Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Updated article of the week text.)
(Updated article of the week text.)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Barrett InformaticsPC2014 21-3.jpg|220px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig3 Mickan BMCMedInfoDecMak2014 14.jpg|220px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:Unravelling the tangled taxonomies of health informatics|Unravelling the tangled taxonomies of health informatics]]"'''
'''"[[Journal:Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: A systematic review|Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: A systematic review]]"'''


Even though [[informatics]] is a term used commonly in healthcare, it can be a confusing and disengaging one. Many definitions exist in the literature, and attempts have been made to develop a clear taxonomy. Despite this, informatics is still a term that lacks clarity in both its scope and the classification of sub-terms that it encompasses.
Many healthcare professionals use smartphones and tablets to inform patient care. Contemporary research suggests that handheld computers may support aspects of clinical diagnosis and management. This systematic review was designed to synthesise high quality evidence to answer the question; Does healthcare professionals’ use of handheld computers improve their access to [[information]] and support clinical decision making at the point of care?


This paper reviews the importance of an agreed taxonomy and explores the challenges of establishing exactly what is meant by [[health informatics]] (HI). It reviews what a taxonomy should do, summarises previous attempts at categorising and organising HI and suggests the elements to consider when seeking to develop a system of classification.
A detailed search was conducted using Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Science and Social Science Citation Indices since 2001. Interventions promoting healthcare professionals seeking information or making clinical decisions using handheld computers were included. Classroom learning and the use of laptop computers were excluded. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and extracted data. High levels of data heterogeneity negated statistical synthesis. Instead, evidence for effectiveness was summarised narratively, according to each study’s aim for assessing the impact of handheld computer use. ('''[[Journal:Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: A systematic review|Full article...]]''')<br />
 
The paper does not provide all the answers, but it does clarify the questions. By plotting a path towards a taxonomy of HI, it will be possible to enhance understanding and optimise the benefits of embracing technology in clinical practice.('''[[Journal:Unravelling the tangled taxonomies of health informatics|Full article...]]''')<br />


<br />
<br />
''Recently featured'': [[American National Standards Institute]], [[Public health informatics]], [[Health information technology]]
''Recently featured'': [[Journal:Unravelling the tangled taxonomies of health informatics|Unravelling the tangled taxonomies of health informatics]], [[American National Standards Institute]], [[Public health informatics]]

Revision as of 17:41, 3 August 2015

Fig3 Mickan BMCMedInfoDecMak2014 14.jpg

"Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: A systematic review"

Many healthcare professionals use smartphones and tablets to inform patient care. Contemporary research suggests that handheld computers may support aspects of clinical diagnosis and management. This systematic review was designed to synthesise high quality evidence to answer the question; Does healthcare professionals’ use of handheld computers improve their access to information and support clinical decision making at the point of care?

A detailed search was conducted using Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Science and Social Science Citation Indices since 2001. Interventions promoting healthcare professionals seeking information or making clinical decisions using handheld computers were included. Classroom learning and the use of laptop computers were excluded. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and extracted data. High levels of data heterogeneity negated statistical synthesis. Instead, evidence for effectiveness was summarised narratively, according to each study’s aim for assessing the impact of handheld computer use. (Full article...)


Recently featured: Unravelling the tangled taxonomies of health informatics, American National Standards Institute, Public health informatics

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Article_of_the_week&oldid=22108"