Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33346735›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Future Mobile Device Usage, Requirements, and Expectations of Physicians in German University Hospitals: Web-Based Survey.

Oliver Maassen, Sebastian Fritsch, Julia Gantner, Saskia Deffge, Julian Kunze, Gernot Marx, Johannes Bickenbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Smartphone Use and Security Challenges in Hospitals: A Survey among Resident Physicians in Germany.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Oliver MaassenDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0437-9295
Sebastian FritschDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8350-8584
Julia GantnerSMITH Consortium of the German Medical Informatics Initiative, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1568-5893
Saskia DeffgeDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0937-4327
Julian KunzeDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7361-1000
Gernot MarxDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0866-4234
Johannes BickenbachDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0039-8448

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of mobile devices in hospital care constantly increases. However, smartphones and tablets have not yet widely become official working equipment in medical care. Meanwhile, the parallel use of private and official devices in hospitals is common. Medical staff use smartphones and tablets in a growing number of ways. This mixture of devices and how they can be used is a challenge to persons in charge of defining strategies and rules for the usage of mobile devices in hospital care.

objectiveTherefore, we aimed to examine the status quo of physicians' mobile device usage and concrete requirements and their future expectations of how mobile devices can be used.

methodsWe performed a web-based survey among physicians in 8 German university hospitals from June to October 2019. The online survey was forwarded by hospital management personnel to physicians from all departments involved in patient care at the local sites.

resultsA total of 303 physicians from almost all medical fields and work experience levels completed the web-based survey. The majority regarded a tablet (211/303, 69.6%) and a smartphone (177/303, 58.4%) as the ideal devices for their operational area. In practice, physicians are still predominantly using desktop computers during their worktime (mean percentage of worktime spent on a desktop computer: 56.8%; smartphone: 12.8%; tablet: 3.6%). Today, physicians use mobile devices for basic tasks such as oral (171/303, 56.4%) and written (118/303, 38.9%) communication and to look up dosages, diagnoses, and guidelines (194/303, 64.0%). Respondents are also willing to use mobile devices for more advanced applications such as an early warning system (224/303, 73.9%) and mobile electronic health records (211/303, 69.6%). We found a significant association between the technical affinity and the preference of device in medical care (χs2=53.84, P<.001) showing that with increasing self-reported technical affinity, the preference for smartphones and tablets increases compared to desktop computers.

conclusionsPhysicians in German university hospitals have a high technical affinity and positive attitude toward the widespread implementation of mobile devices in clinical care. They are willing to use official mobile devices in clinical practice for basic and advanced mobile health uses. Thus, the reason for the low usage is not a lack of willingness of the potential users. Challenges that hinder the wider adoption of mobile devices might be regulatory, financial and organizational issues, and missing interoperability standards of clinical information systems, but also a shortage of areas of application in which workflows are adapted for (small) mobile devices.

Indexed as

Computers, HandheldGermanyHospitals, UniversityHumansInternetMobile ApplicationsPhysiciansSurveys and Questionnairesappsdevice usageexpectationshospitalmHealthmobile applicationsmobile devicesrequirementssmartphonestabletsworking equipment

Identifiers

PMID33346735
PMCPMC7781804

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.