Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33064102›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

eHealth Literacy of German Physicians in the Pre-COVID-19 Era: Questionnaire Study.

Johanna Kirchberg, Johannes Fritzmann, Jürgen Weitz, Ulrich Bork

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Digital health literacy in Germany: current status, concepts, and challenges].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Approaches to Improvement of Digital Health Literacy (eHL) in the Context of Person-Centered Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 3Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Johanna KirchbergDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic, and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2786-4269
Johannes FritzmannDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic, and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1869-3960
Jürgen WeitzDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic, and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5760-6391
Ulrich BorkDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic, and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0813-0136

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigitalization is a disruptive technology that changes the way we deliver diagnostic procedures and treatments in medicine. Different stakeholders have varying interests in and expectations of the digitalization of modern medicine. Many recent digital advances in the medical field, such as the implementation of electronic health records, telemedical services, and mobile health apps, are increasingly used by medical professionals and patients. During the current pandemic outbreak of a novel coronavirus-caused respiratory disease (COVID-19), many modern information and communication technologies (ICT) have been used to overcome the physical barriers and limitations caused by government-issued curfews and workforce shortages. Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in the usage of modern ICT in medicine. At the same time, the eHealth literacy of physicians working with these technologies has probably not improved since our study.

objectiveThis paper describes a representative cohort of German physicians before the COVID-19 pandemic and their eHealth literacy and attitude towards modern ICT.

methodsA structured, self-developed questionnaire about user behavior and attitudes towards eHealth applications was administered to a representative cohort of 93 German physicians.

resultsOf the 93 German physicians who participated in the study, 97% (90/93) use a mobile phone. Medical apps are used by 42% (39/93). Half of the surveyed physicians (47/93, 50%) use their private mobile phones for official purposes on a daily basis. Telemedicine is part of the daily routine for more than one-third (31/93, 33%) of all participants. More than 80% (76/93, 82%) of the trial participants state that their knowledge regarding the legal aspects and data safety of medical apps and cloud computing is insufficient.

conclusionsModern ICT is frequently used and mostly welcomed by German physicians. However, there is a tremendous lack of eHealth literacy and knowledge about the safe and secure implementation of these technologies in routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth LiteracyTelemedicineAdultCohort StudiesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19FemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPhysiciansPneumonia, ViralSurveys and QuestionnaireseHealtheHealth literacyelectronic healthhealth appsmobile healthmobile health apps

Identifiers

PMID33064102
PMCPMC7600010

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.