The healthcare sector is considered to be one of the largest and fast-growing industries in the world. Innovations and novel approaches have always remained the prime aims in order to bring massive development. Before the emergence of technology, all the sectors, including the healthcare sector was dependant dependent on man power, which was time-consuming, and less accurate with lack of efficiency. With the recent advancements in machine learning, the condition is has been steadily revolutionizing. in the practice of the health care industry. Artificial Intelligence intelligence (AI) lies in the computer science department, which stresses on the intelligent machines’ creation, that work and react just like human beings. In simple words, AI is the capability of a computer program to think and learn, almost satisfying natural intelligence. It is the ability of a system to interpret the external data correctly, learn from it and finally use those learnings to execute some particular goals and tasks through adaptation. It utilizes multiple technologies to comprehend, act and understand from past experiences. Involving AI is not a science fiction that was once a very long time ago. It AI being an emerging technology has been adopted in various facets of healthcare ranging from drug discovery to patient monitoring. rapidly penetrated its wings developed itself into almost all the industries. Irrespective of the person’s background, whether he/she is a student, industry worker, an entrepreneur, or a scientist, having basic knowledge about the importance and applications of AI would be impactful. Currently, the applications of AI has have been expanding into those fields, which was once thought to be the only domain of human expertise such as health care sector. In this review article, we have shedthrown light on the present usage of AI in the healthcare sector, such as its working, and the way this system is being implemented in different domains, such as drug discovery, diagnosis of diseases, clinical trials, remote patient monitoring, and nanotechnology. We have also slightlybriefly touched upon its applications in touching other sectors as well. The public opinions have also been analyszed and discussed along with the future prospects.The main goals have been briefed. prospects. We have discussed the Along with the merits, we have also discussed about and the other side of AI, i.e. the disadvantages of this as wellin the last part of the manuscript.
Background An expanding body of literature shows that pharmacists’ interventions improve health outcomes and are cost-saving. However, diverse state regulations of pharmacists’ scope of practice create a discrepancy between what pharmacists are trained to do and what they legally can do. This study investigated how stakeholders utilized research evidence when developing expanded scope of practice policies in their respective states. Methods Using autonomous pharmacist prescriptive authority as a surrogate for general pharmacist scope of practice, a general policy document analysis was performed to understand the scope of practice landscape for pharmacists across the United States. Next, semi-structured interviews with policy-makers and pharmacy advocates were conducted to explore how the identified states in the policy document analysis utilized evidence during the policy-making process. Investigators analysed findings from the transcribed interviews through application of the SPIRIT Action Framework. Resulting codes were summarized across themes, and recommendations to researchers about increasing utilization of research evidence were crafted. Results Sixteen states with 27 autonomous pharmacist prescriptive authority policies were identified. Public health need and safety considerations motivated evidence engagement, while key considerations dictating utilization of research included perceptions of research, access to resources and experts, and the successful implementation of similar policy. Research evidence helped to advocate for and set terms for pharmacist prescribing. Barriers to research utilization include stakeholder opposition to pharmacist prescribing, inability to interpret research, and a lack of relevant evidence. Recommendations for researchers include investigating specific metrics to evaluate scope of practice policy, developing relationships between policy-makers and researchers, and leveraging pharmacy practice stakeholders. Conclusions Overall, alignment of researcher goals and legislative priorities, coupled with timely communication, may help to increase research evidence engagement in pharmacist scope of practice policy. By addressing these factors regarding research engagement identified in this study, researchers can increase evidence-based scope of practice, which can help to improve patient outcomes, contain costs, and provide pharmacists with the legal infrastructure to practise at the top of their license.
Background: An expanding body of literature shows that pharmacists’ interventions improve health outcomes and are cost-saving. However, diverse state regulations of pharmacists’ scope of practice create a discrepancy between what pharmacists are trained to do and what they legally can do. This study hopes to investigate stakeholder utilization of research evidence to expand scope of practice in their respective states.Methods: Using autonomous pharmacist prescriptive authority as a surrogate for general pharmacist scope of practice, a general policy document analysis was performed to understand the scope of practice landscape for pharmacists across the United States. Next, a systemized review and semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore how the identified states in the policy document analysis utilized evidence during the policy make process. Investigators analyzed findings from the systemize review and transcribed interviews through application of the SPIRIT Action Framework. Resulting codes were summarized across themes, and recommendations to researchers about increasing utilization of research evidence were crafted. Results: Sixteen states with 27 autonomous pharmacist prescriptive authority policies were identified. The systemized review yielded no relevant peer-review literature regarding evidence utilization, so gray literature and interviews were analyzed. Public health need and safety considerations motivated evidence engagement, while key considerations dictating utilization of research included perceptions of research, access to resources and experts, and the successful implementation of similar policy. Research evidence helped to advocate for and set terms for pharmacist prescribing. Barriers to research utilization include stakeholder opposition to pharmacist prescribing, inability to interpret research, and a lack of relevant evidence. Recommendations for researchers include investigating specific metrics to evaluate scope of practice policy, developing relationships between policymakers and researchers, and leveraging pharmacy practice stakeholders.Conclusions: Overall, alignment of researcher goals and legislative priorities, coupled with timely communication, may help to increase research evidence engagement in pharmacist scope of practice policy. By addressing these factors regarding research engagement identified in this study, researchers can increase evidence-based scope of practice, which can help to improve patient outcomes, contain costs, and provide pharmacists with the legal infrastructure to practice at the top of their license.
Background: Preventative health services are often underutilized by under-resourced populations. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of a student-run preventative health consultation (PHC) service at free walk-in clinics. Methods: This prospective cohort study recruited adult participants from student-run free walk-in clinics at a Spanish-language church and a homeless shelter. During the PHCs, recommendations from the United States Preventative Services Task Force and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention immunization schedule were discussed with participants. The top three recommendations for each participant were prioritized using shared decision-making. Participants completed a post-PHC survey and were contacted within three months about recommendation completion status. Recommendations were grouped into categories and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 29 people enrolled in the study, 48% (n=14) were Spanish-speaking, and 45% (n=13) were homeless/displaced. There were 87 recommendations made and categorized as health behaviors (29.9%, n=26), vaccinations (18.4%, n=16), chronic disease screenings (18.4%, n=16), communicable disease screenings (17.2%, n=15), cancer screenings (11.5%, n=10), and other (4.6%, n=4). The most common completed recommendations were changes in health behaviors (46.2%, n=12) and chronic disease screenings (37.5%, n=6). Of the participants who completed the post-PHC survey, 96% (n=27) agreed or strongly agreed they learned new information about their health from the PHC, and 100% (n=29) reported being glad to have engaged in the PHC and that the PHC service should continue at the monthly clinics. Conclusions: Health behaviors, vaccinations, and chronic disease screenings were the most frequently prioritized preventative health needs. Student-run PHC services may offer a way to increase underserved patient knowledge and engagement with preventative healthcare.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.