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.
AUTHOR SUMMARY We evaluated whether BMJ Best Practice, a mobile application that provides evidence-based clinical information, was useful to newly graduated physicians completing SERUMS in rural Peru. Thirty-two physicians had access to the application for three months; 23 reported using it and 10 participated in interviews. Users valued its speed, information organization, and support for diagnostic reasoning, referral decisions, and greater confidence during patient care. However, access to a global tool did not resolve constraints in the practice environment. Connectivity, searches in Spanish, automatic updates, and the performance of some calculators hindered use. Moreover, several recommendations required medicines, diagnostic tests, or other resources that were unavailable in rural primary-care facilities. Our findings suggest that these applications may support learning and decision-making among early-career physicians, but their usefulness depends on adaptation to local language, workflow, and service capacity. Studies using objective usage metrics and clinical outcomes are also needed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of the National University of San Marcos (approval number 0293-2023).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
DATA AVAILABILITY
The anonymized quantitative data and variable dictionary are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Full interview transcripts are not publicly available because of the risk of participant identification in this small sample and the restrictions of the informed consent and ethics approval. The qualitative excerpts necessary to support the principal findings are included in the manuscript. Additional de-identified qualitative data may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to applicable ethical and consent restrictions.
