ArticleBMC anesthesiology2020
Acceptance of mHealth among health professionals: a case study on anesthesia practitioners.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03750084 (Anaesthesia and mHealth), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Anaesthesia and mHealth
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Internet, Apps, and the Anesthesiologist.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Validation of a simple risk stratification tool for COVID-19 mortality.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundmHealth, the practice of medicine aided by mobile devices is a growing market. Although the offer on Anesthesia applications (Apps) is quite prolific, representative formal assessments on the views of anesthesia practitioners on its use and potential place in daily practice is lacking. This survey aimed thus to cross-assess the Belgian anesthesia population on the use of smartphone Apps and peripherals.
methodsThe survey was exclusively distributed as an online anonymous questionnaire. Sharing took place via hyperlink forwarding by the Belgian Society for Anesthesia and Reanimation (BSAR) and by the Belgian Association for Regional Anesthesia (BARA) to all registered members. The first answer took place on 5 September 2018, the last on 22 January 2019.
resultsThree hundred forty-nine answers were obtained (26.9% corresponding to trainees, 73.1% to specialists). Anesthesiologists were positively confident that Apps and peripherals could help improve anesthesia care (57.0 and 47.9%, respectively, scored 4 or 5, in a scale from 0 to 5). Trainees were significantly more confident than specialists on both mobile Apps (71.2% and 51.8%, respectively; p = 0.001) and peripherals (77.7% and 45.1%, respectively; p = 0.09). The usefulness of Apps and Peripherals was rated 1 or below (on a 0 to 5 scale), respectively, by 9.5 and 14.6% of the total surveyed population, being specialists proportionally less confident in Smartphone peripherals than trainees (p = 0.008). Mobile apps are actively used by a significantly higher proportional number of trainees (67.0% vs. 37.3%, respectively; p = 0.000001). The preferred category of mobile Apps was dose-calculating applications (39.15%), followed by digital books (21. 1%) and Apps for active perioperative monitoring (20.0%).
conclusionsBelgian Anesthesia practitioners show a global positive attitude towards smartphone Apps and Peripherals, with trainees trending to be more confident than specialists.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov database Identifier: NCT03750084. Retrospectively registered on 21 November 2018.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.