Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31098549›Full record

ReviewFuture healthcare journal2018

Factors affecting -individual task prioritisation in a workplace setting.

Sophie Middleton, Alexandra Charnock, Sarah Forster, John Blakey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Future healthcare journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Sophie MiddletonUniversity Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK.
Alexandra CharnockUniversity Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK.
Sarah ForsterUniversity of Nottingham School of Medicine, Nottingham, UK.
John BlakeyRoyal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Task prioritisation (TP), the ability to arrange assigned responsibilities in order of importance, has been identified by doctors as the most important non-technical skill when working out of hours. This review aimed to identify the factors influencing task prioritisation in a workplace setting. The following databases were searched for relevant studies: BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO as well as the reference lists of relevant articles, review papers and Google Scholar. Data were extracted from the studies using a standard proforma. Twenty relevant papers were identified from management, aviation and healthcare fields. Task prioritisation ability differed across individuals and was associated with personality and experience. Tasks were prioritised based on length, urgency, importance and reward. With practice people become more efficient at task prioritisation. Practical applications include education, personalised task management software and intrusive notifications. Additional research is needed to assess the effects of such interventions in a healthcare setting.

Indexed as

medical educationnon-technical skillsout-of-hourssystematic reviewTask prioritisation

Identifiers

PMID31098549
PMCPMC6502562

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.