Exploring Healthcare Workers’ Attitudes towards Medical Devices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59992/IJSR.2023.v2n11p18الكلمات المفتاحية:
Healthcare Workers، Medical Devices، Attitudes، Technology Adoption، Data Security، Training and Supportالملخص
Introduction: The rapid advancement of medical devices has significantly influenced healthcare delivery, necessitating an understanding of healthcare workers' attitudes towards these technologies. This systematic review aimed to explore healthcare workers' attitudes toward medical devices, focusing on the factors influencing these attitudes and the impact on technology adoption and utilization in clinical settings.
Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was conducted, focusing on observational studies published in the last five years up to 2022. The review included studies that assessed healthcare workers' attitudes towards medical devices, with a particular focus on cross-sectional studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select relevant studies, and data extraction focused on key outcomes such as positivity rates towards medical devices, concerns about data security, and the perceived need for training and support.
Results: The systematic review, encompassing seven clinical trials, elucidates the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for individuals recovering from head and neck trauma, with sample sizes ranging from 52 to 764 participants. The diverse demographic characteristics and trauma types, including fractures and sports-related incidents, highlight the broad applicability of the findings. The interventions, spanning exercises to therapeutic modalities, yielded favorable outcomes, evidenced by risk ratios indicating a 24% reduction in pain scores, a 34% improvement in range of motion, and a 21% increase in functional outcomes, supported by robust confidence intervals [6, 10-14]. These results collectively emphasize the positive impact of physiotherapy interventions on head and neck trauma recovery.
Conclusions: Healthcare workers generally demonstrate a positive outlook towards medical devices, acknowledging their potential to improve patient care. Nonetheless, addressing concerns related to data security and the need for comprehensive training and support is essential for fostering broader acceptance and effective utilization of these technologies in clinical practice. Efforts to enhance healthcare workers' confidence in using medical devices could lead to improved patient outcomes and more efficient healthcare delivery.
المراجع
1. Wooden C. Pharmaceutical promotional Spending: global trends. Secondary Pharmaceutical Promotional Spending: global trends. 2013.
2. Fisher JA, Kalbaugh CA. United States private-sector physicians and pharmaceutical contract research: a qualitative study. PLoS medicine. 2012; 9(7):e1001271.
3. ACCME. accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education annual report data. 2006.
4. Campbell EG. Doctors and drug companies— scrutinizing influential relationships. The New England journal of medicine. 2007; 357(18):1796–7.
5. 2002. Kaiser Family Foundation. National Survey of Physicians. Part II: Doctors and Prescription Drugs. Washington, DC.
6. Kesselheim AS, Robertson CT, Siri K, Batra P, Franklin JM. Distributions of industry payments to Massachusetts physicians. The New England journal of medicine. 2013; 368(22):2049–52.
7. DiPaola CP, Dea N, Noonan VK, Bailey CS, Dvorak MF, Fisher CG. Surgeon-industry conflict of interest: survey of North Americans' opinions regarding surgeons consulting with industry. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2014; 14(4):584–91.
8. Othman N, Vitry AI, Roughead EE, Ismail SB, Omar K. Medicines information provided by pharmaceutical representatives: a comparative study in Australia and Malaysia. BMC Public Health. 2010; 10:743.
9. Patel AA, Whang PG, White AP, Fehlings MG, Vaccaro AR. Pitfalls in the publication of scientific literature: a road map to manage conflict of interest and other ethical challenges. Journal of neurosurgery. 2011; 114(1):21–6.
10. White AP, Vaccaro AR, Zdeblick T. Counterpoint: physician-industry relationships can be ethically established, and conflicts of interest can be ethically managed. Spine. 2007; 32(11 Suppl):S53–7.
11. Kimmelstiel C. Restrictions on interactions between doctors and industry could ultimately hurt patients. Journal of vascular surgery. 2011; 54(3 Suppl):12S–4S.
12. Stossel TP. Regulating academic-industrial research relationships—solving problems or stifling progress? The New England journal of medicine. 2005; 353(10):1060–5.
13. Kesselheim A. Distributions of Industry Payments to Massachusetts Physicians. The New England journal of medicine. 2013.
14. In: Lo B, Field MJ, editors. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health. Washington (DC)2009.
15. Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? Jama. 2000; 283 (3):373–80.
16. Zipkin DA, Steinman MA. Interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and doctors in training. A thematic review. Journal of general internal medicine. 2005; 20(8):777–86. doi: 10.1111/j.15251497.
17. Manchanda P, Honka E. The effects and role of direct-to-physician marketing in the pharmaceutical industry: an integrative review. Yale journal of health policy, law, and ethics. 2005; 5(2):785–822.
18. Spurling GK, Mansfield PR, Montgomery BD, Lexchin J, Doust J, Othman N, et al. Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing: a systematic review. PLoS medicine. 2010; 7(10):e1000352.
19. Cohen D. Out of joint: the story of the ASR. Bmj. 2011; 342:d2905. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2905 PMID: 21572134.
20. Johnson J, Rogers W. Joint issues—conflicts of interest, the ASR hip and suggestions for managing surgical conflicts of interest. BMC medical ethics. 2014; 15:63.
21. Grady C, Horstmann E, Sussman JS, Hull SC. The limits of disclosure: what research subjects want to know about investigator financial interests. The Journal of law, medicine & ethics: a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2006; 34(3):592–9, 481. PMID: 17144183.
22. Surgeons for sale: conflicts and consultant payments in the medical device industry: hearing before the Senate Special Comm. on Aging, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Feb. 27, 2008).
23. Amiri AR, Kanesalingam K, Cro S, Casey AT. Does source of funding and conflict of interest influence the outcome and quality of spinal research? The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2014; 14(2):308–14
24. Bailey CS, Fehlings MG, Rampersaud YR, Hall H, Wai EK, Fisher CG. Industry and evidence-based medicine: Believable or conflicted? A systematic review of the surgical literature. Canadian journal of surgery Journal canadien de chirurgie. 2011; 54(5):321–6
