Dataset Information

Survey of psychiatrist use of digital technology in clinical practice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Psychiatrists were surveyed to obtain an overview of how they currently use technology in clinical practice, with a focus on psychiatrists who treat patients with bipolar disorder.

Methods

Data were obtained using an online-only survey containing 46 questions, completed by a convenience sample of 209 psychiatrists in 19 countries. Descriptive statistics, and analyses of linear associations and to remove country heterogeneity were calculated.

Results

Virtually all psychiatrists seek information online with many benefits, but some experience information overload. 75.2% of psychiatrists use an EMR/EHR at work, and 64.6% communicate with patients using a new technology, primarily email (48.8%). 66.0% do not ask patients if they use the Internet in relation to bipolar disorder. 67.3% of psychiatrists feel it is too early to tell if patient online information seeking about bipolar disorder is improving the quality of care. 66.3% of psychiatrists think technology-based treatments will improve the quality of care for some or many patients. However, 60.0% of psychiatrists do not recommend technology-based treatments to patients, and those who recommend select a variety of treatments. Psychiatrists use technology more frequently when the patients live in urban rather than rural or suburban areas. Only 23.9% of psychiatrists have any formal training in technology.

Conclusions

Digital technology is routinely used by psychiatrists in clinical practice. There is near unanimous agreement about the benefits of psychiatrist online information-seeking, but research on information overload is needed. There is less agreement about the appropriate use of other clinical technologies, especially those involving patients. It is too early to tell if technology-based treatments or patient Internet activities will improve the quality of care. The digital divide remains between use of technology for psychiatrists with patients living in urban and rural or suburban areas. Psychiatrists need more formal training in technology to understand risks, benefits and limitations of clinical products.

SUBMITTER: Bauer R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7532734 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveDigital voice assistant technology provides unique opportunities to enhance clinical practice. We aimed to understand factors influencing pediatric providers' current and potential use of this technology in clinical practice.MethodsWe surveyed pediatric providers regarding current use and interest in voice technology in the workplace. Regression analyses evaluated provider characteristics associated with voice technology use. Among respondents not interested in voice technology, we elicited individual concerns.ResultsAmong 114 respondents, 19 (16.7%) indicated current use of voice technology in clinical practice, and 51 (44.7%) indicated use of voice technology for nonclinical purposes. Fifty-four (47.4%) reported willingness to try digital voice assistant technology in the clinical setting. Providers who had longer clinic visits (odds ratio [OR], 3.11, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04, 9.33, p?=?0.04), fewer patient encounters per day (p?=?0.02), and worked in hospital-based practices (OR, 2.95, 95% CI, 1.08, 8.07, p?=?0.03) were more likely to currently use voice technology in the office. Younger providers (p?=?0.02) and those confident in the accuracy of voice technology (OR, 3.05, 95% CI, 1.38, 6.74, p?=?0.005) were more willing to trial digital voice assistants in the clinical setting. Among respondents unwilling or unsure about trying voice assistant technology, the most common reasons elicited were concerns related to its accuracy (35%), efficiency (33%), and privacy (28%).ConclusionThis national survey evaluating use and attitudes toward digital voice assistant technology by pediatric providers found that while only one-eighth of pediatric providers currently use digital voice assistant technology in the clinical setting, almost half are interested in trying it in the future. Younger provider age and confidence in the accuracy of voice technology are associated with provider interest in using voice technology in the clinical setting. Future development of voice technology for clinical use will need to consider accuracy of information, efficiency of use, and patient privacy for successful integration into the workplace.

Project description:BackgroundDigital technology has the potential to transform psychiatry, but its adoption has been limited. The proliferation of telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the urgency of optimizing technology for clinical practice. Understanding clinician attitudes and preferences is crucial to effective implementation and patient benefit.ObjectiveOur objective was to elicit clinician perspectives on emerging digital technology.MethodsClinicians in a large psychiatry department (inpatient and outpatient) were invited to complete a web-based survey about their attitudes toward digital technology in practice, focusing on implementation, clinical benefits, and expectations about patients' attitudes. The survey consisted of 23 questions that could be answered on either a 3-point or 5-point Likert scale. We report the frequencies and percentages of responses.ResultsIn total, 139 clinicians completed the survey-they represent a variety of years of experience, credentials, and diagnostic subspecialties (response rate 69.5%). Overall, 83.4% (n=116) of them stated that digital data could improve their practice, and 23.0% (n=32) of responders reported that they had viewed patients' profiles on social media. Among anticipated benefits, clinicians rated symptom self-tracking (n=101, 72.7%) as well as clinical intervention support (n=90, 64.7%) as most promising. Among anticipated challenges, clinicians mostly expressed concerns over greater time demand (n=123, 88.5%) and whether digital data would be actionable (n=107, 77%). Furthermore, 95.0% (n=132) of clinicians expected their patients to share digital data.ConclusionsOverall, clinicians reported a positive attitude toward the use of digital data to not only improve patient outcomes but also highlight significant barriers that implementation would need to overcome. Although clinicians' self-reported attitudes about digital technology may not necessarily translate into behavior, our results suggest that technologies that reduce clinician burden and are easily interpretable have the greatest likelihood of uptake.

Project description:This study aimed to identify the knowledge, skills and attitudes of Brazilian hospital pharmacists in the use of information technology and electronic tools to support clinical practice.A questionnaire was sent by email to clinical pharmacists working public and private hospitals in Brazil. The instrument was validated using the method of Polit and Beck to determine the content validity index. Data (n = 348) were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson's Chi-square test and Gamma correlation tests.Pharmacists had 1-4 electronic devices for personal use, mainly smartphones (84.8%; n = 295) and laptops (81.6%; n = 284). At work, pharmacists had access to a computer (89.4%; n = 311), mostly connected to the internet (83.9%; n = 292). They felt competent (very capable/capable) searching for a web page/web site on a specific subject (100%; n = 348), downloading files (99.7%; n = 347), using spreadsheets (90.2%; n = 314), searching using MeSH terms in PubMed (97.4%; n = 339) and general searching for articles in bibliographic databases (such as Medline/PubMed: 93.4%; n = 325). Pharmacists did not feel competent in using statistical analysis software (somewhat capable/incapable: 78.4%; n = 273). Most pharmacists reported that they had not received formal education to perform most of these actions except searching using MeSH terms. Access to bibliographic databases was available in Brazilian hospitals, however, most pharmacists (78.7%; n = 274) reported daily use of a non-specific search engine such as Google. This result may reflect the lack of formal knowledge and training in the use of bibliographic databases and difficulty with the English language. The need to expand knowledge about information search tools was recognized by most pharmacists in clinical practice in Brazil, especially those with less time dedicated exclusively to clinical activity (Chi-square, p = 0.006).These results will assist in defining minimal competencies for the training of pharmacists in the field of information technology to support clinical practice. Knowledge and skill gaps are evident in the use of bibliographic databases, spreadsheets and statistical tools.

Project description:PurposeThis pilot study developed and evaluated the feasibility, usability, and perceived satisfaction with an end-user mobile medical application and provider web portal. The two interfaces allowed for remote monitoring, provided daily guidance in the management of hypertension and diarrhea, and allowed for rapid management of adverse events during a clinical trial of olaparib and cediranib.Patients and methodseCO (eCediranib/Olaparib) was designed for patient self-reported, real-time management of hypertension and diarrhea using remote monitoring. eCO links to a Bluetooth-enabled blood pressure (BP) monitor and transmits data to a secure provider web portal. eCO use was assessed for suitability, usability, and satisfaction after 4 weeks using a 17-item questionnaire. Metrics regarding patient-reported BP and diarrhea events were analyzed.ResultsSixteen patients enrolled in the pilot. A total of 98.2% of expected BP values were reported: 94.2% via Bluetooth and 5.8% entered manually. Twelve patients experienced 21 BP events (systolic BP > 140 and/or diastolic BP > 90 mmHg on two consecutive readings); data from cycle 1 were comparable to the study database. Thirteen patients reported diarrhea (more than one stool per 24 hours over baseline) categorized as grade 1 or 2, which was comparable to the study database. Survey analysis showed that patients had statistically significant, positive responses to the use of the eCO application. Patients indicated eCO use made them feel more involved in their care and better connected to their health care team. The only aspect of the application that did not show a statistically significant positive response was the process of reporting diarrhea.ConclusionThe eCO application was designed to assist in managing acute treatment-related events most often associated with treatment discontinuation, need for drug holidays, or dose interruption. Hypertension and diarrhea events reported via eCO allowed rapid provider response and a positive overall patient experience.

Project description:Stroke-induced somatosensory impairments seem to be clinically overlooked, despite their prevalence and influence on motor recovery post-stroke. Interest in technology has been gaining traction over the past few decades as a promising method to facilitate stroke rehabilitation. This questionnaire-based cross-sectional study aimed to identify current clinical practice and perspectives on the management of somatosensory impairments post-stroke and the use of technology in assessing outcome measures and providing intervention. Participants were 132 physiotherapists and occupational therapists currently working with stroke patients in public hospitals and rehabilitation centres in Singapore. It was found that the majority (64.4%) of the therapists spent no more than half of the time per week on somatosensory interventions. Functional or task-specific training was the primary form of intervention applied to retrain somatosensory functions in stroke survivors. Standardised assessments (43.2%) were used less frequently than non-standardised assessments (97.7%) in clinical practice, with the sensory subscale of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment being the most popular outcome measure, followed by the Nottingham Sensory Assessment. While the adoption of technology for assessment was relatively scarce, most therapists (87.1%) reported that they have integrated technology into intervention. There was a common agreement that proprioception is an essential component in stroke rehabilitation, and that robotic technology combined with conventional therapy is effective in enhancing stroke rehabilitation, particularly for retraining proprioception. Most therapists identified price, technology usability, and lack of available space as some of the biggest barriers to integrating robotic technology in stroke rehabilitation. Standardised assessments and interventions targeting somatosensory functions should be more clearly delineated in clinical guidelines. Although therapists were positive about technology-based rehabilitation, obstacles that make technology integration challenging ought to be addressed.