ArticleDigital health
Evaluating remote healthcare practices: Experiences and recommendations of healthcare professionals on smart applications.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: With the digitalization of objects and spaces, healthcare services are being reshaped globally, creating many potential applications. This study aimed to determine the application potential of remote healthcare services (RHS) in a hospital by considering the experiences, interests, and suggestions of health professionals, and examples of useful applications that can be used, developed, or invented for healthcare systems. Methods: A semi-structured, face-to-face interview survey was conducted with 176 healthcare professionals working at Bozok University. Results: Branches with the highest practice experience were internal medicine, cardiac, pediatric, infection, and orthopedics. Experienced participants rated the usability of "Consultation," "Support," and "Monitoring" applications higher than other apps, and indicated that they would prefer to use them for themselves (η²≤0.12). Requirements adequacy was lower for older adults, internal/surgical branches, and physicians than for other groups (η² ≥ 0.05). Application categories showed a significant relationship (0.4 ≤ r ≤ 0.8, p < 0.05). Several variables significantly explained the models (p < 0.001): application-usability (64%), user-demand (64%), and requirements-adequacy (25%). Professionals' demand (r = 0.83) was more strongly correlated to usability than patient demand (r = 0.63). Health professionals (N = 105) from 17 branches provided 57 available, 51 developable, and 19 innovative application recommendations. These were coded according to application type, critical features, presence, integration status, and usefulness. Conclusion: RHS' application potential in a hospital was revealed considering demographic factors and application categories based on health professionals' experiences, practical interests, and suggestions, with a strong, comprehensive, and up-to-date methodology. The findings have the potential for international application and can contribute to implementing useful and developing original applications.
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.