discussion of ratings, and (3) forced-choice ranking activity of measurement areas. Patients and PCPs generally agreed about the importance of communication quality and trust in clinicians, and the interconnectedness of these areas. They additionally agreed that the relative importance of measurement areas depends on context and described contextual factors such as care expectations and patient complexity. Patients and PCPs also agreed that satisfaction, decision regret and discharge preparedness are of lower importance for PC CDS measurement. However, patients and PCPs had differing views on the importance of measuring access to information, decision quality and self-management. Patients ranked access to information higher than PCPs, while PCPs ranked decision quality and self-management higher than patients. Assessments of PC CDS effectiveness should consider what outcomes are most important to CDS end-users. Measurement of PC CDS is limited by logistics and feasibility considerations, and researchers should examine the outcomes assessed in PC CDS studies and identify opportunities to assess measurement areas important to key stakeholders. The results of this activity highlight areas for future work, including the importance of understanding how measurement of these areas may be impacted by context (e.g. patient complexity, disease status).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2026-07-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-026-03715-7
Primary Topic
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Measuring what matters- patient and clinician priorities for clinical decision support interactions: a modified Delphi study

Richard Schreiber, Ben Hamlin, Mustafa Ozkaynak, Swaminathan Kandaswamy et al.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
article

Measuring what matters- patient and clinician priorities for clinical decision support interactions: a modified Delphi study

Richard Schreiber, Ben Hamlin, Mustafa Ozkaynak, Swaminathan Kandaswamy, Ruth Nwefo, Arthur H. Owora, Kistein Monkhouse, Quinn Nelson, Dean Sittig, Polina Kukhareva, Karen Sepucha, Tiffany Peterson, CDSiC Measurement and Outcomes Workgroup, Priyanka Desai, Wayne Liang, Scott MacDonald, Prashila Dullabh, Frances Jimenez, Jasvinder Singh, Rachel Kurtzman
article en

Abstract

Patient-centered clinical decision support (PC CDS) is a spectrum of digital tools intended to support patient and clinician decision making. Patient-clinician interaction is key to PC CDS, and patient-clinician interaction measurement areas assess how PC CDS impacts the care process and experiences a patient has accessing and receiving healthcare. Identifying measures that assess if and how PC CDS influences outcomes is essential to measuring impact, but it is unclear what outcomes patients and physicians consider important. This study aimed to develop a prioritized list of measurement areas informed by patients and primary care physicians (PCPs) to inform considerations for measuring patient-clinician interaction for PC CDS. We conducted a modified Delphi study to understand patients’ and PCPs’ perspectives on the importance of fifteen previously identified patient-clinician interaction measurement areas for PC CDS. We conducted a three-round process with nine patients and nine PCP participants: (1) rating importance of measurement areas, (2) online discussion of ratings, and (3) forced-choice ranking activity of measurement areas. Patients and PCPs generally agreed about the importance of communication quality and trust in clinicians, and the interconnectedness of these areas. They additionally agreed that the relative importance of measurement areas depends on context and described contextual factors such as care expectations and patient complexity. Patients and PCPs also agreed that satisfaction, decision regret and discharge preparedness are of lower importance for PC CDS measurement. However, patients and PCPs had differing views on the importance of measuring access to information, decision quality and self-management. Patients ranked access to information higher than PCPs, while PCPs ranked decision quality and self-management higher than patients. Assessments of PC CDS effectiveness should consider what outcomes are most important to CDS end-users. Measurement of PC CDS is limited by logistics and feasibility considerations, and researchers should examine the outcomes assessed in PC CDS studies and identify opportunities to assess measurement areas important to key stakeholders. The results of this activity highlight areas for future work, including the importance of understanding how measurement of these areas may be impacted by context (e.g. patient complexity, disease status).

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Emory University (US), Oregon Health & Science University (US), University of Utah (US), University of Alabama at Birmingham (US), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Island Peer Review Organization (US), LupusChat (US), National Opinion Research Center (US), The University of Texas Health Science Center (US), Indiana University School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (US), Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US), Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (US), University of California, Davis (US), National Patient Safety Foundation (US)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.