Search

Background One of the main objectives of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) is to enhance collaboration among healthcare professionals. However, our knowledge of how EHRs actually affect collaborative practices is limited. This study examines how an EHR facilitates and constrains collaboration in five outpatient clinics. Methods We conducted an embedded case study at five outpatient clinics of a Dutch hospital that had implemented an organization-wide EHR. Data were collected through interviews with representatives of medical specialties, administration, nursing, and management. Documents were analyzed to contextualize these data. We examined the following collaborative affordances of EHRs: (1) portability, (2) co-located access, (3) shared overviews, (4) mutual awareness, (5) messaging, and (6) orchestrating. Results Our findings demonstrate how an EHR will both facilitate and constrain collaboration among specialties and disciplines. Affordances that were inscribed in the system for collaboration purposes were not fully actualized in the hospital because: (a) The EHR helps health professionals coordinate patient care on an informed basis at any time and in any place but only allows asynchronous patient record use. (b) The comprehensive patient file affords joint clinical decision-making based on shared data, but specialty- and discipline-specific user-interfaces constrain mutual understanding of that data. Moreover, not all relevant information can be easily shared across specialties and outside the hospital. (c) The reduced necessity for face-to-face communication saves time but is experienced as hindering collective responsibility for a smooth workflow. (d) The EHR affords registration at the source and registration of activities through orders, but the heightened administrative burden for physicians and the strict authorization rules on inputting data constrain the flexible, multidisciplinary collaboration. (e) While the EHR affords a complete overview, information overload occurs due to the parallel generation of individually owned notes and the high frequency of asynchronous communication through messages of varying clinical priority. Conclusions For the optimal actualization of EHRs’ collaborative affordances in hospitals, coordinated use of these affordances by health professionals is a prerequisite. Such coordinated use requires organizational, technical, and behavioral adaptations. Suggestions for hospital-wide policies to enhance trust in both the EHR and in its coordinated use for effective collaboration are offered.

Background Roadside observational studies play a fundamental role in designing evidence-informed strategies to address the pressing global health problem of road traffic injuries. Paper-based data collection has been the standard method for such studies, although digital methods are gaining popularity in all types of primary data collection. Objective This study aims to understand the reliability, productivity, and efficiency of paper vs digital data collection based on three different road user behaviors: helmet use, seatbelt use, and speeding. It also aims to understand the cost and time efficiency of each method and to evaluate potential trade-offs among reliability, productivity, and efficiency. Methods A total of 150 observational sessions were conducted simultaneously for each risk factor in Mumbai, India, across two rounds of data collection. We matched the simultaneous digital and paper observation periods by date, time, and location, and compared the reliability by subgroups and the productivity using Pearson correlations (r). We also conducted logistic regressions separately by method to understand how similar results of inferential analyses would be. The time to complete an observation and the time to obtain a complete dataset were also compared, as were the total costs in US dollars for fieldwork, data entry, management, and cleaning. Results Productivity was higher in paper than digital methods in each round for each risk factor. However, the sample sizes across both methods provided a precision of 0.7 percentage points or smaller. The gap between digital and paper data collection productivity narrowed across rounds, with correlations improving from r=0.27-0.49 to 0.89-0.96. Reliability in risk factor proportions was between 0.61 and 0.99, improving between the two rounds for each risk factor. The results of the logistic regressions were also largely comparable between the two methods. Differences in regression results were largely attributable to small sample sizes in some variable levels or random error in variables where the prevalence of the outcome was similar among variable levels. Although data collectors were able to complete an observation using paper more quickly, the digital dataset was available approximately 9 days sooner. Although fixed costs were higher for digital data collection, variable costs were much lower, resulting in a 7.73% (US $3011/38,947) lower overall cost. Conclusions Our study did not face trade-offs among time efficiency, cost efficiency, statistical reliability, and descriptive comparability when deciding between digital and paper, as digital data collection proved equivalent or superior on these domains in the context of our project. As trade-offs among cost, timeliness, and comparability—and the relative importance of each—could be unique to every data collection project, researchers should carefully consider the questionnaire complexity, target sample size, implementation plan, cost and logistical constraints, and geographical contexts when making the decision between digital and paper.

Background A large number of people suffer from psychosocial or physical problems. Adequate strategies to alleviate needs are scarce or lacking. Symptom variation can offer insights into personal profiles of coping and resilience (detailed functional analyses). Hence, diaries are used to report mood and behavior occurring in daily life. To reduce inaccuracies, biases, and noncompliance with paper diaries, a shift to electronic diaries has occurred. Although these diaries are increasingly used in health care, information is lacking about what determines their use. Objective The aim of this study was to map the existing empirical knowledge and gaps concerning factors that influence the use of electronic diaries, defined as repeated recording of psychosocial or physical data lasting at least one week using a smartphone or a computer, in health care. Methods A scoping review of the literature published between January 2000 and December 2018 was conducted using queries in PubMed and PsycInfo databases. English or Dutch publications based on empirical data about factors that influence the use of electronic diaries for psychosocial or physical purposes in health care were included. Both databases were screened, and findings were summarized using a directed content analysis organized by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results Out of 3170 articles, 22 studies were selected for qualitative synthesis. Eleven themes were determined in the CFIR categories of intervention, user characteristics, and process. No information was found for the CFIR categories inner (eg, organizational resources, innovation climate) and outer (eg, external policies and incentives, pressure from competitors) settings. Reminders, attractive designs, tailored and clear data visualizations (intervention), smartphone experience, and intrinsic motivation to change behavior (user characteristics) could influence the use of electronic diaries. During the implementation process, attention should be paid to both theoretical and practical training. Conclusions Design aspects, user characteristics, and training and instructions determine the use of electronic diaries in health care. It is remarkable that there were no empirical data about factors related to embedding electronic diaries in daily clinical practice. More research is needed to better understand influencing factors for optimal electronic diary use.

Background: Rapid advances in mobile technologies and applications and the continued growth in digital network coverage have the potential to transform data collection in low- and middle-income countries. A common perception is that digital data collection (DDC) is faster and quickly adaptable. Objective: The objective of this study was to test whether DDC is faster and more adaptable in a roadside environment. We conducted a reliability study comparing digital versus paper data collection in 3 cities in Ghana, Vietnam, and Indonesia observing road safety risk factors in real time. Methods: Roadside observation of helmet use among motorcycle passengers, seat belt use among 4-wheeler passengers, and speeding was conducted in Accra, Ghana; Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam; and Bandung, Indonesia. Two independent data collection teams were deployed to the same sites on the same dates and times, one using a paper-based data collection tool and the other using a digital tool. All research assistants were trained on paper-based data collection and DDC. A head-to-head analysis was conducted to compare the volume of observations, as well as the prevalence of each risk factor. Correlations (r) for continuous variables and kappa for categorical variables are reported with their level of statistical significance. Results: In Accra, there were 119 observation periods (90-min each) identical by date, time, and location during the helmet and seat belt use risk factor data collection and 118 identical periods observing speeding prevalence. In Bandung, there were 150 observation periods common to digital and paper data collection methods, whereas in HCMC, there were 77 matching observation periods for helmet use, 82 for seat belt use, and 84 for speeding. Data collectors using paper tools were more productive than their DDC counterparts during the study. The highest mean volume per session was recorded for speeding, with Bandung recording over 1000 vehicles on paper (paper: mean 1092 [SD 435]; digital: mean 807 [SD 261]); whereas the lowest volume per session was from HCMC for seat belts (paper: mean 52 [SD 28]; digital: mean 62 [SD 30]). Accra and Bandung showed good-to-high correlation for all 3 risk factors (r=0.52 to 0.96), with higher reliability in speeding and helmet use over seat belt use; HCMC showed high reliability for speeding (r=0.99) but lower reliability for helmet and seat belt use (r=0.08 to 0.32). The reported prevalence of risk factors was comparable in all cities regardless of the data collection method. Conclusions: DDC was convenient and reliable during roadside observational data collection. There was some site-related variability in implementing DDC methods, and generally the productivity was higher using the more familiar paper-based method. Even with low correlations between digital and paper data collection methods, the overall reported population prevalence was similar for all risk factors.