Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20442143›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Traversing the many paths of workflow research: developing a conceptual framework of workflow terminology through a systematic literature review.

Kim M Unertl, Laurie L Novak, Kevin B Johnson, Nancy M Lorenzi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Quantitative and qualitative methods advance the science of clinical workflow research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kim M UnertlDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt Implementation Sciences Laboratory, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-8340, USA. kim.unertl@vanderbilt.edu
Laurie L Novak
Kevin B Johnson
Nancy M Lorenzi

Funding

Vanderbilt Biomedical Informatics Training ProgramT15LM007450 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI Jessica S. Ancker, Bradley A. Malin · 2002 to 2026
$19.7M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007450NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007450-04PHS HHS 290-05-0006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this review was to describe methods used to study and model workflow. The authors included studies set in a variety of industries using qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. Of the 6221 matching abstracts, 127 articles were included in the final corpus. The authors collected data from each article on researcher perspective, study type, methods type, specific methods, approaches to evaluating quality of results, definition of workflow and dependent variables. Ethnographic observation and interviews were the most frequently used methods. Long study durations revealed the large time commitment required for descriptive workflow research. The most frequently discussed technique for evaluating quality of study results was triangulation. The definition of the term "workflow" and choice of methods for studying workflow varied widely across research areas and researcher perspectives. The authors developed a conceptual framework of workflow-related terminology for use in future research and present this model for use by other researchers.

Indexed as

Terminology as TopicWorkflowHealth Services ResearchHumansMedical InformaticsModels, TheoreticalResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID20442143
PMCPMC2995718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.