Search

Analyze racial differences in comfort with medical research using an alternative to the traditional approach that treats white people as a raceless norm.Quantitative analysis of survey responses (n = 1,570) from Black and white residents of the US to identify relationships between perceptions of research as a right or a risk, and comfort participating in medical research.A lower proportion of white respondents reported that medical experimentation occurred without patient consent (p 0.001) and a higher proportion of white respondents reported that it should be their right to participate in medical research (p = 0.02). Belief in one's right to participate was significantly predictive of comfort (b = 0.37, p 0.001). Belief in experimentation without consent was significantly predictive of comfort for white respondents but not for Black respondents in multivariable analysis.A rights-based orientation and less concern about the risks of medical research among white respondents demonstrate comparative advantage. Efforts to diversify medical research may perpetuate structural racism if they do not (1) critically engage with whiteness and its role in comfort with participation, and (2) identify and respond specifically to the needs of Black patients.

PURPOSE: CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success. METHODS: In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing. RESULTS: Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore youth experiences and perspectives on family caregiving to improve programs and policies that impact the well-being of youth. Methods In August 2020, we asked three open-ended questions about current and anticipated caregiving responsibilities, impact, and needs using MyVoice, a national text message poll of youth. Content and thematic analysis was conducted to evaluate qualitative responses. Results In our sample (n = 1,076), 35% of respondents reported previously or currently providing care for an adult relative either independently or by helping another relative. Participants believed caregiving had or would hinder their educational or career goals and that specific training would better prepare them to be a caregiver. Conclusions The prevalence of youth caregiving may be higher than previous estimates. Healthcare professionals should evaluate youth for caregiving responsibilities and support them in identifying resources or interventions to reduce potential impacts of caregiving burden on health outcomes.

Healthcare systems are using big data-driven methods to realize the vision of learning health systems and improve care quality. In so doing, many are partnering with third-party commercial companies to provide novel data processing and analysis capabilities, while also providing personal health information to a for-profit industry that may store and sell data. In this research we describe the public’s comfort with sharing health data with third-party commercial companies for patient and business purposes and how this comfort is associated with demographic factors (sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, employment, income, insurance status, and self-reported health status), perceived healthcare access, and concerns about privacy. We surveyed the US public (n = 1841) to assess comfort with sharing health data with third-party commercial companies for patient or business purposes and examined whether there was a difference between comfort with data sharing for patient or business purposes. Univariate and stepwise regression modeling is used here to estimate the relationship between comfort with third-party commercial companies for patient and business purposes (outcomes) and demographic factors, self-reported health status, perceived healthcare access, and privacy concerns. The public is more comfortable sharing health data with third party commercial companies for patient purposes as compared to business purposes (paired t = 39.84, p β = 0.205, p β = −0.145, p = 0.079). An inverse relationship exists between privacy concerns and comfort with sharing health data for both patient (β = −0.223, p β = −0.246, p β = −0.154, p = 0.0012) than participants aged 18–29. Proactive acknowledgment of privacy concerns and better communication of the steps being taken to protect the privacy of health data can increase patient comfort. Healthcare systems may be able to increase public and patient comfort with sharing health data with third-party commercial companies by emphasizing the patient-centered benefits of these partnerships.

PURPOSE To explore internal medicine residents' and geriatrics fellows' perceptions of how personal, social, and institutional characteristics contribute to their professional identity and subspecialty decisions related to geriatric medicine. METHOD The authors conducted 23 in-depth, semistructured interviews with internal medicine residents, with and without an interest in geriatrics, and geriatrics fellows across 3 academic medical centers in the United States from October 2018 through June 2019. They then used a qualitative narrative approach to analyze the interview data. RESULTS Trainees related personal experiences, such as exposure to physicians and experiences with grandparents, to their interest in medicine. Trainees with an interest in geriatrics at 2 institutions did not feel supported, or understood, by peers and mentors in their respective institutions but maintained their interest in the field. The following variations between institutions that are supportive and those that are not were noted: the number of geriatricians, the proximity of the institution to geriatrics clinics, and the ways in which institutional leaders portrayed the prestige of geriatric medicine. Institutional characteristics influenced trainees' understanding of what it meant to be a doctor, what meaning they garnered from work as a physician, and their comfort with different types of complexity, such as those presented when providing care to older adults. CONCLUSIONS Institutional characteristics may be particularly important in shaping trainee interest in geriatric medicine. Institutions should encourage leadership training and opportunities for geriatricians so they can serve as role models and as hands-on mentors for trainees beginning in medical school. Increasing the number of geriatricians requires institutions to increase the value they place on geriatrics to generate a positive interest in this field among trainees. Institutions facilitating formation of professional identity and sense of purpose in work may consider engaging geriatricians in leadership and mentoring roles as well as curriculum development.

As predictive analytics are increasingly used and developed by health care systems, recognition of the threat posed by bias has grown along with concerns about how providers can make informed decisions related to predictive models. To facilitate informed decision-making around the use of these models and limit the reification of bias, this study aimed to (1) identify user requirements for informed decision-making and utilization of predictive models and (2) anticipate and reflect equity concerns in the information provided about models.Qualitative analysis of user-centered design (n = 46) and expert interviews (n = 10).We conducted a user-centered design study at an academic medical center with clinicians and stakeholders to identify informational elements required for decision-making related to predictive models with a product information label prototype. We also conducted equity-focused interviews with experts to extend the user design study and anticipate the ways in which models could interact with or reflect structural inequity.Four key informational elements were reported as necessary for informed decision-making and confidence in the use of predictive models: information on (1) model developers and users, (2) methodology, (3) peer review and model updates, and (4) population validation. In subsequent expert interviews, equity-related concerns included the purpose or application of a model and its relationship to structural inequity.Health systems should provide key information about predictive models to clinicians and other users to facilitate informed decision-making about the use of these models. Implementation efforts should also expand to routinely incorporate equity considerations from inception through the model development process.

Quality care requires collaborative communication, information exchange, and decision-making between patients and providers. Complete and accurate data about patients and from patients are especially important as high volumes of data are used to build clinical decision support tools and inform precision medicine initiatives. However, systematically missing data can bias these tools and threaten their effectiveness. Data completeness relies in many ways on patients being comfortable disclosing information to their providers without prohibitive concerns about security or privacy. Patients are likely to withhold information in the context of low trust relationships with providers, but it is unknown how experiences of discrimination in the healthcare system also relate to non-disclosure. In this study, we assess the relationship between withholding information from providers, experiences of discrimination, and multiple types of patient trust. Using a nationally representative sample of US adults (n = 2,029), weighted logistic regression modeling indicated a statistically significant relationship between experiences of discrimination and withholding information from providers (OR 3.7; CI [2.6-5.2], p .001). Low trust in provider disclosure of conflicts of interest and low trust in providers' responsible use of health information were also positively associated with non-disclosure. We further analyzed the relationship between non-disclosure and the five most common types of discrimination (e.g., discrimination based on race, education/income, weight, gender, and age). We observed that all five types were statistically significantly associated with non-disclosure (p .05). These results suggest that experiences of discrimination and specific types of low trust have a meaningful association with a patient's willingness to share information with their provider, with important implications for the quality of data available for medical decision-making and care. Because incomplete information can contribute to lower quality care, especially in the context of data-driven decision-making, patients experiencing discrimination may be further disadvantaged and harmed by systematic data missingness in their records.

This Viewpoint describes the decline in trust in medical institutions in the US and suggests approches to rebuilding and maintaining trust.

Physicians are expected and incentivized to coordinate patient care with other providers, including nonphysician clinician (NPC) members of care teams, requiring trust. Trust in the context of care teams has not been well-studied; even less is known about how health information technologies (HIT) may modify trust in these relationships. We conducted semistructured interviews with 30 physicians at a Midwestern academic center to examine how physicians determine they can trust NPCs, and how technology modifies these relationships. A majority of physicians base trust in NPCs on cognitive factors such as competence and reliability. Technology enhances trust between physicians and NPCs by supporting evidence-based decision making; it can also erode trust by limiting opportunities for developing familiarity and comfort with fellow providers. Our work has implications for enhancing HIT to promote trust between providers, and for developing more robust measures of trust that can be used in evaluating and improving teamwork within practices.

Purpose Nations such as the USA are investing in technologies such as electronic health records in order to collect, store and transfer information across boundaries of health care, public health and research. Health information brokers such as health care providers, public health departments and university researchers function as “access points” to manage relationships between the public and the health system. The relationship between the public and health information brokers is influenced by trust; and this relationship may predict the trust that the public has in the health system as a whole, which has implications for public trust in the system, and consequently, legitimacy of involved institutions, under circumstances of health information data sharing in the future. This paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach In this study, the authors aimed to examine characteristics of trustors (i.e. the public) that predict trust in health information brokers; and further, to identify the factors that influence trust in brokers that also predict system trust. The authors developed a survey that was administered to US respondents in 2014 using GfK’s nationally representative sample, with a final sample of 1,011 participants and conducted ordinary least squares regression for data analyses. Findings Results suggest that health care providers are the most trusted information brokers of those examined. Beliefs about medical deceptive behavior were negatively associated with trust in each of the information brokers examined; however, psychosocial factors were significantly associated with trust in brokers, suggesting that individual attitudes and beliefs are influential on trust in brokers. Positive views of information sharing and the expectation of benefits of information sharing for health outcomes and health care quality are associated with system trust. Originality/value This study suggests that demonstrating the benefits and value of information sharing could be beneficial for building public trust in the health system; however, trust in brokers of information are variable across the public; that is, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs are associated with the level of trust different individuals have in various health information brokers – suggesting that the need for a personalized approach to building trust.

Efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 rely on trust in public health organizations and practices. These practices include contact tracing, which requires people to share personal information with public health organizations. The central role of trust in these practices has gained more attention during the pandemic, resurfacing endemic questions about public trust and potential racial trust disparities, especially as they relate to participation in public health efforts. Using an explanatory mixed methods design, we conducted quantitative analysis of state-level survey data in the United States from a representative sample of Michigan residents (n = 1000) in May 2020. We used unadjusted and adjusted linear regressions to examine differences in trust in public health information and willingness to participate in public health efforts by race. From July to September 2020, we conducted qualitative interviews (n = 26) to further explain quantitative results. Using unadjusted linear regression, we observed higher willingness to participate in COVID-19 public health efforts among Black survey respondents compared to White respondents. In adjusted analysis, that difference disappeared, yielding no statistically significant difference between Black and White respondents in either trust in public health information sources or willingness to participate. Qualitative interviews were conducted to explain these findings, considering their contrast with assumptions that Black people would exhibit lower trust in public health organizations during COVID-19. Altruism, risk acknowledgement, trust in public health organizations during COVID-19, and belief in efficacy of public health efforts contributed to willingness to participate in public health efforts among interviewees. Our findings underscore the contextual nature of trust, and the importance of this context when analyzing protective health behaviors among communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Assumptions about mistrust among Black individuals and communities may be inaccurate because they overlook the specific context of the public health crisis. These findings are important because they indicate that Black respondents are exhibiting strategic trust during COVID-19 despite systemic, contemporary, and historic barriers to trust. Conceptual specificity rather than blanket generalizations is warranted, especially given the harms of stereotyping and discrimination.

This study aimed to (1) examine what patient-centeredness means for older adults and family caregivers, and (2) assess circumstances underlying their preference for geriatric care. We conducted separate focus groups with older adults and family caregivers of older adults about health care experiences and expectations and conducted a vignette-based experiment to assess preference for geriatric care. Participants expressed a need for greater skill and empathy and integration of caregivers. They preferred geriatric care to usual primary care with increasing social, health, and healthcare complexity. Distinct needs of older adults should be considered in referral practices to geriatric medicine.

The volume of biomedical knowledge is growing exponentially and much of this knowledge is represented in computer executable formats, such as models, algorithms, and programmatic code. There is a growing need to apply this knowledge to improve health in Learning Health Systems, health delivery organizations, and other settings. However, most organizations do not yet have the infrastructure required to consume and apply computable knowledge, and national policies and standards adoption are not sufficient to ensure that it is discoverable and used safely and fairly, nor is there widespread experience in the process of knowledge implementation as clinical decision support. The Mobilizing Computable Biomedical Knowledge (MCBK) community was formed in 2016 to address these needs. This report summarizes the main outputs of the third annual MCBK public meeting, which was held virtually from June 30 to July 1, 2020 and brought together over 200 participants from various domains to frame and address important dimensions for mobilizing CBK.

Key Points Question What are the national prevalence, frequency, and main types of discrimination that adult patients report experiencing in the US health care system? Findings In this nationally representative cross-sectional survey study, 21% of 2137 US adult survey respondents indicated that they had experienced discrimination in the health care system, and 72% of those who had experienced discrimination reported experiencing it more than once. Racial/ethnic discrimination was the most frequently reported type of discrimination respondents experienced. Meaning Experiences of discrimination in the health care system appear to be more common than previously recognized and deserve considerable attention., Importance Although considerable evidence exists on the association between negative health outcomes and daily experiences of discrimination, less is known about such experiences in the health care system at the national level. It is critically necessary to measure and address discrimination in the health care system to mitigate harm to patients and as part of the larger ongoing project of responding to health inequities. Objectives To (1) identify the national prevalence of patient-reported experiences of discrimination in the health care system, the frequency with which they occur, and the main types of discrimination experienced and (2) examine differences in the prevalence of discrimination across demographic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional national survey fielded online in May 2019 used a general population sample from the National Opinion Research Center’s AmeriSpeak Panel. Surveys were sent to 3253 US adults aged 21 years or older, including oversamples of African American respondents, Hispanic respondents, and respondents with annual household incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level. Main Outcomes and Measures Analyses drew on 3 survey items measuring patient-reported experiences of discrimination, the primary types of discrimination experienced, the frequency with which they occurred, and the demographic and health-related characteristics of the respondents. Weighted bivariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to assess associations between experiences of discrimination and several demographic and health-related characteristics. Results Of 2137 US adult respondents who completed the survey (66.3% response rate; unweighted 51.0% female; mean [SD] age, 49.6 [16.3] years), 458 (21.4%) reported that they had experienced discrimination in the health care system. After applying weights to generate population-level estimates, most of those who had experienced discrimination (330 [72.0%]) reported experiencing it more than once. Of 458 reporting experiences of discrimination, racial/ethnic discrimination was the most common type (79 [17.3%]), followed by discrimination based on educational or income level (59 [12.9%]), weight (53 [11.6%]), sex (52 [11.4%]), and age (44 [9.6%]). In multivariable analysis, the odds of experiencing discrimination were higher for respondents who identified as female (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.50-2.36) and lower for older respondents (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99), respondents earning at least $50 000 in annual household income (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95), and those reporting good (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.75) or excellent (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31-0.56) health compared with poor or fair health. Conclusions and Relevance The results of this study suggest that experiences of discrimination in the health care system appear more common than previously recognized and deserve considerable attention. These findings contribute to understanding of the scale at which interpersonal discrimination occurs in the US health care system and provide crucial evidence for next steps in assessing the risks and consequences of such discrimination. The findings also point to a need for further analysis of how interpersonal discrimination interacts with structural inequities and social determinants of health to build effective responses., This cross-sectional study examines the responses to a recent National Opinion Research Center survey to assess the prevalence, frequency, and main types of discrimination experienced by adult patients in the US health care system.

Background In the past decade, Lynn Etheredge presented a vision for the Learning Health System (LHS) as an opportunity for increasing the value of health care via rapid learning from data and immediate translation to practice and policy. An LHS is defined in the literature as a system that seeks to continuously generate and apply evidence, innovation, quality, and value in health care. Objective This review aimed to examine themes in the literature and rhetoric on the LHS in the past decade to understand efforts to realize the LHS in practice and to identify gaps and opportunities to continue to take the LHS forward. Methods We conducted a thematic analysis in 2018 to analyze progress and opportunities over time as compared with the initial Knowledge Gaps and Uncertainties proposed in 2007. Results We found that the literature on the LHS has increased over the past decade, with most articles focused on theory and implementation; articles have been increasingly concerned with policy. Conclusions There is a need for attention to understanding the ethical and social implications of the LHS and for exploring opportunities to ensure that these implications are salient in implementation, practice, and policy efforts.

Medical biobanks often struggle to obtain sustainable funding. Commercialization of specimens is one solution, but disclosure of commercial interests to potential contributors can be dissuasive. Recent revisions to the federal human subjects research regulations will soon mandate such commercialization disclosure in some circumstances, which raises questions about implications for practice. In this nationally representative, probability-based survey sample of the US adult population, we found that 67 percent of participants agreed that clear notification of potential commercialization of biospecimens is warranted, but only 23 percent were comfortable with such use. Sixty-two percent believed that profits should be used only to support future research, and 41 percent supported sharing profits with the public. We also considered other factors related to disclosure in our analysis and argue for a "disclosure plus" standard: informing potential contributors that their biospecimens might be accessed by commercial organizations and explaining how profits would be used to both enhance transparency and facilitate contributors' altruistic motivations.

One of the significant modifications to the Common Rule is the requirement that prospective participants are given information sufficient for a “reasonable person”. However, there is limited research on what types of information patients, caregivers, and providers consider “key information”. Although certain aspects of informed consent (IC) may be considered standard, considering individualized needs and preferences of patients is necessary for patient-centered consent. In the current study, we qualitatively examined the specific types of information that patients and caregivers involved in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), as well as their providers, believe are important and necessary as part of the IC process in order to make a decision about participating in clinical research; and further, how these perspectives are aligned. Our findings suggest opportunities for improving the IC document and process by emphasizing information of importance to patients such as the benefits to others and contributions to science that are associated with participation in clinical research. Further, increasing patient engagement during the IC process may enable providers to streamline information that is aligned with patient information needs and preferences.

Scholarship on newborn screening, dried bloodspot retention, and large population biobanking call consistently for improved public engagement. Communication with participants likely occurs only in the context of collection, consent, or notification, if at all. We ran an 11-week advertising campaign to inform Michigan Facebook users unlikely to know that their or their children's dried bloodspots (DBSs) were stored in a state biobank. We investigated the pattern and content of comments posted during the campaign, focusing on users' questions, attitudes and concerns, and the role the moderator played in addressing them. We used Facebook data to quantitatively assess engagement and employed conventional content analysis to investigate themes, attitudes, and social dynamics among user and moderator comments. Five ad sets elicited comments during campaign weeks 4-8, reaching ∼800,000 Facebook users ($6000). Gravitating around broad, underlying ethical, legal, and social issues, 180 posts from 129 unique users related to newborn screening or biobanking. Thirty six conveyed negative attitudes and 33 conveyed positive attitudes; 53 posed questions. The most prevalent themes identified were consent, privacy, bloodspot use, identifiability, inclusion criteria, research benefits, (mis)trust, genetics, DBS destruction, awareness, and the role of government. The moderator's 81 posts were responsive-answering questions, correcting or clarifying information, or providing information about opting out. Facebook ad campaigns can improve engagement by pushing out relevant content and creating dynamic, responsive, visible forums for discussion. Reduced control over messaging may be worth the trade-off for creating accessible, transparent, people-centered engagement on public health issues that are sensitive and complex.

The volume of biomedical knowledge is growing exponentially and much of this knowledge is represented in computer executable formats, such as models, algorithms and programmatic code. There is a growing need to apply this knowledge to improve health in Learning Health Systems, health delivery organizations, and other settings. However, most organizations do not yet have the infrastructure required to consume and apply computable knowledge, and national policies and standards adoption are not sufficient to ensure that it is discoverable and used safely and fairly, nor is there widespread experience in the process of knowledge implementation as clinical decision support. The Mobilizing Computable Biomedical Knowledge (MCBK) community formed in 2016 to address these needs. This report summarizes the main outputs of the Second Annual MCBK public meeting, which was held at the National Institutes of Health on July 18‐19, 2019 and brought together over 150 participants from various domains to frame and address important dimensions for mobilizing CBK.

Introduction: Health information generated by health care encounters, research enterprises, and public health is increasingly interoperable and shareable across uses and users. This paper examines the US public’s willingness to be a part of multi-user health information networks and identifies factors associated with that willingness.Methods: Using a probability-based sample (n = 890), we examined the univariable and multivariable relationships between willingness to participate in health information networks and demographic factors, trust, altruism, beliefs about the public’s ethical obligation to participate in research, privacy, medical deception, and policy and governance using linear regression modeling.Results: Willingness to be a part of a multi-user network that includes health care providers, mental health, social services, research, or quality improvement is low (26 percent–7.4 percent, depending on the user). Using stepwise regression, we identified a model that explained 42.6 percent of the variability in willingness to participate and included nine statistically significant factors associated with the outcome: Trust in the health system, confidence in policy, the belief that people have an obligation to participate in research, the belief that health researchers are accountable for conducting ethical research, the desire to give permission, education, concerns about insurance, privacy, and preference for notification.Discussion: Our results suggest willingness to be a part of multi-user data networks is low, but that attention to governance may increase willingness. Building trust to enable acceptance of multi-use data networks will require a commitment to aligning data access practices with the expectations of the people whose data is being used.

Background: Rapid treatment is critical to improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and is directly affected by bystanders’ abilities to immediately recognize cardiac arrest, call 911, and provide early CPR and/or Automated External Defibrillation (AED). Given the critical element of early bystander interventions, we chose to use a learning health system (LHS) approach to reduce time-to-first-treatment for OHCA. In a LHS, a community of diverse stakeholders embark on continuous, data-driven learning to improve best practices and health outcomes. Methods: We established an OHCA learning community (LC) comprised of multidisciplinary representatives of the chain of survival in Michigan’s Washtenaw-Livingston county medical control authority region (a two-county entity, population 555,278, that coordinates emergency medical services). The LC aimed to accelerate the shared identification of priority areas for investigation and to facilitate more rapid implementation of innovative interventions to reduce OHCA response time. Results: We held two LC meetings. Using an approach that included facilitated discussion, 65 diverse stakeholders (OHCA survivors, 911 dispatchers, first responders, physicians) identified the following 4 themes as critical to improving time-to-first-treatment: 1) Improve bystander response; 2) Increase OHCA public awareness; 3) Reduce time-to-treatment and improve data collection for key process measures (time of cardiac arrest, time to first chest compression, time to AED); and 4) Improve post-cardiac arrest systems of care. The LC was supported by examination of standardized processes and infrastructure in a learning cycle (see graphic). These LC findings are being deployed in the Washtenaw-Livingston region to enhance OHCA data collection and increase bystander engagement; e.g. by establishing a system to review 911 calls to accurately assess times and identify systematic barriers to rapid treatment. Conclusions: The LHS approach and multi-stakeholder LC has led to the identification of community-owned key priority areas within a local context for OHCA. We believe this approach will accelerate the implementation and adoption of new data collection methods and innovative practices that will facilitate continuous learning and improvement.

Knowledge artifacts in digital repositories for clinical decision support (CDS) can promote the use of CDS in clinical practice. However, stakeholders will benefit from knowing which they can trust before adopting artifacts from knowledge repositories. We discuss our investigation into trust for knowledge artifacts and repositories by the Patient‐Centered CDS Learning Network's Trust Framework Working Group (TFWG). The TFWG identified 12 actors (eg, vendors, clinicians, and policy makers) within a CDS ecosystem who each may play a meaningful role in prioritizing, authoring, implementing, or evaluating CDS and developed 33 recommendations distributed across nine “trust attributes.” The trust attributes and recommendations represent a range of considerations such as the “Competency” of knowledge artifact engineers and the “Organizational Capacity” of institutions that develop and implement CDS. The TFWG findings highlight an initial effort to make trust explicit and embedded within CDS knowledge artifacts and repositories and thus more broadly accepted and used.