Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Research Protocols
Date Submitted: Mar 26, 2021
Date Accepted: Jun 14, 2021
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Examining Mental Workload Relating to Digital Health Technologies in Health Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review Focusing on Assessment Methods
ABSTRACT
Background:
The workload in healthcare is steadily increasing - physicians and nurses report stress as well as a very demanding environment with complex and multiple tasks. As a result, mental health issues are on the rise among health care professionals, the proneness to errors in tasks could increase. The digitization of patient care is intended to counteract processes of demographic change, which are partly the cause of higher stress levels. It remains unclear whether the health information systems (HIS) and digital health technologies (DHT) used relieve the professionals or even represent a further burden. The mental construct that describes this burden of technologies is Mental Workload (MWL). Work in the clinic can be viewed as working in safety-critical environments. Particularly in this sensitive setting, the measurement methods of MWL are relevant - mainly due to their strongly differing intrusiveness and sensitivity. The method of eye tracking could provide a useful way to be able to measure MWL directly in the field.
Objective:
The systematic review addresses two different, but related objectives. 1. In which manner do DHT contribute to the overall MWL of health care workers: 1.1. Can we observe a direct or indirect effect of DHT on MWL? 1.2. Which aspects or factors of DHT contribute to an increase of MWL? 2. Which methods/ assessments are applied to measure MWL related to HIS/ DHT? 2.1. Which role does eye tracking/ pupillometry play in context of measure? 2.2. Which outcomes are being assessed via eye tracking?
Methods:
Following the PRISMA statement, we conduct a systematic review. Based on the research question, we define keywords that we then combine in search terms. The review follows the following steps: literature search, article selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, data analysis and data synthesis.
Results:
As the systematic review is currently ongoing, no results are available yet. The preliminary searches have been completed, the piloting of the study selection process as well as the formal screening against eligibility criteria has started. We are currently analyzing the data and expect to complete the review in spring 2021.
Conclusions:
We are expecting conclusions after finalizing the review. Clinical Trial: PROSPERO registration: CRD42021233271; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021233271&ID=CRD42021233271
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.