MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Value of wireless personal digital assistants for practice: perceptions of advanced practice nurses

2008· article· en· W2013186892 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bernie Garrett, Gerri Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupPerceptionQualitative researchHealth careDigital healthNursingMedicineMedical educationComputer sciencePsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aims were to explore advanced practice nurses' perceptions on wireless Personal Digital Assistant technologies, to establish the type and range of tools that would be useful to support their practice and to identify any requirements and limitations that may impact the implementation of wireless Personal Digital Assistants in practice. BACKGROUND: The wireless Personal Digital Assistant is becoming established as a hand-held computing tool for healthcare professionals. The reflections of advanced practice nurses' about the value of wireless Personal Digital Assistants and its potential to contribute to improved patient care has not been investigated. DESIGN: A qualitative interpretivist design was used to explore advanced practice nurses' perceptions on the value of wireless Personal Digital Assistant technologies to support their practice. METHODS: The data were collected using survey questionnaires and individual and focus group interviews with nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and information technology managers based in British Columbia, Canada. An open-coding content analysis was performed using qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS: Wireless Personal Digital Assistant's use supports the principles of pervasivity and is a technology rapidly being adopted by advanced practice nurses. Some nurses indicated a reluctance to integrate wireless Personal Digital Assistant technologies into their practices because of the cost and the short technological life cycle of these devices. Many of the barriers which precluded the use of wireless networks within facilities are being removed. Nurses demonstrated a complex understanding of wireless Personal Digital Assistant technologies and gave good rationales for its integration in their practice. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses identified improved client care as the major benefit of this technology in practice and the type and range of tools they identified included clinical reference tools such as drug and diagnostic/laboratory reference applications and wireless communications. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses in this study support integrating wireless mobile computing technologies into their practice to improve client care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.476 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207