Article type
Abstract
Background
A multitude of factors, including the complexity of the clinical manifestations of diseases, diversity of diagnostic and therapeutic methods, possibility of adverse reactions to some drugs, patients' values and preferences, and economic factors, need to be considered in clinical decision-making. Clinicians need therefore to integrate information on these different aspects to make well-informed and appropriate decisions. The decision-making can be supported by various sources of information, such as clinical practice guidelines, expert consensus statements, medical textbooks, personal clinical experience, case reports of similar situations, and the preferences of the patients. The approaches used in clinical decision-making among Chinese doctors have, however, to our knowledge not been yet comprehensively assessed.
Objectives
To investigate what sources of information clinicians in China use in clinical decision-making and what other factors influence their decisions, explore the reasons behind their approaches, and ultimately propose ways to promote the efficient and scientific use of evidence in clinical decision-making in China.
Methods
We systematically searched both Chinese- and English-language databases, including MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang, to identify studies on clinical decision-making practices among doctors in China. We extracted the geographical location, type of healthcare institution, age, position, educational background, and department or major specialty of the clinicians, as well as details of the approaches they used in clinical decision-making, including the sources of information, the ways how different sources were combined, and the factors that influenced the decision-making approach. The results will be presented descriptively. We will use the findings to propose ways to promote the efficient use of evidence in clinical decision-making in China.
Results and Conclusions
Our initial search revealed 3114 potentially relevant records in five databases. This study is ongoing, and the results will be presented in Global Evidence Summit 2024.
A multitude of factors, including the complexity of the clinical manifestations of diseases, diversity of diagnostic and therapeutic methods, possibility of adverse reactions to some drugs, patients' values and preferences, and economic factors, need to be considered in clinical decision-making. Clinicians need therefore to integrate information on these different aspects to make well-informed and appropriate decisions. The decision-making can be supported by various sources of information, such as clinical practice guidelines, expert consensus statements, medical textbooks, personal clinical experience, case reports of similar situations, and the preferences of the patients. The approaches used in clinical decision-making among Chinese doctors have, however, to our knowledge not been yet comprehensively assessed.
Objectives
To investigate what sources of information clinicians in China use in clinical decision-making and what other factors influence their decisions, explore the reasons behind their approaches, and ultimately propose ways to promote the efficient and scientific use of evidence in clinical decision-making in China.
Methods
We systematically searched both Chinese- and English-language databases, including MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang, to identify studies on clinical decision-making practices among doctors in China. We extracted the geographical location, type of healthcare institution, age, position, educational background, and department or major specialty of the clinicians, as well as details of the approaches they used in clinical decision-making, including the sources of information, the ways how different sources were combined, and the factors that influenced the decision-making approach. The results will be presented descriptively. We will use the findings to propose ways to promote the efficient use of evidence in clinical decision-making in China.
Results and Conclusions
Our initial search revealed 3114 potentially relevant records in five databases. This study is ongoing, and the results will be presented in Global Evidence Summit 2024.