ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022
Decision Support Tools in Adult Long-term Care Facilities: Scoping Review.
Article 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. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence in Malnutrition: A Systematic Literature Review.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Review
- How Implementation Context Shapes Clinician Acceptance and Engagement with Guideline-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Article
- Review
- Adoption of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Robots in Long-Term Care Homes by Health Care Providers: Scoping Review.JMIR aging · 2024Article
- Article
- Using chord diagrams to explore article themes in 100 top-cited articles citing Hirsch's h-index since 2005: A bibliometric analysis.Medicine · 2023Article
- Digital health interventions use cases: Classification and taxonomy development, a scoping review.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital innovations are yet to make real impacts in the care home sector despite the considerable potential of digital health approaches to help with continued staff shortages and to improve quality of care. To understand the current landscape of digital innovation in long-term care facilities such as nursing and care homes, it is important to find out which clinical decision support tools are currently used in long-term care facilities, what their purpose is, how they were developed, and what types of data they use.
objectiveThe aim of this review was to analyze studies that evaluated clinical decision support tools in long-term care facilities based on the purpose and intended users of the tools, the evidence base used to develop the tools, how the tools are used and their effectiveness, and the types of data the tools use to contribute to the existing scientific evidence to inform a roadmap for digital innovation, specifically for clinical decision support tools, in long-term care facilities.
methodsA review of the literature published between January 1, 2010, and July 21, 2021, was conducted, using key search terms in 3 scientific journal databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and the British Nursing Index. Only studies evaluating clinical decision support tools in long-term care facilities were included in the review.
resultsIn total, 17 papers were included in the final review. The clinical decision support tools described in these papers were evaluated for medication management, pressure ulcer prevention, dementia management, falls prevention, hospitalization, malnutrition prevention, urinary tract infection, and COVID-19 infection. In general, the included studies show that decision support tools can show improvements in delivery of care and in health outcomes.
conclusionsAlthough the studies demonstrate the potential of positive impact of clinical decision support tools, there is variability in results, in part because of the diversity of types of decision support tools, users, and contexts as well as limited validation of the tools in use and in part because of the lack of clarity in defining the whole intervention.
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.