MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390664495 · doi:10.1111/jan.16052

Self‐supporting wound care mobile applications for nurses: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4390664495 on OpenAlexafffund
Julie Gagnon, Sebastian Probst, Julie Chartrand, Emily Reynolds, Michelle Lalonde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitut du Savoir MontfortChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversité du Québec à RimouskiMontfort HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsCINAHLDocumentationWound careMEDLINEMedicineHealth careCompetence (human resources)NursingGrey literatureCochrane LibraryMobile technologyMobile deviceMedical educationPsychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebAlternative medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This study provides an overview of the literature to identify and map the types of available evidence on self-supporting mobile applications used by nurses in wound care regarding their development, evaluation and outcomes for patients, nurses and the healthcare system. DESIGN: Scoping review. REVIEW METHOD: Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology was used. DATA SOURCES: A search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (via EBSCO), Web of Science, LiSSa (Littérature Scientifique en Santé), Cochrane Wounds, Érudit and grey literature, between April and October 2022, updated in April 2023, to identify literature published in English and French. RESULTS: Eleven studies from 14 publications met the inclusion criteria. Mostly descriptive, the included studies presented mobile applications that nurses used, among other things, to assess wounds and support clinical decision-making. The results described how nurses were iteratively involved in the process of developing and evaluating mobile applications using various methods such as pilot tests. The three outcomes most frequently reported by nurses were as follows: facilitating care, documentation on file and access to evidence-based data. CONCLUSION: The potential of mobile applications in wound care is within reach. Nurses are an indispensable player in the successful development of these tools. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: If properly developed and evaluated, mobile applications for wound care could enhance nursing practices and improve patient care. The development of ethical digital competence must be ensured during initial training and continued throughout the professional journey. IMPACT: We identified a dearth of studies investigating applications that work without Internet access. More research is needed on the development of mobile applications in wound care and their possible impact on nursing practice in rural areas and the next generation of nurses. REPORTING METHOD: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Review guidelines were used. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.507 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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