Smart-phone Based Geofencing: A Novel Approach to Monitoring Clinical Work Hours in Surgery Residency

Owei, Lily; Luks, Valerie L.; Brooks, Kendall D.; Kelz, Rachel R.; Berns, Jeffrey S.; Aarons, Cary B.

doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.06.024

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two studies used the geofence to track time working from medical practitioners or surgical residents. Owei et al , found the mean number of working hour violations for surgical residents’ post-intervention significantly decreased (p=0.04) compared with pre-intervention and compared with the previous year (p<0.01) 44. Connor and Herzig, showed a significant correlation of early departures from operating room duties following late departures the previous day (p<0.01) and better dispersion of working hours (p=0.002) compared with the previous year 45.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Geofences in most studies (n=5) were fixed and programmed in the mobile application without participant input. These included hospital emergency departments,18 43 hospitals where participants worked44 45 and a specific rural dental clinic 41. Two studies used participants input in determining where to geofence related to smoking42 or problematic alcohol use 46.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies reported data regarding acceptability of the geofencing mobile application in which all participants were positive regarding the value of the intervention. Participants in two studies with indirect intervention found the application useful and described knowledge of being monitored provided a sense of security 43 44. Additionally, participants in two studies did not have concerns regarding the continuous geolocation tracking for intervention purpose,42 44 but did stress the importance of transparency regarding the use of this data 42.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants in two studies with indirect intervention found the application useful and described knowledge of being monitored provided a sense of security 43 44. Additionally, participants in two studies did not have concerns regarding the continuous geolocation tracking for intervention purpose,42 44 but did stress the importance of transparency regarding the use of this data 42. Finally, in one interactive study, participants contributed to the creation and curation of geofenced hot zones as well as the prevention messages received when hot zones were triggered, accounting for 67% of hot zones created and used by the study 23…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, five studies used a cognitive mechanism that provided the participant a sense of safety, security or knowing that their information was captured 45 46. These included reporting to care teams when the participants were hospitalised,18 43 capture of time and effort spent working in a clinical environment,44 45 and participants counsellor viewing their location and interacting with their place-based data of proximity and time spent in high-risk areas for binge drinking 46…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Use of geofencing interventions in population health research: a scoping review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTechnological advancements that use global positioning system (GPS), such as geofencing, provide the opportunity to examine place-based context in population health research. This review aimed to systematically identify, assess and synthesise the existing evidence on geofencing intervention design, acceptability, feasibility and/or impact.DesignScoping review, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance for reporting.Data sourcesPubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane and PsycINFO for articles in English published up to 31 December 2021.Eligibility criteriaArticles were included if geofencing was used as a mechanism for intervention delivery. Exclusion criteria: (1) a component or combination of GPS, geographical information system or ecological momentary assessment was used without delivery of an intervention; (2) did not include a health or health-related outcome from the geofencing intervention; or (3) was not a peer-reviewed study.Data extraction and synthesisSeveral researchers independently reviewed all abstracts and full-text articles for final inclusion.ResultsA total of 2171 articles were found; after exclusions, nine studies were included in the review. The majority were published in 5 years preceding the search (89%). Geofences in most studies (n=5) were fixed and programmed in the mobile application carried by participants without their input. Mechanisms of geofencing interventions were classified as direct or indirect, with five studies (56%) using direct interventions. There were several different health outcomes (from smoking to problematic alcohol use) across the five studies that used a direct geofencing intervention.ConclusionsThis scoping review found geofencing to be an emerging technology that is an acceptable and feasible intervention applied to several different populations and health outcomes. Future studies should specify the rationale for the locations that are geofenced and user input. Moreover, attention to mechanisms of actions will enable scientists to understand not only whether geofencing is an appropriate and effective intervention but why it works to achieve the outcomes observed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%