Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Updated article of the week text.)
(Updated article of the week text)
 
(490 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Doctor's Office in New Orleans.jpg|120px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Čartolovni DigitalHealth2023 9.jpeg|240px]]</div>
A '''[[rural health clinic]]''' ('''RHC''') is a special facility designation of the U.S. [[Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services]] (CMS), defined as a clinic in a non-urbanized area designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration as being in a health professional shortage or medically underserved area.
'''"[[Journal:Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study|Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study]]"'''


In September 1999, nearly 3,500 RHCs were operating across 45 states. By January 2013, that number rose to nearly 3,800. RHCs were established by the Rural Health Clinic Services Act of 1977, otherwise known as Public Law 95-210. The program was established to address an inadequate supply of physicians serving Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients in rural areas and to increase the utilization of non-physician practitioners. To qualify as an RHC the facility must be located in a non-urban area, as described by the United States Census Bureau, and must be defined as being in a medically underserved area by one of several possibilities. ('''[[Rural health clinic|Full article...]]''')<br />
This qualitative study aims to present the aspirations, expectations, and critical analysis of the potential for [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) to transform the patient–physician relationship, according to multi-stakeholder insight. This study was conducted from June to December 2021, using an anticipatory ethics approach and sociology of expectations as the theoretical frameworks. It focused mainly on three groups of stakeholders, namely physicians (''n'' = 12), patients (''n'' = 15), and healthcare managers (''n'' = 11), all of whom are directly related to the adoption of AI in medicine (''n'' = 38). In this study, interviews were conducted with 40% of the patients in the sample (15/38), as well as 31% of the physicians (12/38) and 29% of health managers in the sample (11/38) ... ('''[[Journal:Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study|Full article...]]''')<br />
<br />
''Recently featured'':
''Recently featured'': [[Picture archiving and communication system]], [[Cytopathology]], [[Clinical pathology]]
{{flowlist |
* [[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence]]
* [[Journal:Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach|Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach]]
* [[Journal:Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study|Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study]]
}}

Latest revision as of 15:48, 26 May 2024

Fig1 Čartolovni DigitalHealth2023 9.jpeg

"Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study"

This qualitative study aims to present the aspirations, expectations, and critical analysis of the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) to transform the patient–physician relationship, according to multi-stakeholder insight. This study was conducted from June to December 2021, using an anticipatory ethics approach and sociology of expectations as the theoretical frameworks. It focused mainly on three groups of stakeholders, namely physicians (n = 12), patients (n = 15), and healthcare managers (n = 11), all of whom are directly related to the adoption of AI in medicine (n = 38). In this study, interviews were conducted with 40% of the patients in the sample (15/38), as well as 31% of the physicians (12/38) and 29% of health managers in the sample (11/38) ... (Full article...)
Recently featured:

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Article_of_the_week&oldid=63766"