ArticleDigital health
Simulation-based research for digital health pathologies: A multi-site mixed-methods study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Connected to the cloud at time of death: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The advance of digital health technologies has created new forms of potential pathology which are not captured in current clinical guidelines. Through simulation-based research, we have identified the challenges to clinical care that emerge when patients suffer from illnesses stemming from failures in digital health technologies. Methods: Clinical simulation sessions were designed based on patient case reports relating to (a) medical device hardware errors, (b) medical device software errors, (c) complications of consumer technology and (d) technology-facilitated abuse. Clinicians were recruited to participate in simulations at three UK hospitals; audiovisual suites were used to facilitate group observation of simulation experience and focused debrief discussions. Invigilators scored clinicians on performance, clinicians provided individual qualitative and quantitative feedback, and extensive notes were taken throughout. Findings: Paired t-tests of pre and post-simulation feedback demonstrated significant improvements in clinician's diagnostic awareness, technical knowledge and confidence in clinical management following simulation exposure (p < 0.01). Barriers to care included: (a) low suspicion of digital agents, (b) attribution to psychopathology, (c) lack of education in technical mechanisms and (d) little utility of available tests. Suggested interventions for improving future practice included: (a) education initiatives, (b) technical support platforms, (c) digitally oriented assessments in hospital workflows, (d) cross-disciplinary staff and (e) protocols for digital cases. Conclusion: We provide an effective framework for simulation training focused on digital health pathologies and uncover barriers that impede effective care for patients dependent on technology. Our recommendations are relevant to educators, practising clinicians and professionals working in regulation, policy and industry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.