Dataset Information

A Digitally Competent Health Workforce: Scoping Review of Educational Frameworks.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Digital health technologies can be key to improving health outcomes, provided health care workers are adequately trained to use these technologies. There have been efforts to identify digital competencies for different health care worker groups; however, an overview of these efforts has yet to be consolidated and analyzed. OBJECTIVE:The review aims to identify and study existing digital health competency frameworks for health care workers and provide recommendations for future digital health training initiatives and framework development. METHODS:A literature search was performed to collate digital health competency frameworks published from 2000. A total of 6 databases including gray literature sources such as OpenGrey, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, Google, and websites of relevant associations were searched in November 2019. Screening and data extraction were performed in parallel by the reviewers. The included evidence is narratively described in terms of characteristics, evolution, and structural composition of frameworks. A thematic analysis was also performed to identify common themes across the included frameworks. RESULTS:In total, 30 frameworks were included in this review, a majority of which aimed at nurses, originated from high-income countries, were published since 2016, and were developed via literature reviews, followed by expert consultations. The thematic analysis uncovered 28 digital health competency domains across the included frameworks. The most prevalent domains pertained to basic information technology literacy, health information management, digital communication, ethical, legal, or regulatory requirements, and data privacy and security. The Health Information Technology Competencies framework was found to be the most comprehensive framework, as it presented 21 out of the 28 identified domains, had the highest number of competencies, and targeted a wide variety of health care workers. CONCLUSIONS:Digital health training initiatives should focus on competencies relevant to a particular health care worker group, role, level of seniority, and setting. The findings from this review can inform and guide digital health training initiatives. The most prevalent competency domains identified represent essential interprofessional competencies to be incorporated into health care workers' training. Digital health frameworks should be regularly updated with novel digital health technologies, be applicable to low- and middle-income countries, and include overlooked health care worker groups such as allied health professionals.

SUBMITTER: Nazeha N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7677019 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Digitally Competent Health Workforce: Scoping Review of Educational Frameworks.

Nazeha Nuraini N Pavagadhi Deepali D Kyaw Bhone Myint BM Car Josip J Jimenez Geronimo G Tudor Car Lorainne L

Journal of medical Internet research 20201105 11

<h4>Background</h4>Digital health technologies can be key to improving health outcomes, provided health care workers are adequately trained to use these technologies. There have been efforts to identify digital competencies for different health care worker groups; however, an overview of these efforts has yet to be consolidated and analyzed.<h4>Objective</h4>The review aims to identify and study existing digital health competency frameworks for health care workers and provide recommendations for ...[more]

PMID: 33151152

Similar Datasets

Project description:Addressing health workforce cultural competence is a common approach to improving health service quality for culturally and ethnically diverse groups. Research evidence in this area is primarily focused on cultural competency training and its effects on practitioners' knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviour. While improvements in measures of healthcare practitioner cultural competency and other healthcare outcomes have been reported, there are concerns around evidence strength and quality. This scoping review reports on the intervention strategies, outcomes, and measures of included studies with the purpose of informing the implementation and evaluation of future interventions to improve health workforce cultural competence.This systematic scoping review was completed as part of a larger systematic literature search conducted on cultural competence intervention evaluations in health care in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand published from 2006 to 2015. Overall, 64 studies on cultural competency interventions were found, with 16 aimed directly at the health workforce.There was significant heterogeneity in workforce intervention strategies, measures and outcomes reported across studies making comparisons of intervention effects difficult. The two main workforce intervention strategies identified were cultural competency training and other professional development interventions including other training and mentoring. Positive outcomes were commonly reported for improved practitioner knowledge (9/16), skills (7/16), and attitudes/beliefs (5/16). Although health care (6/16) and health (2/16) outcomes were reported in some studies there was very limited evidence of positive intervention impacts. Only four studies utilised existing validated measurement tools to assess intervention outcomes.Training and development of the health workforce remain a principle strategy towards the goal of improved cultural competence in health services and systems. Diverse approaches are available to increase health workforce cultural competence. However, the effects of interventions beyond practitioner knowledge and attitudes remains unclear. Assessment of practitioner behavioural outcomes as well as measures of intervention impact on healthcare and health outcomes are needed to build a stronger evidence base.

Project description:IntroductionMany regions in the world are using the population health approach and require a means to measure the health of their population of interest. Population health frameworks provide a theoretical grounding for conceptualization of population health and therefore a logical basis for selection of indicators. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview and summary of the characteristics of existing population health frameworks that have been used to conceptualize the measurement of population health.MethodsWe used the Population, Concept and Context (PCC) framework to define eligibility criteria of frameworks. We were interested in frameworks applicable for general populations, that contained components of measurement of health with or without its antecedents and applied at the population level or used a population health approach. Eligible reports of eligible frameworks should include at least domains and subdomains, purpose, or indicators. We searched 5 databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, NYAM Grey Literature Report, and OpenGrey), governmental and organizational sites on Google and websites of selected organizations using keywords from the PCC framework. Characteristics of the frameworks were summarized descriptively and narratively.ResultsFifty-seven frameworks were included. The majority originated from the US (46%), Europe (23%) and Canada (19%). Apart from 1 framework developed for rural populations and 2 for indigenous populations, the rest were for general urban populations. The numbers of domains, subdomains and indicators were highly variable. Health status and social determinants of health were the most common domains across all frameworks. Different frameworks had different priorities and therefore focus on different domains.ConclusionKey domains common across frameworks other than health status were social determinants of health, health behaviours and healthcare system performance. The results in this review serve as a useful resource for governments and healthcare organizations for informing their population health measurement efforts.

Project description:ObjectivesDespite an estimated 300 000 mobile health apps on the market, there remains no consensus around helping patients and clinicians select safe and effective apps. In 2018, our team drew on existing evaluation frameworks to identify salient categories and create a new framework endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). We have since created a more expanded and operational framework Mhealth Index and Navigation Database (MIND) that aligns with the APA categories but includes objective and auditable questions (105). We sought to survey the existing space, conducting a review of all mobile health app evaluation frameworks published since 2018, and demonstrate the comprehensiveness of this new model by comparing it to existing and emerging frameworks.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of mobile health app evaluation frameworks.Data sourcesReferences were identified through searches of PubMed, EMBASE and PsychINFO with publication date between January 2018 and October 2020.Eligibility criteriaPapers were selected for inclusion if they meet the predetermined eligibility criteria-presenting an evaluation framework for mobile health apps with patient, clinician or end user-facing questions.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers screened the literature separately and applied the inclusion criteria. The data extracted from the papers included: author and dates of publication, source affiliation, country of origin, name of framework, study design, description of framework, intended audience/user and framework scoring system. We then compiled a collection of more than 1701 questions across 79 frameworks. We compared and grouped these questions using the MIND framework as a reference. We sought to identify the most common domains of evaluation while assessing the comprehensiveness and flexibility-as well as any potential gaps-of MIND.ResultsNew app evaluation frameworks continue to emerge and expand. Since our 2019 review of the app evaluation framework space, more frameworks include questions around privacy (43) and clinical foundation (57), reflecting an increased focus on issues of app security and evidence base. The majority of mapped frameworks overlapped with at least half of the MIND categories. The results of this search have informed a database (apps.digitalpsych.org) that users can access today.ConclusionAs the number of app evaluation frameworks continues to rise, it is becoming difficult for users to select both an appropriate evaluation tool and to find an appropriate health app. This review provides a comparison of what different app evaluation frameworks are offering, where the field is converging and new priorities for improving clinical guidance.

Project description:BackgroundFor health care services to address the health care needs of populations and respond to changes in needs over time, workforces must be planned. This requires quantitative models to estimate future workforce requirements that take account of population size, oral health needs, evidence-based approaches to addressing needs, and methods of service provision that maximize productivity. The aim of this scoping review was to assess whether and how these 4 elements contribute to existing models of oral health workforce planning.MethodsA scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, HMIC, and EconLit were searched, all via OVID. Additionally, gray literature databases were searched and key bodies and policy makers contacted. Workforce planning models were included if they projected workforce numbers and were specific to oral health. No limits were placed on country. A single reviewer completed initial screening of abstracts; 2 independent reviewers completed secondary screening and data extraction. A narrative synthesis was conducted.ResultsA total of 4,009 records were screened, resulting in 42 included articles detailing 47 models. The workforce planning models varied significantly in their use of data on oral health needs, evidence-based services, and provider productivity, with most models relying on observed levels of service utilization and demand.ConclusionsThis review has identified quantitative workforce planning models that aim to estimate future workforce requirements. Approaches to planning the oral health workforce are not always based on deriving workforce requirements from population oral health needs. In many cases, requirements are not linked to population needs, while in models where needs are included, they are constrained by the existence and availability of the required data. It is critical that information systems be developed to effectively capture data necessary to plan future oral health care workforces in ways that relate directly to the needs of the populations being served.Knowledge transfer statementPolicy makers can use the results of this study when making decisions about the planning of oral health care workforces and about the data to routinely collect within health services. Collection of suitable data will allow for the continual improvement of workforce planning, leading to a responsive health service and likely future cost savings.

Project description:ObjectivesTo scope the evidence surrounding workplace health and safety risks for the remote health workforce in Australia and to collate the recommendations to address those risks.DesignA five-stage scoping review framework refined by Cooper et al was used for this review. Informit Health Collection, Ovid Emcare, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest and the grey literature were searched in October 2020 using a combination of key words derived from the eligibility criteria. No date restriction was placed on the search. Title and abstract screening, full-text review and data extraction were performed by three reviewers. Data were analysed by the lead author using qualitative thematic analysis.Eligibility criteriaArticles were eligible for inclusion if they were published research or industry reports, focused on safety for the remote health workforce in Australia, identified hazards/safety risks or recommendations to reduce risk, and were written in English.ResultsThe search yielded 312 articles, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. A wide range of hazards/safety risks and recommendations were identified within the literature, which related to safety culture, isolation, safe environment, and education and training. Some recommendations, such as the use of a risk management approach, good post-incident support, safer clinics and accommodation, and improved access to education and training, had been discussed in the literature for over a decade, with a high level of agreement regarding their importance. Two articles briefly evaluated the impact of some recommendations.ConclusionWhile many recommendations have been developed to improve the safety of the remote health workforce in Australia, there is little evidence of their implementation and evaluation. As many remote health professionals report ongoing or worsening workplace safety issues, there is an urgent need for the implementation and evaluation of the workforce safety strategies recommended in the literature and required by legislation.

Project description:BackgroundA comprehensive, accurate description of workforce capacity is important for health service planning, to ensure that health services meet local needs. In many low- to middle-income countries, the government's service planning ability is barred by the lack of accurate and/or comprehensively-described workforce data. In these low-resource settings, lack of appropriate planning leads to limited or no access to rehabilitation services. Variability in the definitions and scope of rehabilitation professionals further complicates the understanding of rehabilitation services and how it should be planned and delivered. Another challenge to describing the primary rehabilitation workforce capacity, is the lack of standardised and agreed-upon global metrics. These inconsistencies highlight the need for a comprehensive understanding of current practices, which can offer guidance to countries wishing to describe their rehabilitation workforce. This study aimed to scope the range of descriptors and metrics used to describe the rehabilitation workforce and to compare the workforce across countries that used similar descriptors in published reports.MethodsA scoping review was conducted according to the five-step framework first developed by Arksey and O'Malley. The review included a broad search of literature regarding the rehabilitation workforce and how countries quantify and describe the rehabilitation workforce.ResultsNineteen studies on rehabilitation workforce capacity were identified. All but one (a cross-sectional study) were database reviews. The main descriptors and indicators used to describe the rehabilitation workforce capacity were profession type, age, gender, distributions between urban/rural, level of care, and private/public sectors, absolute count totals, and population-adjusted ratios.ConclusionThis scoping review provided an overview of descriptors and indicators used to describe the rehabilitation workforce capacity internationally. The study is a first step towards developing standardised descriptors and metrics to quantify the rehabilitation workforce capacity, that will allow for comparison between different settings.Trial registrationThis scoping review protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework (http://osf.10/7h6xz).

Project description:BackgroundThe successful integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice is contingent upon physicians' comprehension of AI principles and its applications. Therefore, it is essential for medical education curricula to incorporate AI topics and concepts, providing future physicians with the foundational knowledge and skills needed. However, there is a knowledge gap in the current understanding and availability of structured AI curriculum frameworks tailored for medical education, which serve as vital guides for instructing and facilitating the learning process.ObjectiveThe overall aim of this study is to synthesize knowledge from the literature on curriculum frameworks and current educational programs that focus on the teaching and learning of AI for medical students, residents, and practicing physicians.MethodsWe followed a validated framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for scoping reviews. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from 2000 to May 2023 in the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Scopus as well as the gray literature. Papers were limited to English and French languages. This review included papers that describe curriculum frameworks for teaching and learning AI in medicine, irrespective of country. All types of papers and study designs were included, except conference abstracts and protocols. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, read the full texts, and extracted data using a validated data extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting the results.ResultsOf the 5104 papers screened, 21 papers relevant to our eligibility criteria were identified. In total, 90% (19/21) of the papers altogether described 30 current or previously offered educational programs, and 10% (2/21) of the papers described elements of a curriculum framework. One framework describes a general approach to integrating AI curricula throughout the medical learning continuum and another describes a core curriculum for AI in ophthalmology. No papers described a theory, pedagogy, or framework that guided the educational programs.ConclusionsThis review synthesizes recent advancements in AI curriculum frameworks and educational programs within the domain of medical education. To build on this foundation, future researchers are encouraged to engage in a multidisciplinary approach to curriculum redesign. In addition, it is encouraged to initiate dialogues on the integration of AI into medical curriculum planning and to investigate the development, deployment, and appraisal of these innovative educational programs.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.11124/JBIES-22-00374.

Project description:BackgroundThe strategic importance of monitoring social determinants of health (SDH) and health equity and inequity has been a central focus in global discussions around the 2011 Rio Political Declaration on SDH and the Millennium Development Goals. This study is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) equity-oriented analysis of linkages between health and other sectors (EQuAL) project, which aims to define a framework for monitoring SDH and health equity.ObjectivesThis review provides a global summary and analysis of the domains and indicators that have been used in recent studies covering the SDH. These studies are considered here within the context of indicators proposed by the WHO EQuAL project. The objectives are as follows: to describe the range of international and national studies and the types of indicators most frequently used; report how they are used in causal explanation of the SDH; and identify key priorities and challenges reported in current research for national monitoring of the SDH.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of published SDH studies in the PubMed(®) database to obtain evidence of socio-economic indicators. We evaluated, selected, and extracted data from national scale studies published from 2004 to 2014. The research included papers published in English, Italian, French, Portuguese, and Spanish.ResultsThe final sample consisted of 96 articles. SDH monitoring is well reported in the scientific literature independent of the economic level of the country and magnitude of deprivation in population groups. The research methods were mostly quantitative and many papers used multilevel and multivariable statistical analyses and indexes to measure health inequalities and SDH. In addition to the usual economic indicators, a high number of socio-economic indicators were used. The indicators covered a broad range of social dimensions, which were given consideration within and across different social groups. Many indicators included in the WHO EQuAL framework were not common in the studies in this review due to their intersectoral and interdisciplinary nature.ConclusionsOur review illustrates that the attention to SDH monitoring has grown in terms of its importance and complexity within the scientific health literature. We identified a need to make indicators more wide-ranging in order to include a broader range of social conditions. The WHO EQuAL framework can provide intersectoral and interdisciplinary means of building a more comprehensive standardised approach to monitoring the SDH and improving equity in health.

Dataset Information

A Digitally Competent Health Workforce: Scoping Review of Educational Frameworks.

Publications

A Digitally Competent Health Workforce: Scoping Review of Educational Frameworks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets