MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321243466 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1137798

Digital health as an enabler for hospital@home: A rising trend or just a vision?

2023· review· en· W4321243466 on OpenAlexaff
Kerstin Denecke, Richard May, Elizabeth M. Borycki, André Kushniruk

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careSWOT analysisInformaticsHealth informaticsStrengths and weaknessesDigital healthMedicineEnablingNursingCitizen journalismParticipatory action researchGrey literatureMEDLINEBusinessComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical sciencePublic healthWorld Wide WebSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hospital@home is a model of healthcare, where healthcare professionals actively treat patients in their homes for conditions that may otherwise require hospitalization. Similar models of care have been implemented in jurisdictions around the world over the past few years. However, there are new developments in health informatics including digital health and participatory health informatics that may have an impact on hospital@home approaches. Objectives: This study aims to identify the current state of implementation of emerging concepts into the hospital@home research and models of care; to identify strengths and weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with the models of care; and to suggest a research agenda. Methods: ." Relevant information was extracted from the included articles. Results: Title and abstract review were conducted on 1,371 articles. The full-text review was conducted on 82 articles. Data were extracted from 42 articles that met our review criteria. Most of the studies originated from the United States and Spain. Several medical conditions were considered. The use of digital tools and technologies was rarely reported. In particular, innovative approaches such as wearables or sensor technologies were rarely used. The current landscape of hospital@home models of care simply delivers hospital care in the patient's home. Tools or approaches from taking a participatory health informatics design approach involving a range of stakeholders (such as patients and their caregivers) were not reported in the literature reviewed. In addition, emerging technologies supporting mobile health applications, wearable technologies, and remote monitoring were rarely discussed. Conclusion: There are multiple benefits and opportunities associated with hospital@home implementations. There are also threats and weaknesses associated with the use of this model of care. Some weaknesses could be addressed by using digital health and wearable technologies to support patient monitoring and treatment at home. Employing a participatory health informatics approach to design and implementation could help to ensure the acceptance of such care models.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.337 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207