MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220679284 · doi:10.1055/s-0042-1743238

Barriers and Benefits of Information Communication Technologies Used by Health Care Aides

2022· review· en· W4220679284 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Clinical Informatics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCentre for Aging + Brain Health InnovationAlberta Innovates
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyHealth careWorkflowWorkforceBusinessNursingMedicineKnowledge managementComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although information and communication technologies (ICT) are becoming more common among health care providers, there is little evidence on how ICT can support health care aides. Health care aides, also known as personal care workers, are unlicensed service providers who encompass the second largest workforce, next to nurses, that provide care to older adults in Canada. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this literature review is to examine the range and extent of barriers and benefits of ICT used by health care workers to manage and coordinate the care-delivery workflow for their clients. METHODS: We conducted a literature review to examine the range and extent of ICT used by health care aides to manage and coordinate their care delivery, workflow, and activities. We identified 8,958 studies of which 40 were included for descriptive analyses. RESULTS: We distinguished the following five different purposes for the use and implementation of ICT by health care aides: (1) improve everyday work, (2) access electronic health records for home care, (3) facilitate client assessment and care planning, (4) enhance communication, and (5) provide care remotely. We identified 128 barriers and 130 benefits related to adopting ICT. Most of the barriers referred to incomplete hardware and software features, time-consuming ICT adoption, heavy or increased workloads, perceived lack of usefulness of ICT, cost or budget restrictions, security and privacy concerns, and lack of integration with technologies. The benefits for health care aides' adoption of ICT were improvements in communication, support to workflows and processes, improvements in resource planning and health care aides' services, and improvements in access to information and documentation. CONCLUSION: Health care aides are an essential part of the health care system. They provide one-on-one care to their clients in everyday tasks. Despite the scarce information related to health care aides, we identified many benefits of ICT adoption.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.338 · 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