MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392606220 · doi:10.1177/20552076241238075

The role of mentoring and coaching of healthcare professionals for digital technology adoption and implementation: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4392606220 on OpenAlexaff
Jillian Scandiffio, Melody Zhang, Inaara Karsan, Rebecca Charow, Melanie Anderson, Mohammad Salhia, David Wiljer

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsMichener InstitutePublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingMedical educationHealth carePsychologyHealth informaticsProfessional developmentMedicineKnowledge managementNursingComputer sciencePolitical sciencePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Mentoring and coaching practices have supported the career and skill development of healthcare professionals (HCPs); however, their role in digital technology adoption and implementation for HCPs is unknown. The objective of this scoping review was to summarize information on healthcare education programs that have integrated mentoring or coaching as a key component. Methods: The search strategy and keyword searches were developed by the project team and a research librarian. A two-stage screening process consisting of a title/abstract scan and a full-text review was conducted by two independent reviewers to determine study eligibility. Articles were included if they: (1) discussed the mentoring and/or coaching of HCPs on digital technology, including artificial intelligence, (2) described a population of HCPs at any stage of their career, and (3) were published in English. Results: A total of 9473 unique citations were screened, identifying 19 eligible articles. 11 articles described mentoring and/or coaching programs for digital technology adoption, while eigth described mentoring and/or coaching for digital technology implementation. Program participants represented a diverse range of industries (i.e., clinical, academic, education, business, and information technology). Digital technologies taught within programs included electronic health records (EHRs), ultrasound imaging, digital health informatics, and computer skills. Conclusions: This review provided a summary of the role of mentoring and/or coaching practices within digital technology education for HCPs. Future training initiatives for HCPs should consider appropriate resources, program design, mentor-learner relationship, security concerns and setting clear expectations for program participants. Future research could explore mentor/coach characteristics that would facilitate successful skill transfer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0180.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital HealthSame topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207