How to Improve Information Technology to Support Healthcare to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic: an International Survey with Health Informatics Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the ways in which healthcare information and communication technologies can be improved to address the challenges raised by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The study population included health informatics experts who had been involved with the planning, development and deployment of healthcare information and communication technologies in healthcare settings in response to the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected via an online survey. A non-probability convenience sampling strategy was employed. Data were analyzed with content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 65 participants from 16 countries responded to the conducted survey. The four major themes regarding recommended improvements identified from the content analysis included: improved technology availability, improved interoperability, intuitive user interfaces and adoption of standards of care. Respondents also identified several key healthcare information and communication technologies that can help to provide better healthcare to patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, including telehealth, advanced software, electronic health records, remote work technologies (e.g., remote desktop computer access), and clinical decision support tools. CONCLUSIONS: Our results help to identify several important healthcare information and communication technologies, recommended by health informatics experts, which can help to provide better care to patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results also highlight the need for improved interoperability, intuitive user interfaces and advocating the adoption of standards of 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".