The role of health information kiosks in diverse settings: a systematic review

Joshi, Ashish; Trout, Kate

doi:10.1111/hir.12081

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Beyond printed materials, there has been a lack of innovative approaches to education in the waiting room that both robustly utilize available technologies and also attempt to reach underserved groups [9]. Thus, maximizing the appropriateness and efficacy of educational resources for underserved populations requires assessment of the context and thoughtful choice of format.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waiting Room Education in a Community Health System: Provider Perceptions and Suggestions

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing burden of chronic diseases in the United States presents a major challenge to the nation's primary care systems, so improving the efficacy and efficiency of patient education is an important goal. Understanding the current perspectives, practices, and needs of primary care providers should guide innovation towards this end. As a part of the authors' ongoing quality improvement work, a short internet survey was an effective method of enhancing this understanding in one health care system. With a response rate of 24.6 %, the survey revealed that primary care waiting rooms in the health system studied are not conceived of or used by providers as spaces to engage patients in health education. To change this, providers suggested using both printed and technological methods for delivering health information, primarily related to medications, diabetes, and healthy lifestyle practices. Common barriers to improvement cited by providers included diverse language and literacy backgrounds in the patient population, as well as difficulty sustaining change due to infrastructural and administrative barriers. These results suggest steps for development, implementation, and investigation of new educational interventions for patients in the local primary care context.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waiting Room Education in a Community Health System: Provider Perceptions and Suggestions

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Less than half of those that did undertake quality assessment (11 of 26) actually defined what they meant by quality. Eight studies defined quality as an assessment of the methodological quality (Koufogiannakis and Wiebe, 2006;Zhang, Watson, & Banfield, 2007;Joshi & Trout, 2014;Golder & Loke, 2009Perrier et al, 2014;Gagnon et al, 2010;Divall, Camosso-Stefinovic, & Baker., 2013), and three studies (Perrier et al, 2014;Gagnon et al, 2010;Divall et al, 2013) specified quality as the risk of bias. Two studies defined quality assessment as assessing the quality of the study design, or level of evidence (Manning Fiegen, 2010;Ndabarora, Chipps, & Uys, 2014).…”

Section: Reporting Of Quality Assessment Methods In Lis Systematic Rementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of authors undertaking quality assessment in a systematic review ranged from 1 to 8. Three studies (Joshi & Trout, 2014;Manning Fiegen, 2010;Perrier et al, 2014) reported an assessment of the inter-rater agreement of quality assessment between reviewers. Nine studies reported using quality assessment as part of their inclusion and exclusion criteria.…”

Section: Reporting Of Quality Assessment Methods In Lis Systematic Rementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review

Maden¹,

Kotas²

2016

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective – Systematic reviews are becoming increasingly popular within the Library and Information Science (LIS) domain. This paper has three aims: to review approaches to quality assessment in published LIS systematic reviews in order to assess whether and how LIS reviewers report on quality assessment a priori in systematic reviews, to model the different quality assessment aids used by LIS reviewers, and to explore if and how LIS reviewers report on and incorporate the quality of included studies into the systematic review analysis and conclusions. Methods – The authors undertook a methodological study of published LIS systematic reviews using a known cohort of published systematic reviews of LIS-related research. Studies were included if they were reported as a “systematic review” in the title, abstract, or methods section. Meta-analyses that did not incorporate a systematic review and studies in which the systematic review was not a main objective were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies. Data were extracted on the type of synthesis, whether quality assessment was planned and undertaken, the number of reviewers involved in assessing quality, the types of tools or criteria used to assess the quality of the included studies, how quality assessment was assessed and reported in the systematic review, and whether the quality of the included studies was considered in the analysis and conclusions of the review. In order to determine the quality of the reporting and incorporation of quality assessment in LIS systematic reviews, each study was assessed against criteria relating to quality assessment in the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009) and the AMSTAR tool (Shea et al., 2007). Results – Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. The results demonstrate great variation on the breadth, depth, and transparency of the quality assessment process in LIS systematic reviews. Nearly one third of the LIS systematic reviews included in this study did not report on quality assessment in the methods, and less than one quarter adequately incorporated quality assessment in the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Only nine of the 26 systematic reviews that undertook some form of quality assessment incorporated considerations of how the quality of the included studies impacted on the validity of the review findings in the analysis, conclusion, and recommendations. The large number of different quality assessment tools identified reflects not only the disparate nature of the LIS evidence base (Brettle, 2009) but also a lack of consensus around criteria on which to assess the quality of LIS research. Conclusion – Greater clarity, definition, and understanding of the methodology and concept of “quality” in the systematic review process are required not only by LIS reviewers but also by editors of journals in accepting such studies for publication. Further research and guidance is needed on identifying the best tools and approaches to incorporate considerations of quality in LIS systematic reviews. LIS reviewers need to improve the robustness and transparency with which quality assessment is undertaken and reported in systematic reviews. Above all, LIS reviewers need to be explicit in coming to a conclusion on how the quality of the included studies may impact on their review findings.

show abstract

“…The main aim of these solutions is to improve the shopping experience and customer satisfaction by offering them additional services [17]. Another domain increasingly popular is health care, where kiosk-based systems' advantages are well-known [18]. In this field, researchers focus on developing self-service solutions either for health-related information distribution [19], education [20] or health condition monitoring [21].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multifunctional Interactive Furniture for Smart Cities

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adaptation of cities to a future in which connectivity is at the service of the citizens will be a reality by creating interaction spaces and augmented urban areas. The research on this field falls within the scope of Smart Cities (SC) with the advantages that the common public spaces provide as new points for information exchange between the city, the urban furniture and their citizens. Kiosk systems have been recognized as an appropriate mean for providing event-aware and localized information to the right audience at the right time. Hence, in this article, we provide a vision of an eco-system of multifunctional urban furniture, where kiosks are part of them, designed not only for digital interaction but for sustainable use and symbolic integration into the urban environment as well. The proposed approach is conceived to drive services through digital urban nodes that facilitate tailored citizen-city communication and interaction. The central element of the designed platform consists on an intelligent digital kiosk which features a series of hardware and software components for sensing different environmental conditions, multimodal interaction with users and for conveying the captured data to the Cloud. The custom-based contents visualized to the users are controlled remotely through a management tool that allows to set-up and configure the digital kiosk. This system is not presented as an ad-hoc solution for one specific purpose but instead, it becomes a platform that can accommodate and solve the needs of every kind of user that populates urban shared-use spaces.

show abstract

The role of health information kiosks in diverse settings: a systematic review

Cited by 20 publications

References 46 publications

Waiting Room Education in a Community Health System: Provider Perceptions and Suggestions

Waiting Room Education in a Community Health System: Provider Perceptions and Suggestions

Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review

Multifunctional Interactive Furniture for Smart Cities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About