Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37095892›Full record

ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2023

Development of an evaluation framework for health information communication technology in contemporary pharmacy practice.

Ayomide Ogundipe, Tin Fei Sim, Lynne Emmerton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Ayomide OgundipeCurtin Medical School, Curtin University, Kent Street, 6102, Western Australia, Australia.
Tin Fei SimCurtin Medical School, Curtin University, Kent Street, 6102, Western Australia, Australia.
Lynne EmmertonCurtin Medical School, Curtin University, Kent Street, 6102, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Health information communication technology (ICT) has rapidly evolved in contemporary pharmacy practice worldwide. The Australian healthcare system is experiencing a paradigm shift to real-time interconnectivity for practitioners and consumers and interoperable digital health. With these developments come a need to evaluate use of technologies specifically in pharmacy practice to optimize their clinical functionality. There are no published frameworks for evaluating ICT needs or implementation in pharmacy practice. Objective: This paper proposes a theoretical framework for evaluating health ICT in pharmacy. Methods: Development of the evaluation framework was informed by a systematic scoping review and health informatics literature. Specifically, the framework drew upon critical appraisal and concept mapping of the TAM, ISS and HOT-fit validated models, with respect to health ICT in contemporary pharmacy practice. Results: The proposed model was named the Conclusions: This is the first published proposed evaluation framework developed for health ICT specifically in contemporary pharmacy practice. TEK represents a pragmatic way to ensure the development, refinement and implementation of new and existing technologies in contemporary pharmacy practice to keep pace with the clinical and professional requirements of community pharmacists. Operational, clinical and system outcomes should be evaluated as coexisting factors that may impact implementation. Validation research utilizing Design Science Research Methodology will enhance utility for end users and ensure the relevance and application of the TEK to contemporary pharmacy practice.

Indexed as

Contemporary pharmacy practiceDigital healthEvaluation frameworkHealth ICTProposed model

Identifiers

PMID37095892
PMCPMC10121477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.