The study evaluated individual and setting-specific factors that moderate clinicians’ perception regarding use of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) for antibiotic management. A cross-sectional online survey examined clinicians’ perceptions about CDSS implementation for antibiotic management in Australia. Multivariable logistic regression determined the association between drivers of CDSS adoption and different moderators. Clinical experience, CDSS use and care setting were important predictors of clinicians’ perception concerning CDSS adoption. Compared to nonusers, CDSS users were less likely to lack confidence in CDSS (OR = 0.63, 95%, CI = 0.32, 0.94) and consider it a threat to professional autonomy (OR = 0.47, 95%, CI = 0.08, 0.83). Conversely, there was higher likelihood in experienced clinicians (>20 years) to distrust CDSS (OR = 1.58, 95%, CI = 1.08, 2.23) due to fear of comprising their clinical judgement (OR = 1.68, 95%, CI = 1.27, 2.85). In primary care, clinicians were more likely to perceive time constraints (OR = 1.96, 95%, CI = 1.04, 3.70) and patient preference (OR = 1.84, 95%, CI = 1.19, 2.78) as barriers to CDSS adoption for antibiotic prescribing. Our findings provide differentiated understanding of the CDSS implementation landscape by identifying different individual, organisational and system-level factors that influence system adoption. The individual and setting characteristics can help understand the variability in CDSS adoption for antibiotic management in different clinicians.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) at reducing unnecessary and suboptimal antibiotic prescribing within different healthcare settings. Methods: A systematic review of published studies was undertaken with seven databases from database inception to November 2018. A protocol was developed using the PRISMA-P checklist and study selection criteria were determined prior to performing the search. Critical appraisal of studies was undertaken using relevant tools. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model to determine whether CDSS use affected optimal antibiotic management. Results: Fifty-seven studies were identified that reported on CDSS effectiveness. Most were non-randomized studies with low methodological quality. However, randomized controlled trials of moderate methodological quality were available and assessed separately. The meta-analyses indicated that appropriate antibiotic therapy was twice as likely to occur following the implementation of CDSSs (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.82–2.86, k = 20). The use of CDSSs was also associated with a relative decrease (18%) in mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.91, k = 18). CDSS implementation also decreased the overall volume of antibiotic use, length of hospital stay, duration and cost of therapy. The magnitude of the effect did vary by study design, but the direction of the effect was consistent in favouring CDSSs. Conclusions: Decision support tools can be effective to improve antibiotic prescribing, although there is limited evidence available on use in primary care. Our findings suggest that a focus on system requirements and implementation processes would improve CDSS uptake and provide more definitive benefits for antibiotic stewardship.

Background: Overexposure to occupational noise can lead to hearing loss. Occupational noise mapping is conventionally performed with a calibrated sound level meter (SLM). With the rise of mobile apps, there is a growing number of SLM apps available on mobile phones. However, few studies have evaluated such apps for accuracy and usefulness to guide those with occupational noise detection needs in selecting a quality app. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and usefulness of SLM mobile apps to guide workplace health and safety professionals in determining these apps’ suitability for assessing occupational noise exposure. Methods: The following three iOS apps were assessed: the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) Sound Level Meter, Decibel X, and SoundMeter X apps. The selected apps were evaluated for their accuracy in measuring sound levels in low-, moderate-, and high-noise settings within both simulated environments and real-world environments by comparing them to a conventional SLM. The usefulness of the apps was then assessed by occupational health specialists using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Results: The NIOSH Sound Level Meter app accurately measured noise across a range of sound levels in both simulated settings and real-world settings. However, considerable variation was observed between readings. In comparison, the Decibel X and SoundMeter X apps showed more consistent readings but consistently underestimated noise levels, suggesting that they may pose a risk for workers. Nevertheless, none of the differences in sound measurements between the three apps and the conventional SLM were statistically significant (NIOSH Sound Level Meter: P=.78; Decibel X: P=.38; SoundMeter X: P=.40). The MARS scores for the three apps were all above 3.0, indicating the usefulness of these apps. Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, the NIOSH Sound Level Meter app had equivalent accuracy to the calibrated SLM and a degree of usefulness according to the MARS. This suggests that the NIOSH Sound Level Meter app may be suitable for mapping noise levels as part of a monitoring strategy in workplaces. However, it is important to understand its limitations. Mobile apps should complement but not replace conventional SLMs when trying to assess occupational noise exposure risk. Our outcomes also suggest that the MARS tool may have limited applicability to measurement-based apps and may be more suited to information-based apps that collect, record, and store information.

Objectives: Computerized clinical decision support software (CDSS) are digital health technologies that have been traditionally categorized as medical devices. However, the evaluation frameworks for traditional medical devices are not well adapted to assess the value and safety of CDSS. In this study, we identified a range of challenges associated with CDSS evaluation as a medical device and investigated whether and how CDSS are evaluated in Australia. Methods: Using a qualitative approach, we interviewed 11 professionals involved in the implementation and evaluation of digital health technologies at national and regional levels. Data were thematically analyzed using both data-driven (inductive) and theory-based (deductive) approaches. Results: Our results suggest that current CDSS evaluations have an overly narrow perspective on the risks and benefits of CDSS due to an inability to capture the impact of the technology on the sociotechnical environment. By adopting a static view of the CDSS, these evaluation frameworks are unable to discern how rapidly evolving technologies and a dynamic clinical environment can impact CDSS performance. After software upgrades, CDSS can transition from providing information to specifying diagnoses and treatments. Therefore, it is not clear how CDSS can be monitored continuously when changes in the software can directly affect patient safety. Conclusion: Our findings emphasize the importance of taking a living health technology assessment approach to the evaluation of digital health technologies that evolve rapidly. There is a role for observational (real-world) evidence to understand the impact of changes to the technology and the sociotechnical environment on CDSS performance.

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify perceived barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing across different healthcare settings. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of clinicians in Australian hospitals and primary care was undertaken between June and October 2019. The perceived barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing were considered as dependent variables, whereas age, sex, clinical experience, healthcare setting and the use of guidelines were considered independent variables. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify factors predictive of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Content analysis of free-text responses provided additional insights into the impediments to appropriate prescribing. Results: In all, 180 clinicians completed the survey. Overall, diagnostic uncertainty and limited access to guidelines and prescribing information were significant barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Factors associated with these barriers were clinical experience, care setting (hospitals vs primary care) and the use of guidelines. Experienced clinicians (>11 years) were less likely to consider that limited access to information negatively affected prescribing practices (experience 11–20 years, odds ratio (OR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–0.84; experience >20 years, OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24–0.91). Conversely, general practitioners considered diagnostic uncertainty (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.09–1.63) and patient expectations (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.12–1.84) were more likely to be perceived barriers to appropriate prescribing. The use of guidelines and clinical experience may counteract this. Conclusion: Years of experience, use of guidelines and type of setting were predictors of clinicians’ perceptions regarding antibiotic prescribing. Our data highlight the importance of individual and setting characteristics in understanding variations in prescribing practices and designing targeted interventions for appropriate antibiotic prescribing. What is known about the topic?: Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is a significant health issue in Australia. Drivers of inappropriate prescribing are known, but how individual and setting characteristics contribute to variations in prescribing behaviour has not been fully understood. What does this paper add?: Diagnostic uncertainty and limited access to prescribing information, including guidelines, formulary restrictions and antibiotic resistance patterns, can limit appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Clinicians’ years of experience, the healthcare settings and clinician use of guidelines are important predictors of antibiotic prescribing behaviour. What are the implications for practitioners?: The findings of this study can inform the design of tailored interventions to promote rational antibiotic prescribing practices in general practice and hospital settings.

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) has been characterized as a complex adaptive system that centrally features stakeholder interactions. This article provides an overview of current practices in HTA stakeholder engagement concerning medicines. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of English-language sources published between 2018 and 2023, including 66 peer-reviewed articles and 264 gray literature sources describing stakeholder involvement in HTA processes relating to medicines. Results: Industry is commonly permitted to provide a submission for funding, though the modes and time points of industry engagement are many. Clinician and patient engagement are regarded as especially important with increased intervention complexity and innovation. Stakeholder engagement is perhaps mostly conducted to enhance the collation and interpretation of evidence, not necessarily to increase the legitimacy of the HTA process or give stakeholders influence over a decision that affects them. Patients are mostly engaged through broader public consultation. Sometimes they work directly with other stakeholders. Problems with patient engagement include challenges with recruitment, time, and resource constraints. Stakeholder groups can also differ in how they view and prioritize public and patient engagement. Public engagement is often limited to a matter of transparency and public accountability, but the reasons to undertake public engagement are numerous and varied. They include gaining input on affordability or prioritization issues. Conclusions: HTA decision-making committees should commit to publicly communicating how they considered and made use of various stakeholder inputs. This could build trust and confidence in the committees and guide the public and patients on the information that committees find helpful.