BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) is often reputed to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Despite optimism, the strength of the evidence supporting this assertion has been limited. In this systematic review the body of evidence related to economic evaluations of mHealth interventions is assessed and summarized.MethodsSeven electronic bibliographic databases, grey literature, and relevant references were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles, comparison of costs and consequences of interventions (one categorized as a primary mHealth intervention or mHealth intervention as a component of other interventions), health and economic outcomes and published in English. Full economic evaluations were appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist and The PRISMA guidelines were followed.ResultsSearches identified 5902 results, of which 318 were examined at full text, and 39 were included in this review. The 39 studies spanned 19 countries, most of which were conducted in upper and upper-middle income countries (34, 87.2%). Primary mHealth interventions (35, 89.7%), behavior change communication type interventions (e.g., improve attendance rates, medication adherence) (27, 69.2%), and short messaging system (SMS) as the mHealth function (e.g., used to send reminders, information, provide support, conduct surveys or collect data) (22, 56.4%) were most frequent; the most frequent disease or condition focuses were outpatient clinic attendance, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. The average percent of CHEERS checklist items reported was 79.6% (range 47.62–100, STD 14.18) and the top quartile reported 91.3–100%. In 29 studies (74.3%), researchers reported that the mHealth intervention was cost-effective, economically beneficial, or cost saving at base case.ConclusionsFindings highlight a growing body of economic evidence for mHealth interventions. Although all studies included a comparison of intervention effectiveness of a health-related outcome and reported economic data, many did not report all recommended economic outcome items and were lacking in comprehensive analysis. The identified economic evaluations varied by disease or condition focus, economic outcome measurements, perspectives, and were distributed unevenly geographically, limiting formal meta-analysis. Further research is needed in low and low-middle income countries and to understand the impact of different mHealth types. Following established economic reporting guidelines will improve this body of research.

Background Nurses alter their monitoring behavior as a patient’s clinical condition deteriorates, often detecting and documenting subtle changes before physiological trends are apparent. It was hypothesized that a nurse’s behavior of recording optional documentation (beyond what is required) reflects concern about a patient’s status and that mining data from patients’ electronic health records for the presence of these features could help predict patients’ mortality. Methods Data-mining methods were used to analyze electronic nursing documentation from a 15-month period at a large, urban academic medical center. Mortality rates and the frequency of vital sign measurements (beyond required) and optional nursing comment documentation were analyzed for a random set of patients and patients who experienced a cardiac arrest during their hospitalization. Patients were stratified by age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index. Results A total of 15 000 acute care patients and 145 cardiac arrest patients were studied. Patients who died had a mean of 0.9 to 1.5 more optional comments and 6.1 to 10 more vital signs documented within 48 hours than did patients who survived. A higher frequency of comment and vital sign documentation was also associated with a higher likelihood of cardiac arrest. Of patients who had a cardiac arrest, those with more documented comments were more likely to die. Conclusions For the first time, nursing documentation patterns have been linked to patients’ mortality. Findings were consistent with the hypothesis that some features of nursing documentation within electronic health records can be used to predict mortality. With future work, these associations could be used in real time to establish a threshold of concern indicating a risk for deterioration in a patient’s condition.

Background Objective Electronic health records (EHRs) are linked with documentation burden resulting in clinician burnout. While clear classifications and validated measures of burnout exist, documentation burden remains ill-defined and inconsistently measured. We aim to conduct a scoping review focused on identifying approaches to documentation burden measurement and their characteristics. Materials and Methods Based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews (ScR) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review assessing MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to April 2020 for studies investigating documentation burden among physicians and nurses in ambulatory or inpatient settings. Two reviewers evaluated each potentially relevant study for inclusion/exclusion criteria. Results Of the 3482 articles retrieved, 35 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified 15 measurement characteristics, including 7 effort constructs: EHR usage and workload, clinical documentation/review, EHR work after hours and remotely, administrative tasks, cognitively cumbersome work, fragmentation of workflow, and patient interaction. We uncovered 4 time constructs: average time, proportion of time, timeliness of completion, activity rate, and 11 units of analysis. Only 45.0% of studies assessed the impact of EHRs on clinicians and/or patients and 40.0% mentioned clinician burnout . Discussion Standard and validated measures of documentation burden are lacking. While time and effort were the core concepts measured, there appears to be no consensus on the best approach nor degree of rigor to study documentation burden. Conclusion Further research is needed to reliably operationalize the concept of documentation burden, explore best practices for measurement, and standardize its use.

Aim To develop a consensus paper on the central points of an international invitational think‐tank on nursing and artificial intelligence (AI). Methods We established the Nursing and Artificial Intelligence Leadership (NAIL) Collaborative, comprising interdisciplinary experts in AI development, biomedical ethics, AI in primary care, AI legal aspects, philosophy of AI in health, nursing practice, implementation science, leaders in health informatics practice and international health informatics groups, a representative of patients and the public, and the Chair of the ITU/WHO Focus Group on Artificial Intelligence for Health. The NAIL Collaborative convened at a 3‐day invitational think tank in autumn 2019. Activities included a pre‐event survey, expert presentations and working sessions to identify priority areas for action, opportunities and recommendations to address these. In this paper, we summarize the key discussion points and notes from the aforementioned activities. Implications for nursing Nursing's limited current engagement with discourses on AI and health posts a risk that the profession is not part of the conversations that have potentially significant impacts on nursing practice. Conclusion There are numerous gaps and a timely need for the nursing profession to be among the leaders and drivers of conversations around AI in health systems. Impact We outline crucial gaps where focused effort is required for nursing to take a leadership role in shaping AI use in health systems. Three priorities were identified that need to be addressed in the near future: (a) Nurses must understand the relationship between the data they collect and AI technologies they use; (b) Nurses need to be meaningfully involved in all stages of AI: from development to implementation; and (c) There is a substantial untapped and an unexplored potential for nursing to contribute to the development of AI technologies for global health and humanitarian efforts.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: About 30% of home health care patients are hospitalized or visit an emergency department (ED) during a home health care (HHC) episode. Novel data science methods are increasingly used to improve identification of patients at risk for negative outcomes. Objectives:To identify patients at heightened risk hospitalization or ED visits using HHC narrative data (clinical notes).Methods: This study used a large database of HHC visit notes (n = 727,676) documented for 112,237 HHC episodes (89,459 unique patients) by clinicians of the largest nonprofit home health care agency in the United States. Text mining and machine learning algorithms (Naïve Bayes, decision tree, random forest) were implemented to predict patient hospitalization or ED visits using the content of clinical notes. Risk factors associated with hospitalization or ED visits were identified using a feature selection technique (gain ratio attribute evaluation). Results:Best performing text mining method (random forest) achieved good predictive performance. Seven risk factors categories were identified, with clinical factors, coordination/ communication, and service use being the most frequent categories.Discussion: This study was the first to explore the potential contribution of HHC clinical notes to identifying patients at risk for hospitalization or an ED visit. Our results suggest that HHC visit notes are highly informative and can contribute significantly to identification of patients at risk. Further studies are needed to explore ways to improve risk prediction by adding more data elements from additional data sources. Keywordshome health care; natural language processing; nursing informatics; risk prediction; text mining Every year, more than 11,000 home health care (HHC) agencies across the United States provide care to more than 5 million older adults (MedPac, 2014). Currently, about one in three HHC patients are hospitalized or visit an emergency department (ED) during the 30-

Objective The study sought to describe the prevalence and nature of clinical expert involvement in the development, evaluation, and implementation of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that utilize machine learning to analyze electronic health record data to assist nurses and physicians in prognostic and treatment decision making (ie, predictive CDSSs) in the hospital. Materials and Methods A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and IEEE Xplore and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings were conducted to identify eligible articles. Empirical studies of predictive CDSSs using electronic health record data for nurses or physicians in the hospital setting published in the last 5 years in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings were eligible for synthesis. Data from eligible studies regarding clinician involvement, stage in system design, predictive CDSS intention, and target clinician were charted and summarized. Results Eighty studies met eligibility criteria. Clinical expert involvement was most prevalent at the beginning and late stages of system design. Most articles (95%) described developing and evaluating machine learning models, 28% of which described involving clinical experts, with nearly half functioning to verify the clinical correctness or relevance of the model (47%). Discussion Involvement of clinical experts in predictive CDSS design should be explicitly reported in publications and evaluated for the potential to overcome predictive CDSS adoption challenges. Conclusions If present, clinical expert involvement is most prevalent when predictive CDSS specifications are made or when system implementations are evaluated. However, clinical experts are less prevalent in developmental stages to verify clinical correctness, select model features, preprocess data, or serve as a gold standard.