ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Evaluating the Use of a Note-Taking App by Japanese Resident Physicians: Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Note-taking is a method that has long been used to optimize studying. Recent innovations have seen the introduction of digital note-taking using software apps. Although the current state of digital note-taking has been verified mainly among students, the use and efficacy of digital note-taking by physicians in actual clinical practice remain unknown. Therefore, we sought to understand the characteristics of note-taking residents using a note-taking app and determine whether there is a difference in basic medical knowledge compared to that of nondigital note-taking residents. Objective: This study investigated the use of a digital note-taking app by Japanese resident physicians. Methods: This analytical cross-sectional study was conducted in resident physicians during the General Medicine In-Training Examination (GM-ITE), a clinical competency examination for resident physicians. The GM-ITE is a multiple-choice test with a maximum score of 80 points. Using a structured questionnaire, we collected data on the sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, postgraduate year [PGY], or others), clinical training, GM-ITE scores, and the use of an app for note-taking to record case experience. The GM-ITE evaluated the scores by dividing them into 4 groups (groups 1-4), in order from the lowest to the highest. We conducted a multivariate analysis of sociodemographic, clinical training, and GM-ITE score variables to determine the independent predictors of the use of a digital note-taking app. Results: This study included 3833 participants; 1242 (32.4%) were female, 1988 (51.8%) were PGY 1 residents, 2628 (68.6%) were training in a rural area, 3236 (84.4%) were in community-based hospitals, and 1750 (45.3%) were app users. The app users were more likely to be in their PGY 2, to work in a community-based hospital, to have general internal medicine rotation experience, to use online medical resources more frequently, and to have more time for self-study. The results showed that the app users group had a higher GM-ITE score than the nonapp users group (adjusted odds ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.22; P=.003). Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate note-taking by physicians in Japan using apps. The app users group had a higher GM-ITE score than the nonapp users, suggesting that they may have higher clinical skills. In the future, we would like to conduct more in-depth research on the facts of note-taking using apps, based on our results.
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.