...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making >Clinicians’ perceptions of usefulness of the PubMed4Hh mobile device application for clinical decision making at the point of care: a pilot study
【24h】

Clinicians’ perceptions of usefulness of the PubMed4Hh mobile device application for clinical decision making at the point of care: a pilot study

机译：临床医生对PubMed4Hh移动设备应用程序在护理点进行临床决策的有用性的感知：一项试点研究

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Although evidence-based practice in healthcare has been facilitated by Internet access through wireless mobile devices, research on the effectiveness of clinical decision support for clinicians at the point of care is lacking. This study examined how evidence as abstracts and the bottom-line summaries, accessed with PubMed4Hh mobile devices, affected clinicians’ decision making at the point of care. Three iterative steps were taken to evaluate the usefulness of PubMed4Hh tools at the NIH Clinical Center. First, feasibility testing was conducted using data collected from a librarian. Next, usability testing was carried out by a postdoctoral research fellow shadowing clinicians during rounds for one month in the inpatient setting. Then, a pilot study was conducted from February, 2016 to January, 2017, with clinicians using a mobile version of PubMed4Hh. Invitations were sent via e-mail lists to clinicians (physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners) along with periodic reminders. Participants rated the usefulness of retrieved bottom-line summaries and abstracts and indicated their usefulness on a 7-point Likert scale. They also indicated location of use (office, rounds, etc.). Of the 166 responses collected in the feasibility phase, more than half of questions (57%, n?=?94) were answerable by both the librarian using various resources and by the postdoctoral research fellow using PubMed4Hh. Sixty-six questions were collected during usability testing. More than half of questions (60.6%) were related to information about medication or treatment, while 21% were questions regarding diagnosis, and 12% were specific to disease entities. During the pilot study, participants reviewed 34 abstracts and 40 bottom-line summaries. The abstracts’ usefulness mean scores were higher (95% CI [6.12, 6.64) than the scores of the bottom-line summaries (95% CI [5.25, 6.10]). The most frequent reason given was that it confirmed current or tentative diagnostic or treatment plan. The bottom-line summaries were used more in the office (79.3%), and abstracts were used more at point of care (51.9%). Clinicians reported that retrieving relevant health information from biomedical literature using the PubMed4Hh was useful at the point of care and in the office.
机译：尽管通过无线移动设备访问Internet促进了医疗保健中基于证据的实践，但仍缺乏对临床医生在护理时支持临床决策的有效性的研究。这项研究调查了使用PubMed4Hh移动设备访问的摘要和底线摘要如何影响临床医生在护理点的决策。 NIH临床中心采取了三个迭代步骤来评估PubMed4Hh工具的有效性。首先，使用从图书馆员那里收集的数据进行可行性测试。接下来，在住院环境中，由一名博士后研究员对临床医生进行了为期一个月的巡视，进行了可用性测试。然后，于2016年2月至2017年1月进行了一项初步研究，临床医生使用的是移动版PubMed4Hh。邀请通过电子邮件列表发送给临床医生（医师，医师助理和护士）以及定期提醒。参与者对检索到的底线摘要和摘要的有用性进行了评估，并以7点李克特量表来表示其有用性。他们还指出了使用地点（办公室，巡回赛等）。在可行性阶段收集到的166个回答中，图书馆员使用各种资源和博士后研究人员使用PubMed4Hh回答了一半以上的问题（57％，n = 94）。在可用性测试过程中收集了66个问题。超过一半的问题（60.6％）与有关药物或治疗的信息有关，而21％的问题与诊断有关，而12％的问题与疾病有关。在试验研究期间，参与者回顾了34个摘要和40个底线摘要。摘要的有用性平均得分（95％CI [6.12，6.64]）高于底线摘要的得分（95％CI [5.25，6.10]）。给出的最常见原因是它确认了当前的或暂定的诊断或治疗计划。在办公室，底线摘要被更多地使用（79.3％），而就诊时摘要被更多地使用（51.9％）。临床医生报告说，使用PubMed4Hh从生物医学文献中检索相关的健康信息在护理时和办公室中都是有用的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号