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

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Fixed link)
(Updated article of the week text)
 
(414 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:Fig1_Bellary_PerspectivesClinRes2014_5-4.jpg|220px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Čartolovni DigitalHealth2023 9.jpeg|240px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:Basics of case report form designing in clinical research|Basics of case report form designing in clinical research]]"'''
'''"[[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]]"'''


Case report form (CRF) is a specialized document in clinical research. It should be study protocol driven, robust in content and have material to collect the study specific data. Though paper CRFs are still used largely, use of electronic CRFs (eCRFs) are gaining popularity due to the advantages they offer such as improved data quality, online discrepancy management and faster database lock etc. Main objectives behind CRF development are preserving and maintaining quality and integrity of data. CRF design should be standardized to address the needs of all users such as investigator, site coordinator, study monitor, data entry personnel, medical coder and statistician. Data should be organized in a format that facilitates and simplifies data analysis. Collection of large amount of data will result in wasted resources in collecting and processing it and in many circumstances, will not be utilized for analysis. Apart from that, standard guidelines should be followed while designing the CRF. CRF completion manual should be provided to the site personnel to promote accurate data entry by them. ('''[[Journal:Basics of case report form designing in clinical research|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 />
 
''Recently featured'':
<br />
{{flowlist |
''Recently featured'': [[Journal:Why health services research needs geoinformatics: Rationale and case example|Why health services research needs geoinformatics: Rationale and case example]], [[Journal:Return on investment in electronic health records in primary care practices: A mixed-methods study|Return on investment in electronic health records in primary care practices: A mixed-methods study]], [[Journal:Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: A systematic review|Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: A systematic review]]
* [[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"