A mixed-methods feasibility study of a novel AI-enabled, web-based, clinical decision support system for the treatment of major depression in adults
Author
Qassim, S.Golden, G.
Slowey, D.
Sarfas, M.
Whitmore, K.
Perez, T.
Strong, E.
Lundrigan, E.
Fradette, M.-J.
Baxter, J.
Desormeau, B.
Tanguay-Sela, M.
Popescu, C.
Israel, S.
Perlman, K.
Armstrong, C.
Fratila, R.
Mehltretter, J.
Looper, K.
Steiner, W.
Rej, S.
Karp, J.F.
Heller, K.
Parikh, S.V.
McGuire-Snieckus, R.
Ferrari, M.
Margolese, H.
Benrimoh, D.
Affiliation
University of ArizonaIssue Date
2023-10-31Keywords
Artificial intelligenceClinical decision support system
Feasibility
Major depressive disorder
Physician-patient relationship
Trust
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
Elsevier B.V.Citation
Qassim, S., Golden, G., Slowey, D., Sarfas, M., Whitmore, K., Perez, T., ... & Benrimoh, D. (2023). A mixed-methods feasibility study of a novel AI-enabled, web-based, clinical decision support system for the treatment of major depression in adults. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 14, 100677.Rights
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
Background: The objective of this paper is to discuss perceived clinical utility and impact on physician-patient relationship of a novel, artificial-intelligence (AI) enabled clinical decision support system (CDSS) for use in treating adults with major depression. Methods: A single arm, naturalistic follow-up study aimed at assessing the acceptability and useability of the software. Patients had a baseline appointment, followed by a minimum of two appointments with the CDSS. Study exit questionnaires and interviews were conducted to assess perceived clinical utility, impact on patient-physician relationship, and understanding and trust. 7 physicians and 17 patients, of which 14 completed, consented to participate. Results: 86 % of physicians (6/7) felt the information provided by the CDSS provided more comprehensive understanding of patient situations. 71 % (5/7) felt the information was helpful. 86 % of physicians (6/7) reported the AI/predictive model was useful when deciding treatment. 62 % of patients (8/13) reported improved care due to the tool, and 46 %(6/13) reported a significantly or somewhat improved physician-patient relationship 54 % reported no change. 71 % of physicians (5/7) and 62 % of patients (8/13) rated trusting the tool. Limitations: Small sample size and treatment changes prior to CDSS introduction limits ability to verify impact on outcomes. Conclusions: Qualitative results from 12 patient exit interviews are analyzed and presented. Findings suggest physicians perceived the tool as useful in conducting appointments and used it while deciding treatment. Physicians and patients generally found the tool trustworthy, and it may have positive effects on physician-patient relationships. (Study identifier: NCT04061642). © 2023Note
Open access journalISSN
2666-9153Version
Final Published Versionae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.jadr.2023.100677
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).