Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36780222›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Handheld Computer Devices to Support Clinical Decision-making in Acute Nursing Practice: Systematic Scoping Review.

David Glanville, Anastasia Hutchinson, Damien Khaw

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David Glanville *eLearning Department, Academic & Medical Division, Epworth HealthCare, Richmond, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5186-877X
Anastasia Hutchinson *Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research - Epworth HealthCare Partnership, Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0014-689X
Damien Khaw *Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research - Epworth HealthCare Partnership, Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9311-6912
Deakin University · AUEpworth Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNursing care is increasingly supported by computerized information systems and decision support aids. Since the advent of handheld computer devices (HCDs), there has been limited exploration of their use in nursing practice.

objectiveThe study aimed to understand the professional and clinical impacts of the use of mobile health apps in nursing to assist clinical decision-making in acute care settings. The study also aimed to explore the scope of published research and identify key nomenclature with respect to research in this emerging field within nursing practice.

methodsThis scoping review involved a tripartite search of electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar) using preliminary, broad, and comprehensive search terms. The included studies were hand searched for additional citations. Two researchers independently screened the studies for inclusion and appraised quality using structured critical appraisal tools.

resultsOf the 2309 unique studies screened, 28 (1.21%) were included in the final analyses: randomized controlled trials (n=3, 11%) and quasi-experimental (n=9, 32%), observational (n=10, 36%), mixed methods (n=2, 7%), qualitative descriptive (n=2, 7%), and diagnostic accuracy (n=2, 7%) studies. Studies investigated the impact of HCDs on nursing decisions (n=12, 43%); the effectiveness, safety, and quality of care (n=9, 32%); and HCD usability, uptake, and acceptance (n=14, 50%) and were judged to contain moderate-to-high risk of bias. The terminology used to describe HCDs was heterogenous across studies, comprising 24 unique descriptors and 17 individual concepts that reflected 3 discrete technology platforms ("PDA technology," "Smartphone/tablet technology," and "Health care-specific technology"). Study findings varied, as did the range of decision-making modalities targeted by HCD interventions. Interventions varied according to the level of clinician versus algorithmic judgment: unstructured clinical judgment, structured clinical judgment, and computerized algorithmic judgment.

conclusionsThe extant literature is varied but suggests that HCDs can be used effectively to support aspects of acute nursing care. However, there is a dearth of high-level evidence regarding this phenomenon and studies exploring the degree to which HCD implementation may affect acute nursing care delivery workflow. Additional targeted research using rigorous experimental designs is needed in this emerging field to determine the true potential of HCDs in optimizing acute nursing care.

Indexed as

Computers, HandheldMobile ApplicationsClinical Decision-MakingHumansacute careclinical decision-makingdecision-makinghandheld computer devicesmobile computingmobile healthmobile phonenursingscoping reviewsmartphones

Identifiers

PMID36780222
PMCPMC9972202
OpenAlexW4312557171

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.