Heuss, Sabina
E-Mail-Adresse
Geburtsdatum
Suchergebnisse
Assessing the quality and impact of eHealth tools: systematic literature review and narrative synthesis
Background: Technological advancements have opened the path for many technology providers to easily develop and introduce eHealth tools to the public. The use of these tools is increasingly recognized as a critical quality driver in health care; however, choosing a quality tool from the myriad of tools available for a specific health need does not come without challenges. Objective: This review aimed to systematically investigate the literature to understand the different approaches and criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools by considering sociotechnical factors (from technical, social, and organizational perspectives). Methods: A structured search was completed following the participants, intervention, comparators, and outcomes framework. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest databases for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 in English, which yielded 675 results, of which 40 (5.9%) studies met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were followed to ensure a systematic process. Extracted data were analyzed using NVivo (QSR International), with a thematic analysis and narrative synthesis of emergent themes. Results: Similar measures from the different papers, frameworks, and initiatives were aggregated into 36 unique criteria grouped into 13 clusters. Using the sociotechnical approach, we classified the relevant criteria into technical, social, and organizational assessment criteria. Technical assessment criteria were grouped into 5 clusters: technical aspects, functionality, content, data management, and design. Social assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: human centricity, health outcomes, visible popularity metrics, and social aspects. Organizational assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: sustainability and scalability, health care organization, health care context, and developer. Conclusions: This review builds on the growing body of research that investigates the criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools and highlights the complexity and challenges facing these initiatives. It demonstrates that there is no single framework that is used uniformly to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools. It also highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach that balances the social, organizational, and technical assessment criteria in a way that reflects the complexity and interdependence of the health care ecosystem and is aligned with the factors affecting users’ adoption to ensure uptake and adherence in the long term.
Serious games and gamification: health care workers’ experience, attitudes, and knowledge
How do physicians from two generations communicate with each other?
There is no leadership without communication. This is especially paramount in hospitals to guarantee optimal processes and teamwork. But do physicians belonging to younger generations, the so-called Generation Y, need another approach to leadership and communication? And does the concept of generations stand up to scientific standards? This study is based on a literature review on leadership communication in healthcare across generations and hierarchies and in-depth interviews with physicians from Swiss hospitals on communication. The thematic analysis of the interviews revealed four main fields of communication patterns: 1. Increasing demand for information and transparent communication; 2. Low power distance versus high power distance; 3. Feedback; and 4. leadership communication. Younger generations, so-called Digital Natives or the Generation Y, have an increased need for transparent communication and involvement in the process of decision-making. More than previous generations and based on flatter hierarchies, Generation Y dares more to question its boss and his or her decisions and expect at the same time more feedback. New forms of leadership are needed to optimize communication between the generations and prepare young physicians for the increasing demands of more complex healthcare systems.
Skills for digital transformation. Is educating specialists sabotaging digital transformation?
The collaborative outcomes study on health and functioning during infection times in adults (COH-FIT-Adults): design and methods of an international online survey targeting physical and mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
Starting 04/26/2020, up to 14/07/2021 >151,000 people from 155 countries/territories/regions and six continents have participated. Representative samples of ≥1,000 adults have been collected in 15 countries. Overall, 43.0% had prior physical disorders, 16.3% had prior mental disorders, 26.5% were health care workers, 8.2% were aged ≥65 years, 19.3% were exposed to someone infected with COVID-19, 76.1% had been in quarantine, and 2.1% had been COVID 19-positive.
Patients' preference regarding inpatient versus outpatient setting ‐ A systematic review
OBJECTIVES Continuously rising healthcare costs have led to financial pressure on the healthcare systems. One of the trends for the reduction of costs is the shift towards outpatient treatment. However, research has not focused on the patients' preferences regarding inpatient versus outpatient treatment settings. The purpose of this review is to examine existing studies surveying patients' preferences related to inpatient and outpatient treatment methods. The aim is to find out whether patients' wishes were queried and considered in the decision-making process. DESIGN Therefore, the reviewers performed a systematic approach utilizing the PRISMA standards and screened 1'646 articles out of 5'606 articles from the systematic search. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION The screening resulted in 4 studies that analyzed exclusively the patient's choice of treatment setting. The search showed an apparent paucity of current literature and highlights the need for further research. The authors' recommendation includes a better involvement of patients in the decision-making process as well as adding preferred treatment settings to advanced treatment directives and patient satisfaction questionnaires.