1,721,000 research outputs found
Erratum: Digital Health Competencies Among Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review (J Med Internet Res (2022) 24: 8 (e36414) DOI: 10.2196/36414)
No full textIn “Digital Health Competencies Among Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review” (J Med Internet Res 2022;24(8):e36414) the author of a study included in our review, namely “Kocher, A, et al (2021). Patient and healthcare professional eHealth literacy and needs for systemic sclerosis support: a mixed methods study. RMD open, 7(3), e001783” noted two errors: 1. In the “Main Characteristics of Studies Identified” sub-section of “Results”, the maximum age of participants of studies included was incorrectly reported: The sample size was variable across the studies, ranging from 36 [30] to 5209 participants [39] with a variable age range from 20 [36] to 68 years [27]. Thus, the sentence has been updated as follows: The sample size was variable across the studies, ranging from 36 [30] to 5209 participants [39] with a variable age mostly comprised between 30 [46] and 50 years [27]. 2. In Table 1, under the column “Sample and profession; age”, referring to the study of Kocher et al, 2021 [27], the age of professionals was incorrectly reported: 47 professionals (registered nurses, physiotherapists, rheumatologists, occupational therapists, advanced practice nurses, general practitioners, psychologists, social workers, health policy); median age 60 (IQR 50-68) years Thus, the sentence has been updated as follows: 47 professionals (registered nurses, physiotherapists, rheumatologists, occupational therapists, advanced practice nurses, general practitioners, psychologists, social workers, health policy); median age 41 (IQR 31-51) years The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on November 29, 2022, together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories
To what extent Unfinished Nursing Care tools coincide with the discrete elements of The Fundamentals of Care Framework? A comparative analysis based on a systematic review
No full textHow do undergraduate nursing students learn to care for families and informal caregivers? A qualitative study with a grounded theory approach
Full text linkBackground: Nurses play a crucial role in caring for families of ill individuals in care, requiring high-quality relational and communication skills to care for them. Yet these skills remain underutilized, leading to reported issues of inadequate inclusion and communication. Education is crucial to enhance nurses' competencies in caring for families and informal caregivers. Aim: To explore the learning process of undergraduate nursing students to care for families and informal caregivers. Design: Qualitative study with a grounded theory approach. Settings: Bachelor's degree in nursing from two off-sites of a university and four local health units collaborating with the university in North Italy. Participants: 15 undergraduate nursing students, 10 nurse preceptors, and 10 nurse clinical teachers. Methods: We adopted initial and theoretical sampling and conducted semi-structured interviews from December 2023 to January 2024, lasting 16 to 62 min. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed through open, selective, and theoretical coding. Results: We developed a theory of learning for undergraduate nursing students in caring for families and informal caregivers, comprising two themes, “Learning areas” and “Learning antecedents,” and nine categories. Learning areas involve five stages of learning to care for families and informal caregivers and the most frequent opportunities to interact with families and informal caregivers. The five stages are “Seeing and considering families and informal caregivers”, “Assessing the families' and informal caregivers' needs and resources”, “Preparing for and planning intervention with families and informal caregivers”, “Acting with families and informal caregivers”, “Reflecting on the intervention with families and informal caregivers”. Learning antecedents encompass student characteristics, interpersonal relationships, and the clinical training setting. Conclusions: In this study, we delineate a five-stage learning process for undergraduate nursing students to care for families and informal caregivers, influenced by individual, interpersonal, and contextual factors. We emphasised the importance of relational skill development, tailored learning experiences, and supportive mentorship in enhancing students' preparedness to engage with and support families in healthcare settings. The developed theory provides a foundational framework for designing educational interventions to optimise nursing students' capacities in this domain
Framing the time while designing and conducting reviews: A Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis
No full textAims and Objectives: To identify the profile of time restrictions and their justifications as reported on a set of published reviews. Background: There is a body of methodological knowledge addressing how to design and perform reviews in their different designs. However, how the time restrictions should be set and the justifications that should be provided have received limited attention to date. Design: A Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis following three steps (Focus, Mapping and Synthesis) was performed on 2021. The ENTREQ checklist was followed to report methods and findings. Methods: All Journal of Clinical Nursing reviews published in online or printed version on 2020 (n = 85). Time limits imposed in the literature search, and justifications provided were mapped and synthetised with quantitative and a qualitative analysis. Results: Time restrictions in reviews are not always reported and, when available, reflect three different profiles: (a) including all studies, to provide a comprehensive review; (b) selecting a period, to provide reviews for a contemporary practice; and (b) including only recent studies for reviews reflecting current practice. Reasons justifying time restrictions are not always reported; when documented, justifications regard changes in the practice, in the research or in the theory occurred over time, recent or ongoing. Conclusions: In exploring the date restrictions applied in reviews published over the course of a year, it emerged that the time of access to the sources and the justifications are not always indicated. The attributes of the emerging concepts of “comprehensive reviews,” “contemporary practice reviews” and “current practice reviews” might be further developed to support researchers in selecting an appropriate time frame. Relevance to clinical practice: Reviews require improvements regarding the time restrictions and their justifications. Methodological efforts to standardise the approach ensuring transparency in review protocols and in the following review publication are recommended
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Effectiveness of digital health interventions for chronic conditions management in European primary care settings: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Full text linkBackground: The past decade has seen rapid digitalization of healthcare, significantly transforming healthcare delivery. However, the impact of these technologies remains unclear, with notable gaps in evidence regarding their effectiveness, especially in primary care settings. Objective: This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of digital health interventions versus interventions without digital components implemented over the last 10 years in European primary care settings for managing chronic diseases. Methods: Following Cochrane guidelines, we conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies on digital health interventions for chronic disease management in primary care settings in Europe, evaluating outcomes such as hospitalizations, quality of life, and clinical measures. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently conducted by two authors, with discrepancies resolved by a third author. The certainty of the evidence was judged according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: From 9829 records, 23 studies were included, with most studies conducted in the UK and Spain. The most investigated conditions were type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Interventions mainly focused on patient monitoring, self-care education, and digital communication tools. The risk of bias was low to moderate for most studies. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences between digital health interventions and usual care for hospitalizations, depressive symptoms, anxiety, HbA1c, diastolic blood pressure, weight, or quality of life, except for a small improvement in systolic blood pressure. Conclusion: Digital health interventions have not yet demonstrated substantial benefits over traditional care for chronic disease management in European primary care. While some improvements were noted, particularly in systolic blood pressure, the impact remains limited. Further research is needed to enhance the effectiveness of digital health interventions, address current methodological limitations, and explore tailored approaches for both specific patient populations and multimorbid populations
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
- …
