Jennifer E Prey1, Janet Woollen1, Lauren Wilcox2, Alexander D Sackeim3, George Hripcsak1, Suzanne Bakken4, Susan Restaino5, Steven Feiner2, David K Vawdrey1. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 3. College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA NewYork Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review existing literature regarding patient engagement technologies used in the inpatient setting. METHODS: PubMed, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that discussed patient engagement ('self-efficacy', 'patient empowerment', 'patient activation', or 'patient engagement'), (2) involved health information technology ('technology', 'games', 'electronic health record', 'electronic medical record', or 'personal health record'), and (3) took place in the inpatient setting ('inpatient' or 'hospital'). Only English language studies were reviewed. RESULTS: 17 articles were identified describing the topic of inpatient patient engagement. A few articles identified design requirements for inpatient engagement technology. The remainder described interventions, which we grouped into five categories: entertainment, generic health information delivery, patient-specific information delivery, advanced communication tools, and personalized decision support. CONCLUSIONS: Examination of the current literature shows there are considerable gaps in knowledge regarding patient engagement in the hospital setting and inconsistent use of terminology regarding patient engagement overall. Research on inpatient engagement technologies has been limited, especially concerning the impact on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review existing literature regarding patient engagement technologies used in the inpatient setting. METHODS: PubMed, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that discussed patient engagement ('self-efficacy', 'patient empowerment', 'patient activation', or 'patient engagement'), (2) involved health information technology ('technology', 'games', 'electronic health record', 'electronic medical record', or 'personal health record'), and (3) took place in the inpatient setting ('inpatient' or 'hospital'). Only English language studies were reviewed. RESULTS: 17 articles were identified describing the topic of inpatient patient engagement. A few articles identified design requirements for inpatient engagement technology. The remainder described interventions, which we grouped into five categories: entertainment, generic health information delivery, patient-specific information delivery, advanced communication tools, and personalized decision support. CONCLUSIONS: Examination of the current literature shows there are considerable gaps in knowledge regarding patient engagement in the hospital setting and inconsistent use of terminology regarding patient engagement overall. Research on inpatient engagement technologies has been limited, especially concerning the impact on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: T Delbanco; D M Berwick; J I Boufford; S Edgman-Levitan; G Ollenschläger; D Plamping; R G Rockefeller Journal: Health Expect Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Cynthia J Sieck; Daniel M Walker; Jennifer L Hefner; Jaclyn Volney; Timothy R Huerta; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Janet Woollen; Jennifer Prey; Lauren Wilcox; Alexander Sackeim; Susan Restaino; Syed T Raza; Suzanne Bakken; Steven Feiner; George Hripcsak; David Vawdrey Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Ruth M Masterson Creber; Lisa V Grossman; Beatriz Ryan; Min Qian; Fernanda C G Polubriaginof; Susan Restaino; Suzanne Bakken; George Hripcsak; David K Vawdrey Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sonali R Mishra; Andrew D Miller; Shefali Haldar; Maher Khelifi; Jordan Eschler; Rashmi G Elera; Ari H Pollack; Wanda Pratt Journal: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst Date: 2018-04-21