Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35980735›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2022

Digital Health Competencies Among Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review.

Jessica Longhini, Giacomo Rossettini, Alvisa Palese

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT06356961 (Routine Outcome Monitoring and Feedback Informed Therapy in Italy), which is not on this map. Cited by 97 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT06356961 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Routine Outcome Monitoring and Feedback Informed Therapy in Italy: 1st Italian RCT Large Population Study (PRIN - Italian Minister of Universities and Research Project)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of BergamoRan2025 to 2025Enrolled180ConditionsFeedback, PsychologicalArms(Feedback Informed Therapy) with Clinical Support Tools and ah hoc training, Feedback and ROM (basic)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

97 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jessica LonghiniDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4198-075X
Giacomo RossettiniSchool of Physiotherapy, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1623-7681
Alvisa PaleseDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3508-844X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigitalization is not fully implemented in clinical practice, and several factors have been identified as possible barriers, including the competencies of health care professionals. However, no summary of the available evidence has been provided to date to depict digital health competencies that have been investigated among health care professionals, the tools used in assessing such competencies, and the effective interventions to improve them.

objectiveThis review aims to summarize digital health competencies investigated to date and the tools used to assess them among health care professionals.

methodsA systematic review based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist was performed. The MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases were accessed up to September 4, 2021. Studies assessing digital health competencies with quantitative designs, targeting health care professionals, and written in English were included. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools.

resultsA total of 26 studies, published from 1999 to 2021, met the inclusion criteria, and the majority were cross sectional in design, while only 2 were experimental study designs. Most studies were assessed with moderate to low methodological quality; 4 categories and 9 subcategories of investigated digital health competencies have been identified. The most investigated category was "Self-rated competencies," followed by "Psychological and emotional aspects toward digital technologies," "Use of digital technologies," and "Knowledge about digital technologies." In 35% (9/26) of the studies, a previously validated tool was used to measure the competencies assessed, while others developed ad hoc questionnaires.

conclusionsMainly descriptive studies with issues regarding methodology quality have been produced to date investigating 4 main categories of digital health competencies mostly with nonvalidated tools. Competencies investigated might be considered while designing curricula for undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education processes, whereas the methodological lacks detected might be addressed with future research. There is a need to expand research on psychological and emotional elements and the ability to use digital technology to self-learn and teach others.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021282775; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282775.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelLearningHumanscompetenciesdigital healthdigital technologyeHealtheHealth competencieseHealth literacyhealth care professionalshealth care workershealth literacyreviewsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35980735
PMCPMC9437781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.