Background Patient-generated health data (PGHD) have been largely collected through mobile health (mHealth) apps and wearable devices. PGHD can be especially helpful in mental health, as patients’ illness history and symptom narratives are vital to developing diagnoses and treatment plans. However, the extent to which clinicians use mental health–related PGHD is unknown. Objective A mixed methods study was conducted to understand clinicians’ perspectives on PGHD and current mental health apps. This approach uses information gathered from semistructured interviews, workflow analysis, and user-written mental health app reviews to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the current workflow of mental health practice and how are PGHD integrated into this workflow, (2) what are clinicians’ perspectives on PGHD and how do they choose mobile apps for their patients, (3) and what are the features of current mobile apps in terms of interpreting and sharing PGHD? Methods The study consists of semistructured interviews with 12 psychiatrists and clinical psychologists from a large academic hospital. These interviews were thematically and qualitatively analyzed for common themes and workflow elements. User-posted reviews of 56 sleep and mood tracking apps were analyzed to understand app features in comparison with the information gathered from interviews. Results The results showed that PGHD have been part of the workflow, but its integration and use are not optimized. Mental health clinicians supported the use of PGHD but had concerns regarding data reliability and accuracy. They also identified challenges in selecting suitable apps for their patients. From the app review, it was discovered that mHealth apps had limited features to support personalization and collaborative care as well as data interpretation and sharing. Conclusions This study investigates clinicians’ perspectives on PGHD use and explored existing app features using the app review data in the mental health setting. A total of 3 design guidelines were generated: (1) improve data interpretation and sharing mechanisms, (2) consider clinical workflow and electronic health record integration, and (3) support personalized and collaborative care. More research is needed to demonstrate the best practices of PGHD use and to evaluate their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes.
Background Clinician burnout is a prevalent issue in healthcare, with detrimental implications in healthcare quality and medical costs due to errors. The inefficient use of health information technologies (HIT) is attributed to having a role in burnout. Objective This paper seeks to review the literature with the following two goals: (1) characterize and extract HIT trends in burnout studies over time, and (2) examine the evidence and synthesize themes of HIT's roles in burnout studies. Methods A scoping literature review was performed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with two rounds of searches in PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ACM, and Google Scholar. The retrieved papers and their references were screened for eligibility by using developed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted from included papers and summarized either statistically or qualitatively to demonstrate patterns. Results After narrowing down the initial 945 papers, 36 papers were included. All papers were published between 2013 and 2020; nearly half of them focused on primary care (n = 16; 44.4%). The most commonly studied variable was electronic health record (EHR) practices (e.g., number of clicks). The most common study population was physicians. HIT played multiple roles in burnout studies: it can contribute to burnout; it can be used to measure burnout; or it can intervene and mitigate burnout levels. Conclusion This scoping review presents trends in HIT-centered burnout studies and synthesizes three roles for HIT in contributing to, measuring, and mitigating burnout. Four recommendations were generated accordingly for future burnout studies: (1) validate and standardize HIT burnout measures; (2) focus on EHR-based solutions to mitigate clinician burnout; (3) expand burnout studies to other specialties and types of healthcare providers, and (4) utilize mobile and tracking technology to study time efficiency.
Objective Modern health care requires patients, staff, and equipment to navigate complex environments to deliver quality care efficiently. Real-time locating systems (RTLS) are local tracking systems that identify the physical locations of personnel and equipment in real time. Applications and analytic strategies to utilize RTLS-produced data are still under development. The objectives of this systematic review were to describe and analyze the key features of RTLS applications and demonstrate their potential to improve care delivery. Materials and Methods We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and IEEE following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were articles that utilize RTLS to evaluate or influence workflow in a healthcare setting. We summarized aspects of relevant articles, identified key themes in the challenges of applying RTLS to workflow improvement, and thematically reviewed the state of quantitative analytic methodologies. Results We included 42 articles in the final qualitative synthesis. The most frequent study design was observational (n = 24), followed by descriptive (n = 12) and experimental (n = 6). The most common clinical environment for study was the emergency department (n = 12), followed by entire hospital (n = 7) and surgical ward (n = 6). Discussion The focus of studies changed over time from early experience to optimization to evaluation of an established system. Common narrative themes highlighted lessons learned regarding evaluation, implementation, and information visibility. Few studies have developed quantitative techniques to effectively analyze RTLS data. Conclusions RTLS is a useful and effective adjunct methodology in process and quality improvement, workflow analysis, and patient safety. Future directions should focus on developing enhanced analysis to meaningfully interpret RTLS data.
Objective This study aimed to understand how a metaverse-based (virtual) workspace can be used to support the communication and collaboration in an academic health informatics lab. Materials and Methods A survey of lab members (n = 14) was analyzed according to a concurrent triangulation mixed methods design. The qualitative survey data were organized according to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior (COM-B) model and combined to generate personas that represent the overall types of lab members. Additionally, scheduled work hours were analyzed quantitatively to complement the findings of the survey feedback. Results Four personas, representative of different types of virtual workers, were developed using the survey responses. These personas reflected the wide variety of opinions about virtual work among the participants and helped to categorize the most common feedback. The Work Hours Schedule Sheet analysis showed the low number of possible collaboration opportunities that were utilized compared to the number available. Discussion We found that informal communication and co-location were not supported by the virtual workplace as we had originally planned. To solve this issue, we offer 3 design recommendations for those looking to implement their own virtual informatics lab. First, labs should establish common goals and norms for virtual workplace interactions. Second, labs should carefully plan the virtual space layout to maximize communication opportunities. Finally, labs should work with their platform of choice to address technical limitations for their lab members to improve user experience. Future work includes a formal, theory-guided experiment with consideration on ethical and behavioral impact.
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.