TITLE:
Utilization and Uptake of the UpToDate Clinical Decision Support Tool in Five Medical Schools in Uganda (August 2022-August 2023): A Partnership with the Better Evidence Program
AUTHORS:
Alison Annet Kinengyere, Glorias Asiimwe, Adrine Nyamwiza, Wilson Adriko, Emmanuel Twinamasiko, Arthur Karemani, Julie Rosenberg
KEYWORDS:
UpToDate, Clinical Decision Support Tool, Medical Schools, Uganda, Digital Health, Medical Education, Evidence-Based Medicine
JOURNAL NAME:
International Journal of Clinical Medicine,
Vol.16 No.2,
February
28,
2025
ABSTRACT: Background: Clinical decision support tools provide suggestions to support healthcare providers and clinicians, as they attend to patients. Clinicians use these tools to rapidly consult the evidence at the point of care, a practice which has been found to reduce the time patients spend in hospitals, promote the quality of care and improve healthcare outcomes. Such tools include Medscape, VisualDx, Clinical Key, DynaMed, BMJ Best Practice and UpToDate. However, use of such tools has not yet been fully embraced in low-resource settings such as Uganda. Objective: This paper intends to collate data on the use and uptake of one such tool, UpToDate, which was provided at no cost to five medical schools in Uganda. Methods: Free access to UpToDate was granted through the IP addresses of five medical schools in Uganda in collaboration with Better Evidence at The Global Health Delivery Project at Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Wolters Kluwer Health. Following the donation, medical librarians in the respective institutions conducted training sessions and created awareness of the tool. Usage data was aggregated, based on logins and content views, presented and analyzed using Excel tables and graphs. Results: The data shows similar trends in increased usage over the period of August 2022 to August 2023 across the five medical schools. The most common topics viewed, mode of access (using either the computer or the mobile app), total usage by institution, ratio of uses to eligible users by institution and ratio of uses to students by institution are shared. Conclusion: The study revealed that the tool was used by various user categories across the institutions with similar steady improved usage over the year. These results can inform the librarians as they encourage their respective institutions to continue using the tool to support uptake of point-of-care tools in clinical practice.