Dataset Information

Smartphone Usage Among Doctors in the Clinical Setting in Two Culturally Distinct Countries: Cross-sectional Comparative Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Smartphones and mobile applications have seen a surge in popularity in recent years, a pattern that has also been reflected in the health care system. Despite increased reliance among clinicians however, limited research has been conducted on the uptake and impact of smartphone usage in medical practice, especially outside the Western world.

Objective

This study aimed to identify the usage of smartphones and medical apps by doctors in the clinical setting in 2 culturally distinct countries: King Hamad University Hospital (KHUH), Bahrain and Queen Mary Hospital (QMH), Hong Kong.

Methods

A cross-sectional, comparative study was conducted where doctors in both hospitals were asked to take part in a 15-item online survey. The questions were categorized into the following groups: demographics of the study population, ownership and main use of smartphones, number and names of medical apps currently owned, rating usage of smartphones for medical purposes, time spent on a smartphone related to clinical use, clinical reliance on smartphones, and views on further integration of smartphones. The results were then tabulated and analyzed using SPSS Statistics 25 for Mac (IBM Corp Inc, Armonk, NY).

Results

A total of 200 doctors were surveyed, with a total of 99.0% (99/100) of the doctors owning a smartphone in both KHUH and QMH; 58% (57/99) and 55% (54/99) of the doctors from KHUH and QMH, respectively, identified communication as their main use of smartphones in the clinical setting (P=.004). Doctors from KHUH were likely to spend more time on medical apps than doctors from QMH (P=.002). According to the overall results of both hospitals, 48% (32/67) of the junior doctors claimed high reliance on smartphones, whereas only 32.3% (41/127) of the senior doctors said the same (P=.03). Of doctors in KHUH and QMH, 78.0% (78/100) and 69.0% (69/100), respectively, either strongly agreed or agreed that smartphones need to be integrated into the clinical setting. In terms of preferences for future apps, 48% (48/100) and 56% (56/100) of the doctors in KHUH and QMH, respectively, agreed that more medical applications need to be created in order to support smartphone use in the clinical setting.

Conclusions

These results suggest a substantial acceptance of smartphones by doctors in the clinical setting. It also elicits the need to establish policies to officially integrate smartphone technology into health care in accordance with ethical guidelines. More emphasis should be placed on creating medical applications that aid health care professionals in attaining their information from accurate sources and also regulate a system to monitor the usage of mobile devices within hospitals to prevent a breach of patient privacy and confidentiality.

SUBMITTER: Nair AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8145086 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedication risk communication is essential to ensure the safe use of medicines. However, very few nations worldwide have established effective risk communication systems. To date, the effectiveness of risk communication among healthcare professionals in Malaysia has never been evaluated. Our study aimed to (i) evaluate doctors' and pharmacists' awareness of regulatory risk communication methods; (ii) identify factors predicting the usefulness of these methods; and (iii) compare respondents' preferences for risk communication to outline suggestions for enhancement.MethodsWe conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey covering four commonly used risk communications, namely a national drug bulletin, safety alerts, Direct Healthcare Professional Communication letters (DHPCs), and educational materials. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between independent variables and the usefulness of risk communication. We performed qualitative analysis of free-text responses to gain insights on respondents' perspectives on risk communication.ResultsOf the 1146 responses received, 650 were from pharmacists (56.7%). Among the four methods surveyed, 71.5% of respondents were aware of educational materials, while awareness of the other three methods ranged from 20.7 to 53.9%. Pharmacists had higher awareness of all four methods compared to doctors. Private sector respondents were more aware of DHPCs compared to those from the public sector. The strongest predictors for finding risk communication useful were being a pharmacist [odds ratio (OR) = 18.2; 95% CI: 10.98-30.07; p < 0.001], having ≥30 years' work experience [OR = 4.9; 95% CI: 1.98-12.08; p < 0.001], and working in the pharmaceutical industry [OR = 4.6; 95% CI: 1.08-19.72; p = 0.039]. Both doctors and pharmacists preferred risk communication in the English-language and electronic format. However, other preferences differed between the professions and sectors. Analysis of free-text comments revealed five core themes to guide risk communication enhancement strategies.ConclusionsRisk communication awareness differed between public and private sector doctors and pharmacists depending on communication source. Integrating our findings with the theory of effective communication, we provide suggestions for developing strategic plans on enhancing risk communication. Public-private sector collaboration is key in ensuring risk communication effectiveness.

Project description:To address Tanzania's high maternal mortality ratio, it is crucial to increase women's access to healthcare. To improve access, the quality of antenatal care needs to be improved. Therefore, we conducted a pilot study of a smartphone app for midwives and examined its potential effects on the learning outcomes of midwives and birth preparedness of pregnant women in Tanzania. This mixed-methods, pilot study provided an educational app for midwives in the intervention group, obtained data about the continuous use of the app, measured midwives' learning outcomes, directed focus group discussions on the usability of the app, and conducted surveys among pregnant women about birth preparedness in the intervention and control groups to evaluate if midwives provided proper information to them. The control group received regular antenatal care and answered the same survey. Participants were 23 midwives who participated in the testing and provided learning outcome data. Twenty-one participated in focus group discussions. Results showed that 87.5% of midwives continued to study with the app two months post-intervention. A mini-quiz conducted after using the app showed a significant increase in mean scores (6.9 and 8.4 points, respectively) and a non-significant increase on the questionnaire on women-centered care (98.6 and 102.2 points, respectively). In the focus group discussions, all midwives expressed satisfaction with the app for several reasons, including comprehensive content, feelings of confidence, and reciprocal communication. There were 207 pregnant women included in the analysis. The intervention group had significantly higher knowledge scores and home-based value scores than did controls. The total scores and other subscales did not show statistical significance for group differences. The results indicate the potential impact of the midwifery education app when it is implemented on a larger scale, especially considering that the results show a potential effect on midwives' learning outcomes.