Introduction Healthcare providers in the rural areas of the U.S., like the rest of the nation, are dependent on evidenced based practice literature to supplement their practice. The cost to provide the “brick and mortar” type access to nationalized databanks is an added expense to the restricted budget present is many communities. According to Carter-Templeton & Wu, having access and skill to utilized mobile medical applications (MMA) on personal devices makes the required information easily accessible. Information and usability of the MMAs can affect the outcome of not only the providers but also their clients as well (Biediger-Friedman, Crixell, Silva, Markides & Smith, 2016.) A study conducted in Australia by Wilcox, et al, (2015)
…show more content…
References to the authorship of each article were grouped together in a separate Reference page away from the article The evidence tables displayed under each of the disease categories, had tables with each study and the level of research applied. There was also listed a page of names of the general reviewers, other than the seven persons selected by the CDC, who contributed to the reviewed material. No actual number of topics was listed, but twenty-two disease process guidelines were available. The app reported the methods of evaluation of each guideline as systematically reviewed in 2010 (with the exception of HVA and HBV, previously reviewed), and reviewed informally as updated information became available. The CDC publishes weekly reports of professional writings allowing for the possibility of weekly updates. .Periodic systematic reviews are conducted as information becomes available. Three to seven persons, selected by the CDC, review new information. If no new information is applicable to the existing guidelines, no updates are made. I may use this app in my clinical practice on occasion as I begin collaborating with patients in their care. Due to the limited data readily available to reference, I would only use this app when I had no other resources available. I would rather …show more content…
While this MMA was developed by Thomas Hale, Ph.D., R.Ph, as a supplement to his “go-to” medication guidebook for lactating mothers, it leaves questions to be answered when evaluated. The actual MMA did not score well with the evaluation tool used. Questions not answered within the MMA were referred to the InfantRisk Center, founded in 2011, where a research team can assist with care. Although the safety rating scale for topics covered implies evidence-based peer-reviewed research, the information is not provided within the app. Individual practitioners using this MMA are advised to use the information as a guide only Score = 38.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the evaluations of the MMA listed above show an open opportunity for further research for clearer, more reliable research with evidence. As reported by Martinez-Perez, Torre-Diez,&Lopez-Coronado in 2013, “Assistive and monitoring apps are shown to be frequently used, whereas informational and educational apps are only occasionally used.” Careful evaluation of all research is key to safe practice. I urge all practitioners to conduct frequent evaluations of their current and future practices to provide a safer environment for us
References to the authorship of each article were grouped together in a separate Reference page away from the article The evidence tables displayed under each of the disease categories, had tables with each study and the level of research applied. There was also listed a page of names of the general reviewers, other than the seven persons selected by the CDC, who contributed to the reviewed material. No actual number of topics was listed, but twenty-two disease process guidelines were available. The app reported the methods of evaluation of each guideline as systematically reviewed in 2010 (with the exception of HVA and HBV, previously reviewed), and reviewed informally as updated information became available. The CDC publishes weekly reports of professional writings allowing for the possibility of weekly updates. .Periodic systematic reviews are conducted as information becomes available. Three to seven persons, selected by the CDC, review new information. If no new information is applicable to the existing guidelines, no updates are made. I may use this app in my clinical practice on occasion as I begin collaborating with patients in their care. Due to the limited data readily available to reference, I would only use this app when I had no other resources available. I would rather …show more content…
While this MMA was developed by Thomas Hale, Ph.D., R.Ph, as a supplement to his “go-to” medication guidebook for lactating mothers, it leaves questions to be answered when evaluated. The actual MMA did not score well with the evaluation tool used. Questions not answered within the MMA were referred to the InfantRisk Center, founded in 2011, where a research team can assist with care. Although the safety rating scale for topics covered implies evidence-based peer-reviewed research, the information is not provided within the app. Individual practitioners using this MMA are advised to use the information as a guide only Score = 38.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the evaluations of the MMA listed above show an open opportunity for further research for clearer, more reliable research with evidence. As reported by Martinez-Perez, Torre-Diez,&Lopez-Coronado in 2013, “Assistive and monitoring apps are shown to be frequently used, whereas informational and educational apps are only occasionally used.” Careful evaluation of all research is key to safe practice. I urge all practitioners to conduct frequent evaluations of their current and future practices to provide a safer environment for us