EUVIMEDEuropean Health Evidence
Uhr Sources10/10 Journal Tree
Easy Demo

European Health Evidence

The European alternative to PubMed

EUVIMED is the European alternative to PubMed: a central, multilingual research platform for medicine, nursing, life sciences and healthcare. It brings together international and European literature sources, study registries, open-access full texts, citations and retraction notices in one search. Unlike pure bibliographic databases, EUVIMED supports the entire research process – from discovery and appraisal with LIVIA and CLARA to traceable evidence synthesis. European in focus, transparent, interoperable and designed for science and healthcare.

EuropeanMultilingualInteroperableTraceable

EUVIMED BETA

EUVIMED is currently in beta

EUVIMED is under continuous development. Features, data coverage and presentation may change or be temporarily incomplete.

Results are beta

Search results, classifications, summaries and AI-assisted assessments may be incomplete, delayed or incorrect.

Check original sources

Do not use EUVIMED results without verification for diagnosis, treatment or other clinical decisions. Always consult the original source and applicable guidelines.

Errors and feedback help us improve EUVIMED: info@euvimed.com

Lokaler Crossref-Datenbestand · journal-article

10.3390/polym8030084

CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs · 2000

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

<b>Background and Objectives:</b> Digitalization studies often emphasize perceived benefits while overlooking professionals who cannot determine whether digital tools are useful. This study quantified digital hesitancy among anesthesia and intensive-care professionals, examined its relationship with professional role and experience, and compared it with reported barriers and technology use. <b>Methods:</b> A single-centre cross-sectional survey included 161 professionals (80.1% of 201 eligible departmental staff): 55 nurses and 106 physicians. A four-item Uncertainty Index measured inability to appraise digital benefits in patient safety, clinical decisions, management, and education. Barrier Burden and Resource-Efficiency indices were also calculated. Group differences were assessed using nonparametric tests, and predictors of high uncertainty were examined by multivariable logistic regression. <b>Results:</b> Nurses had substantially higher uncertainty than physicians (mean Uncertainty Index 1.60 vs. 0.49, difference 1.11, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.42; <i>p</i> < 0.001), particularly regarding educational and clinical benefits. Reported barriers were similar across professional groups, with technical problems being the most common. Any reported prior use of training simulators, irrespective of frequency or recency, was markedly lower among nurses than physicians (1.8% vs. 47.2%; absolute gap 45.4 percentage points, 95% CI 35.2 to 55.5; <i>p</i> < 0.001). After adjustment, physician status remained strongly associated with lower odds of high uncertainty, whereas overall seniority was not significant. In an exploratory within-nurse analysis, uncertainty was higher among more experienced nurses, reaching its highest level among those with more than 20 years of practice (Spearman ρ = 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.68; <i>p</i> < 0.001); the seniority bands were small (<i>n</i> = 7 to 18), so this gradient is hypothesis-generating. <b>Conclusions:</b> Digital hesitancy was concentrated among nurses and was distinct from shared technical barriers; within nurses it was higher at greater seniority. Because patient-safety outcomes and intervention effects were not measured, targeted simulator-based training and role-specific feedback should be regarded as hypotheses for prospective evaluation alongside, rather than established alternatives to, generic infrastructure improvements.

Abstract: PubMed · Datensatz

Bibliografischer Nachweis

Publikationsdaten

Autor:innen
Nicht angegeben
Quelle
CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs
Publikation
2000-01-01
Band / Ausgabe
Nicht angegeben
Seiten
Nicht angegeben
ISSN / ISBN
0849-6757
Zitationen
0 laut Crossref
Referenzen
0 hinterlegt

Zitieren

Zitierfähiger Nachweis

(2000). 10.3390/polym8030084. CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep16080290
RIS BibTeX CSL-JSON