Cargando…

Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation

BACKGROUND: With advances in mobile technology, accessibility of clinical resources at the point of care has increased. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to identify if six selected mobile point-of-care tools meet the needs of clinicians in internal medicine. Point-of-care tools were eva...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johnson, Emily, Emani, Vamsi K, Ren, Jinma
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5081478/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27733328
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.6189
_version_ 1782462902859464704
author Johnson, Emily
Emani, Vamsi K
Ren, Jinma
author_facet Johnson, Emily
Emani, Vamsi K
Ren, Jinma
author_sort Johnson, Emily
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: With advances in mobile technology, accessibility of clinical resources at the point of care has increased. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to identify if six selected mobile point-of-care tools meet the needs of clinicians in internal medicine. Point-of-care tools were evaluated for breadth of coverage, ease of use, and quality. METHODS: Six point-of-care tools were evaluated utilizing four different devices (two smartphones and two tablets). Breadth of coverage was measured using select International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes if information on summary, etiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis was provided. Quality measures included treatment and diagnostic inline references and individual and application time stamping. Ease of use covered search within topic, table of contents, scrolling, affordance, connectivity, and personal accounts. Analysis of variance based on the rank of score was used. RESULTS: Breadth of coverage was similar among Medscape (mean 6.88), Uptodate (mean 6.51), DynaMedPlus (mean 6.46), and EvidencePlus (mean 6.41) (P>.05) with DynaMed (mean 5.53) and Epocrates (mean 6.12) scoring significantly lower (P<.05). Ease of use had DynaMedPlus with the highest score, and EvidencePlus was lowest (6.0 vs 4.0, respectively, P<.05). For quality, reviewers rated the same score (4.00) for all tools except for Medscape, which was rated lower (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: For breadth of coverage, most point-of-care tools were similar with the exception of DynaMed. For ease of use, only UpToDate and DynaMedPlus allow for search within a topic. All point-of-care tools have remote access with the exception of UpToDate and Essential Evidence Plus. All tools except Medscape covered criteria for quality evaluation. Overall, there was no significant difference between the point-of-care tools with regard to coverage on common topics used by internal medicine clinicians. Selection of point-of-care tools is highly dependent on individual preference based on ease of use and cost of the application.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5081478
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50814782016-11-07 Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation Johnson, Emily Emani, Vamsi K Ren, Jinma JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Original Paper BACKGROUND: With advances in mobile technology, accessibility of clinical resources at the point of care has increased. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to identify if six selected mobile point-of-care tools meet the needs of clinicians in internal medicine. Point-of-care tools were evaluated for breadth of coverage, ease of use, and quality. METHODS: Six point-of-care tools were evaluated utilizing four different devices (two smartphones and two tablets). Breadth of coverage was measured using select International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes if information on summary, etiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis was provided. Quality measures included treatment and diagnostic inline references and individual and application time stamping. Ease of use covered search within topic, table of contents, scrolling, affordance, connectivity, and personal accounts. Analysis of variance based on the rank of score was used. RESULTS: Breadth of coverage was similar among Medscape (mean 6.88), Uptodate (mean 6.51), DynaMedPlus (mean 6.46), and EvidencePlus (mean 6.41) (P>.05) with DynaMed (mean 5.53) and Epocrates (mean 6.12) scoring significantly lower (P<.05). Ease of use had DynaMedPlus with the highest score, and EvidencePlus was lowest (6.0 vs 4.0, respectively, P<.05). For quality, reviewers rated the same score (4.00) for all tools except for Medscape, which was rated lower (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: For breadth of coverage, most point-of-care tools were similar with the exception of DynaMed. For ease of use, only UpToDate and DynaMedPlus allow for search within a topic. All point-of-care tools have remote access with the exception of UpToDate and Essential Evidence Plus. All tools except Medscape covered criteria for quality evaluation. Overall, there was no significant difference between the point-of-care tools with regard to coverage on common topics used by internal medicine clinicians. Selection of point-of-care tools is highly dependent on individual preference based on ease of use and cost of the application. JMIR Publications 2016-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5081478/ /pubmed/27733328 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.6189 Text en ©Emily Johnson, Vamsi K Emani, Jinma Ren. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 12.10.2016. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Johnson, Emily
Emani, Vamsi K
Ren, Jinma
Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation
title Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation
title_full Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation
title_fullStr Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation
title_short Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation
title_sort breadth of coverage, ease of use, and quality of mobile point-of-care tool information summaries: an evaluation
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5081478/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27733328
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.6189
work_keys_str_mv AT johnsonemily breadthofcoverageeaseofuseandqualityofmobilepointofcaretoolinformationsummariesanevaluation
AT emanivamsik breadthofcoverageeaseofuseandqualityofmobilepointofcaretoolinformationsummariesanevaluation
AT renjinma breadthofcoverageeaseofuseandqualityofmobilepointofcaretoolinformationsummariesanevaluation