Back

Perceived usability and usefulness of a clinical decision-support application among newly graduated physicians in rural areas: a mixed-methods study

De la Cruz-Torralva, K.; Diaz-Sanchez, P.; Escobar-Agreda, S.; Rojas-Mezarina, L.

2026-08-21 primary care research
10.64898/2026.08.18.26360759 medRxiv
Show abstract

Mobile clinical-support applications can facilitate access to evidence-based information at the point of care, but evidence on their usability and perceived usefulness among newly graduated physicians working in health facilities with limited capacity is scarce. We assessed physicians experiences with BMJ Best Practice using a convergent mixed-methods study. All 81 eligible physicians assigned to rural facilities were invited; 32 enrolled and received application access and training. After three months, participants completed an online survey, and 23 reported using the application. Ten physicians reporting the highest consultation frequency were purposively selected for semi-structured interviews. Survey findings showed a predominantly favorable perception of usability: for most items, 70%-90% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statements assessed. Among users, 14 of 23 (60.9%) used the mobile application and 9 (39.1%) used the web version. Interviews indicated that participants valued rapid searches, organized and evidence-based information, and support for diagnostic reasoning, referral decisions, learning, and clinical confidence. Barriers included limited connectivity, difficulties searching in Spanish, automatic updates, challenges locating or using some calculators, and treatment information that was sometimes insufficiently specific. Most importantly, participants could not always implement recommendations because suggested medicines, diagnostic tests, or other resources were unavailable in their facilities. Mobile clinical-support applications may complement decision-making and learning among early-career physicians in rural primary care. However, their practical value depends not only on usability and evidence quality, but also on adaptation to users language, workflow, connectivity, and local service capacity.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.