Author
Listed:
- Ellen X. Y. Hu
(Department of Health Services Management & Organisation, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)
- Evelien S. van Hoorn
(Department of Health Services Management & Organisation, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)
- Isabel R. A. Retel Helmrich
(Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)
- Susanne Muehlschlegel
(Departments of Neurology, Anesthesiology/Critical Care Medicine and Neurosurgery, John Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA)
- Judith A. C. Rietjens
(Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Department of Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands)
- Hester F. Lingsma
(Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)
Abstract
Background Prognostic models are crucial for predicting patient outcomes and aiding clinical decision making. Despite their availability in acute neurologic care, their use in clinical practice is limited, with insufficient reflection on reasons for this scarce implementation. Purpose To summarize facilitators and barriers among clinicians affecting the use of prognostic models in acute neurologic care. Data Sources Systematic searches were conducted in Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until February 2024. Study Selection Eligible studies included those providing clinicians’ perspectives on the use of prognostic models in acute neurologic care. Data Extraction Data were extracted concerning study characteristics, study aim, data collection and analysis, prognostic models, participant characteristics, facilitators, and barriers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Qualsyst tool. Data Synthesis Findings were structured around the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology framework. Identified facilitators included improved communication with patients and surrogate decision makers ( n = 9), reassurance of clinical judgment ( n = 6) perceived improved patient outcomes ( n = 4), standardization of care ( n = 4), resource optimization ( n = 3), and extension of clinical knowledge ( n = 3). Barriers included perceived misinterpretation during risk communication ( n = 3), mistrust in data ( n = 3), perceived reduction of clinicians’ autonomy ( n = 3), and ethical considerations ( n = 2). In total, 15 studies were included, with all but 1 demonstrating good methodological quality. None were excluded due to poor quality ratings. Limitations This review identifies limitations, including study heterogeneity, exclusion of gray literature, and the scarcity of evaluations on model implementation. Conclusions Understanding facilitators and barriers may enhance prognostic model development and implementation. Bridging the gap between development and clinical use requires improved collaboration among researchers, clinicians, patients, and surrogate decision makers. Highlights This is the first systematic review to summarize published facilitators and barriers affecting the use of prognostic models in acute neurologic care from the clinicians’ perspective. Commonly reported barriers and facilitators were consistent with several domains of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model, including effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions, with the focus on the performance expectancy domain. Future implementation research including collaboration with researchers from different fields, clinicians, patients, and their surrogate decision makers may be highly valuable for future model development and implementation.
Suggested Citation
Ellen X. Y. Hu & Evelien S. van Hoorn & Isabel R. A. Retel Helmrich & Susanne Muehlschlegel & Judith A. C. Rietjens & Hester F. Lingsma, 2025.
"Facilitators and Barriers of the Use of Prognostic Models for Clinical Decision Making in Acute Neurologic Care: A Systematic Review,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(6), pages 753-770, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:6:p:753-770
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251343027
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:6:p:753-770. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.