临床决策支持对健康差异和数字鸿沟的影响。

Yearbook of medical informatics Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-06 DOI:10.1055/s-0043-1768722
Brian J Douthit, Allison B McCoy, Scott D Nelson
{"title":"临床决策支持对健康差异和数字鸿沟的影响。","authors":"Brian J Douthit, Allison B McCoy, Scott D Nelson","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1768722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This literature review summarizes relevant studies from the last three years (2020-2022) related to clinical decision support (CDS) and CDS impact on health disparities and the digital divide. This survey identifies current trends and synthesizes evidence-based recommendations and considerations for future development and implementation of CDS tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a search in PubMed for literature published between 2020 and 2022. Our search strategy was constructed as a combination of the MEDLINE®/PubMed® Health Disparities and Minority Health Search Strategy and relevant CDS MeSH terms and phrases. We then extracted relevant data from the studies, including priority population when applicable, domain of influence on the disparity being addressed, and the type of CDS being used. We also made note of when a study discussed the digital divide in some capacity and organized the comments into general themes through group discussion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded 520 studies, with 45 included at the conclusion of screening. The most frequent CDS type in this review was point-of-care alerts/reminders (33.3%). Health Care System was the most frequent domain of influence (71.1%), and Blacks/African Americans were the most frequently included priority population (42.2%). Throughout the literature, we found four general themes related to the technology divide: inaccessibility of technology, access to care, trust of technology, and technology literacy.This survey revealed the diversity of CDS being used to address health disparities and several barriers which may make CDS less effective or potentially harmful to certain populations. Regular examinations of literature that feature CDS and address health disparities can help to reveal new strategies and patterns for improving healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":40027,"journal":{"name":"Yearbook of medical informatics","volume":" ","pages":"169-178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10751127/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Health Disparities and the Digital Divide.\",\"authors\":\"Brian J Douthit, Allison B McCoy, Scott D Nelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0043-1768722\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This literature review summarizes relevant studies from the last three years (2020-2022) related to clinical decision support (CDS) and CDS impact on health disparities and the digital divide. This survey identifies current trends and synthesizes evidence-based recommendations and considerations for future development and implementation of CDS tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a search in PubMed for literature published between 2020 and 2022. Our search strategy was constructed as a combination of the MEDLINE®/PubMed® Health Disparities and Minority Health Search Strategy and relevant CDS MeSH terms and phrases. We then extracted relevant data from the studies, including priority population when applicable, domain of influence on the disparity being addressed, and the type of CDS being used. We also made note of when a study discussed the digital divide in some capacity and organized the comments into general themes through group discussion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded 520 studies, with 45 included at the conclusion of screening. The most frequent CDS type in this review was point-of-care alerts/reminders (33.3%). Health Care System was the most frequent domain of influence (71.1%), and Blacks/African Americans were the most frequently included priority population (42.2%). Throughout the literature, we found four general themes related to the technology divide: inaccessibility of technology, access to care, trust of technology, and technology literacy.This survey revealed the diversity of CDS being used to address health disparities and several barriers which may make CDS less effective or potentially harmful to certain populations. Regular examinations of literature that feature CDS and address health disparities can help to reveal new strategies and patterns for improving healthcare.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":40027,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yearbook of medical informatics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"169-178\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10751127/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yearbook of medical informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1768722\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yearbook of medical informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1768722","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本文献综述总结了过去三年(2020-2022 年)有关临床决策支持(CDS)以及 CDS 对健康差异和数字鸿沟的影响的相关研究。这项调查确定了当前的趋势,并综合了以证据为基础的建议以及未来开发和实施 CDS 工具的注意事项:我们在 PubMed 上检索了 2020 年至 2022 年间发表的文献。我们的检索策略由 MEDLINE®/PubMed® 健康差异和少数民族健康检索策略以及相关的 CDS MeSH 术语和短语组合而成。然后,我们从研究中提取相关数据,包括优先人群(如适用)、对正在解决的差异的影响领域以及正在使用的 CDS 类型。我们还记下了某项研究何时以某种方式讨论了数字鸿沟,并通过小组讨论将评论整理为一般性主题:我们共搜索到 520 项研究,其中 45 项在筛选后被纳入。本综述中最常见的 CDS 类型是护理点警报/提醒(33.3%)。医疗保健系统是最常见的影响领域(71.1%),黑人/非裔美国人是最常被纳入的重点人群(42.2%)。在所有文献中,我们发现了与技术鸿沟相关的四个一般性主题:无法获得技术、无法获得护理、对技术的信任以及技术扫盲。这项调查揭示了用于解决健康差异的 CDS 的多样性,以及可能使 CDS 对某些人群不那么有效或可能有害的一些障碍。定期审查以 CDS 和解决健康差异为特色的文献,有助于揭示改善医疗保健的新策略和模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Health Disparities and the Digital Divide.

Objectives: This literature review summarizes relevant studies from the last three years (2020-2022) related to clinical decision support (CDS) and CDS impact on health disparities and the digital divide. This survey identifies current trends and synthesizes evidence-based recommendations and considerations for future development and implementation of CDS tools.

Methods: We conducted a search in PubMed for literature published between 2020 and 2022. Our search strategy was constructed as a combination of the MEDLINE®/PubMed® Health Disparities and Minority Health Search Strategy and relevant CDS MeSH terms and phrases. We then extracted relevant data from the studies, including priority population when applicable, domain of influence on the disparity being addressed, and the type of CDS being used. We also made note of when a study discussed the digital divide in some capacity and organized the comments into general themes through group discussion.

Results: Our search yielded 520 studies, with 45 included at the conclusion of screening. The most frequent CDS type in this review was point-of-care alerts/reminders (33.3%). Health Care System was the most frequent domain of influence (71.1%), and Blacks/African Americans were the most frequently included priority population (42.2%). Throughout the literature, we found four general themes related to the technology divide: inaccessibility of technology, access to care, trust of technology, and technology literacy.This survey revealed the diversity of CDS being used to address health disparities and several barriers which may make CDS less effective or potentially harmful to certain populations. Regular examinations of literature that feature CDS and address health disparities can help to reveal new strategies and patterns for improving healthcare.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Yearbook of medical informatics
Yearbook of medical informatics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Published by the International Medical Informatics Association, this annual publication includes the best papers in medical informatics from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Reflections Towards the Future of Medical Informatics. The Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Health Disparities and the Digital Divide. Health Information Exchange: Understanding the Policy Landscape and Future of Data Interoperability. The Need for Green and Responsible Medical Informatics and Digital Health: Looking Forward with One Digital Health. Health Equity in Clinical Research Informatics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1