Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29739392›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2018

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

Kyungsook Gartrell, Caitlin W Brennan, Gwenyth R Wallen, Fang Liu, Karen G Smith, Paul Fontelo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Kyungsook GartrellDepartment of Nursing, Towson University, Linthicum Hall Room 201J, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD, 21252, USA. kgartrell@towson.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9127-372X
Caitlin W BrennanNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center Nursing Department, 10 Center Drive, Bldg. 10/6-3523, Bethesda, MD, 20892-1151, USA.
Gwenyth R WallenNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center Nursing Department, 10 Center Drive, 6-1484, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Fang LiuNational Library of Medicine, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, B1N30N, 38A, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, 20894, USA.
Karen G SmithNational Institutes of Health/Library, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Paul FonteloNational Library of Medicine, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, B1N30L, 38A, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, 20894, USA.

Funding

National Biomedical Information ServicesZIHLM200888 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI PALTOO, DINA · 2009 to 2025
$5200.7M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough 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.

methodsThree 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.).

resultsOf 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%).

conclusionsClinicians reported that retrieving relevant health information from biomedical literature using the PubMed4Hh was useful at the point of care and in the office.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelClinical Decision-MakingMedical Staff, HospitalNursing Staff, HospitalPoint-of-Care SystemsAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Pilot ProjectsPubMedUnited StatesClinical decision makingMobile applicationPoint of carePubMed4Hh

Identifiers

PMID29739392
PMCPMC5941474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.