東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Clinical Evidence Technologies and P...

Burke, Marianne D.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Clinical Evidence Technologies and Patient Care.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Clinical Evidence Technologies and Patient Care./
作者:	Burke, Marianne D.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2019,
面頁冊數:	132 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 80-10, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International80-10A.
標題:	Library science. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=13811592
ISBN:	9781392027691

Clinical Evidence Technologies and Patient Care.
Burke, Marianne D.

Clinical Evidence Technologies and Patient Care. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2019 - 132 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 80-10, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, 2019.

This item is not available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Clinical evidence technologies (CETs) are information sources derived from medical research literature that may assist health care providers in continued learning, decision-making, and patient care. Examples of CETs include: MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Reviews, research journal literature, print and electronic medical texts, clinical topic summaries, guidelines, and interactive decision tools. Clinicians utilize CETs to find answers to questions that arise during patient care. However, it was unclear if CETs had a measurable impact on provider practice or patient outcomes. A literature review identified twenty-two articles evaluating CETs' impact. Study designs included surveys, observational studies, randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental methods. The review revealed mixed evidence of CET impact on provider-level outcomes such as improved diagnoses and treatments, and on patient level outcomes such as length of hospital stay and mortality. Additional research was needed to determine whether certain CETs or CET types have impact on patient care outcomes in clinically targeted areas. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial (CRCT) to evaluate the effect of a dermatology-focused CET (VisualDx) when used by primary care providers. We found no difference in the patient skin disease outcomes of resolution of symptoms and return visits for the same problem in that trial. Thirty-two PCPs and 433 patients participated. In proportional hazards modelling adjusted for provider clusters, the time from index visit to skin problem resolution was similar in both groups (Hazard Ratio = 0.92; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.70, 1.21; P = 0.54). Patient follow-up appointments did not differ significantly between groups (Odds Ratio = 1.26; CI = 0.94, 1.70; P = 0.29). In a follow up mixed-methods study, we sought to understand why VisualDx did not make a difference. All CRCT provider participants were surveyed about their experience in the trial. VisualDx users (intervention arm) were interviewed about their experience using the CET. Ease of access and usefulness for patient communication facilitated successful use while irrelevant search results and use of other sources were barriers. Although PCPs reported benefits, they did not perceive the CET as useful often enough to motivate using it frequently or exclusively, thereby reducing the likelihood of it making a difference in the problem resolution and return appointment outcomes. There was no difference in skin problem resolution or number of follow-up visits when PCPs used VisualDx. PCPs did not perceive VisualDx as "useful" often enough for to use it frequently, or exclusively, thereby reducing the likelihood of this CET making a difference in patient-level outcomes.

ISBN: 9781392027691Subjects--Topical Terms:

539284
Library science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Evidence-based medicine

Clinical Evidence Technologies and Patient Care.
LDR:04141nmm a2200409 4500 001 2274528
005 20201202130014.5
008 220629s2019 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781392027691
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI13811592
035 $a (MiAaPQ)uvm:10835
035 $a AAI13811592
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Burke, Marianne D. $3 3552023
245 1 0 $a Clinical Evidence Technologies and Patient Care.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2019
300 $a 132 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 80-10, Section: A.
500 $a Publisher info.: Dissertation/Thesis.
500 $a Advisor: Littenberg, Benjamin.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, 2019.
506 $a This item is not available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a Clinical evidence technologies (CETs) are information sources derived from medical research literature that may assist health care providers in continued learning, decision-making, and patient care. Examples of CETs include: MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Reviews, research journal literature, print and electronic medical texts, clinical topic summaries, guidelines, and interactive decision tools. Clinicians utilize CETs to find answers to questions that arise during patient care. However, it was unclear if CETs had a measurable impact on provider practice or patient outcomes. A literature review identified twenty-two articles evaluating CETs' impact. Study designs included surveys, observational studies, randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental methods. The review revealed mixed evidence of CET impact on provider-level outcomes such as improved diagnoses and treatments, and on patient level outcomes such as length of hospital stay and mortality. Additional research was needed to determine whether certain CETs or CET types have impact on patient care outcomes in clinically targeted areas. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial (CRCT) to evaluate the effect of a dermatology-focused CET (VisualDx) when used by primary care providers. We found no difference in the patient skin disease outcomes of resolution of symptoms and return visits for the same problem in that trial. Thirty-two PCPs and 433 patients participated. In proportional hazards modelling adjusted for provider clusters, the time from index visit to skin problem resolution was similar in both groups (Hazard Ratio = 0.92; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.70, 1.21; P = 0.54). Patient follow-up appointments did not differ significantly between groups (Odds Ratio = 1.26; CI = 0.94, 1.70; P = 0.29). In a follow up mixed-methods study, we sought to understand why VisualDx did not make a difference. All CRCT provider participants were surveyed about their experience in the trial. VisualDx users (intervention arm) were interviewed about their experience using the CET. Ease of access and usefulness for patient communication facilitated successful use while irrelevant search results and use of other sources were barriers. Although PCPs reported benefits, they did not perceive the CET as useful often enough to motivate using it frequently or exclusively, thereby reducing the likelihood of it making a difference in the problem resolution and return appointment outcomes. There was no difference in skin problem resolution or number of follow-up visits when PCPs used VisualDx. PCPs did not perceive VisualDx as "useful" often enough for to use it frequently, or exclusively, thereby reducing the likelihood of this CET making a difference in patient-level outcomes.
590 $a School code: 0243.
650 4 $a Library science. $3 539284
650 4 $a Health care management. $3 2122906
650 4 $a Information science. $3 554358
653 $a Evidence-based medicine
653 $a Medical informatics
653 $a Medical libraries
653 $a Patient care
653 $a Technology assessment
690 $a 0399
690 $a 0723
690 $a 0769
710 2 $a The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College. $b Clinical and Translational Science. $3 3552024
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 80-10A.
790 $a 0243
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2019
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=13811592