ArticleSouth African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care2020
Usage of smart devices amongst medical practitioners in Universitas Academic Hospital.
Article in South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reporting of notifiable medical conditions among emergency department doctors in Gauteng.Southern African journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Towards 'Formalising' WhatsApp Teledermatology Practice in KZ-N District Hospitals: Key Informant Interviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- WhatsApp in Clinical Practice-The Challenges of Record Keeping and Storage. A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been a rapid rise in the use of smart devices amongst medical practitioners throughout the world. This study aimed to identify how smart devices were being used by medical practitioners at the Universitas Academic Hospital (UAH), Bloemfontein, and the associated factors thereof. We also identified the views of medical practitioners regarding the usage of smart devices at their workplace.
methodsA prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Anonymous questionnaires were distributed to medical practitioners working at UAH during weekly departmental meetings or monthly morbidity and mortality meetings. The following largest departments were included: Surgery, Anaesthetics, Paediatrics, Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, and Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
resultsThe response rate was 82.7% of those attending the meetings. All the respondents owned a smart device and brought it to their workplace. The most common applications used on these smart devices were that for drug references (65.9%), medical textbooks (63.6%) and medical calculators (58.1%). Significantly larger percentages of doctors aged 21-39 years compared with those aged 40-65 years used drug reference applications and medical calculators. A quarter (24.8%) of respondents communicated with patients through a smart device, 21.7% used an online storage platform to backup patient data, whilst 56.6% used their devices to store and view patient information. More than one-third (36.7%) agreed that smart devices threatened patient confidentiality, but the majority (58.8%) did not agree that these devices hinder patient communication. The majority felt that these devices improved both personal performance (69.2%) and patient care (79.0%).
conclusionSmart devices usage is common in this setting. Hence, integration of such usage in medical curricula, discussion on professionalism, ethics and confidentiality in this context, and guidance from institutions and professional bodies become necessary.
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.