Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29956297›Full record

ArticleMethods of information in medicine2018

Technology Informatics Guiding Education Reform - TIGER.

Ursula Hübner, Toria Shaw, Johannes Thye, Nicole Egbert, Heimar de Fatima Marin, Polun Chang, Siobhán O'Connor, Karen Day, Michelle Honey, Rachelle Blake and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods of information in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Ursula Hübner
Toria Shaw
Johannes Thye
Nicole Egbert
Heimar de Fatima Marin
Polun Chang
Siobhán O'Connor
Karen Day
Michelle Honey
Rachelle Blake
Evelyn Hovenga
Diane Skiba
Marion J Ball
Hochschule Osnabrück · DEUniversity of Auckland · NZColorado College · USComputational Physics (United States) · USEdinburgh Napier University · GBNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWUniversidade Federal de São Paulo · BR

Funding

16OH21026 HIMSS North America, the HIMSS Foundation and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (bmbf) Germany2020 European Commission
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile health informatics recommendations on competencies and education serve as highly desirable corridors for designing curricula and courses, they cannot show how the content should be situated in a specific and local context. Therefore, global and local perspectives need to be reconciled in a common framework.

objectivesThe primary aim of this study is therefore to empirically define and validate a framework of globally accepted core competency areas in health informatics and to enrich this framework with exemplar information derived from local educational settings.

methodsTo this end, (i) a survey was deployed and yielded insights from 43 nursing experts from 21 countries worldwide to measure the relevance of the core competency areas, (ii) a workshop at the International Nursing Informatics Conference (NI2016) held in June 2016 to provide information about the validation and clustering of these areas and (iii) exemplar case studies were compiled to match these findings with the practice. The survey was designed based on a comprehensive compilation of competencies from the international literature in medical and health informatics.

resultsThe resulting recommendation framework consists of 24 core competency areas in health informatics defined for five major nursing roles. These areas were clustered in the domains "data, information, knowledge", "information exchange and information sharing", "ethical and legal issues", "systems life cycle management", "management" and "biostatistics and medical technology", all of which showed high reliability values. The core competency areas were ranked by relevance and validated by a different group of experts. Exemplar case studies from Brazil, Germany, New Zealand, Taiwan/China, United Kingdom (Scotland) and the United States of America expanded on the competencies described in the core competency areas.

conclusionsThis international recommendation framework for competencies in health informatics directed at nurses provides a grid of knowledge for teachers and learner alike that is instantiated with knowledge about informatics competencies, professional roles, priorities and practical, local experience. It also provides a methodology for developing frameworks for other professions/disciplines. Finally, this framework lays the foundation of cross-country learning in health informatics education for nurses and other health professionals.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceCluster AnalysisHealth Planning GuidelinesHumansMedical InformaticsNursing InformaticsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID29956297
PMCPMC6193400
OpenAlexW2817589416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.