Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34342590›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2021

Examining the Mental Workload Associated With Digital Health Technologies in Health Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review Focusing on Assessment Methods.

Lisanne Kremer, Myriam Lipprandt, Rainer Röhrig, Bernhard Breil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Lisanne KremerFaculty of Health Care, Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences, Krefeld, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1537-4614
Myriam LipprandtInstitute of Medical Informatics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9371-0551
Rainer RöhrigInstitute of Medical Informatics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0032-5118
Bernhard BreilFaculty of Health Care, Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences, Krefeld, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2891-5558

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe workload in health care is high; physicians and nurses report high stress levels due to a demanding environment where they often have to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. As a result, mental health issues among health care professionals (HCPs) are on the rise and the prevalence of errors in their daily tasks could increase. Processes of demographic change are partly responsible for even higher stress levels among HCPs. The digitization of patient care is intended to counteract these processes. However, it remains unclear whether these health information systems (HIS) and digital health technologies (DHT) support the HCPs and relieve stress, or if they represent a further burden. The mental construct that describes this burden of technologies is mental workload (MWL). Work in the clinic can be viewed as working in safety-critical environments. Particularly in this sensitive setting, the measurement methods of MWL are relevant, mainly due to their strongly differing levels of intrusiveness and sensitivity. The method of eye tracking could be a useful way to measure MWL directly in the field.

objectiveThe systematic review aims to address the following questions: (1) In which manner do DHT contribute to the overall MWL of HCPs? (2) Can we observe a direct or indirect effect of DHT on MWL? (3) Which aspects or factors of DHT contribute to an increase in MWL? (4) Which methods/assessments are applied to measure MWL related to HIS/DHT? (5) What role does eye tracking/pupillometry play in the context of measuring MWL? (6) Which outcomes are being assessed via eye tracking?

methodsFollowing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) statement, we will conduct a systematic review. Based on the research questions, we define keywords that we then combine in search terms. The review follows the following steps: literature search, article selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, data analysis, and data synthesis.

resultsWe expect results as well as a finalization of the review in the summer of 2021.

conclusionsThis review will evaluate the impact of DHT on the MWL of HCPs. In addition, assessment methods of MWL in the context of digital technologies will be systematically analyzed.

trial registrationPROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42021233271; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021233271. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/29126.

Indexed as

assessmentcognitive loaddigital health technologyeyetrackinghealth care professionalshealthcare workershealth information systemmental workloadstress

Identifiers

PMID34342590
PMCPMC8371485

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.