ArticleAnaesthesia and intensive care2026
The use of communication applications among anaesthetists and other medical professionals in Australia: results of a national survey.
Article in Anaesthesia and intensive care, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Communication applications offer healthcare professionals a simple, instantaneous and direct form of connection within a healthcare team. This cross-sectional survey aimed to examine current usage patterns among Australian medical practitioners and assess their understanding of data security and ethical considerations. Among 151 respondents, most of whom were anaesthetists (77%) practising in metropolitan centres (82%) across South Australia, Queensland, and New South Wales, the Apple iPhone was the most popular device type (77%) while WhatsApp was the preferred application for facilitating patient-based discussions (75%). Doctors sent an average of one to 10 patient-related messages per week, although junior doctors were significantly more likely to exceed this number. The majority (66%) of doctors felt comfortable sharing non-identifying patient information, in comparison to 32% who felt comfortable sharing identifying patient information. Participants demonstrated inconsistent understanding of consent and documentation requirements when transmitting patient data. These findings highlight the routine use of communication applications in Australian hospitals and emphasise the need for greater clinician education on privacy obligations and the development of clear, ethical guidelines for their use in healthcare.
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.