Human-centered Design of a Health Recommender System for Orthopaedic Shoulder Treatment.

Background: Rich data on diverse patients and their treatments and outcomes within Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems can be used to generate real world evidence. A health recommender system (HRS) framework can be applied to a decision support system application to generate data summaries for similar patients during the clinical encounter to assist physicians and patients in making evidence-based shared treatment decisions.
Objective: A human-centered design (HCD) process was used to develop a HRS for treatment decision support in orthopaedic medicine, the Informatics Consult for Individualized Treatment (I-C-IT) . We also evaluate the usability and utility of the system from the physician's perspective, focusing on elements of utility and shared decision-making in orthopaedic medicine.
Methods: The HCD process for I-C-IT included 6 steps across three phases of analysis, design, and evaluation. A team of informaticians and comparative effectiveness researchers directly engaged with orthopaedic surgeon subject matter experts in a collaborative I-C-IT prototype design process. Ten orthopaedic surgeons participated in a mixed methods evaluation of the I-C-IT prototype that was produced.
Results: The HCD process resulted in a prototype system, I-C-IT, with 14 data visualization elements and a set of design principles crucial for HRS for decision support. The overall standard system usability scale (SUS) score for the I-C-IT Webapp prototype was 88.75 indicating high usability. In addition, utility questions addressing shared decision-making found that 90% of orthopaedic surgeon respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that I-C-IT would help them make data informed decisions with their patients.
Conclusion: The HCD process produced an HRS prototype that is capable of supporting orthopaedic surgeons and patients in their information needs during clinical encounters. Future research should focus on refining I-C-IT by incorporating patient feedback in future iterative cycles of system design and evaluation.
Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Additional Declarations: No competing interests reported.