Digital-Use/Efficiency Phenotypes Versus Professional Role in Explaining Perceived Digital Benefit in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care.

IF 3.4 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Corina Vernic, Ovidiu Bedreag, Dorina Cristina Sulițanu, Liliana Ioana Muntean, Sorin Ursoniu
{"title":"Digital-Use/Efficiency Phenotypes Versus Professional Role in Explaining Perceived Digital Benefit in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care.","authors":"Corina Vernic, Ovidiu Bedreag, Dorina Cristina Sulițanu, Liliana Ioana Muntean, Sorin Ursoniu","doi":"10.3390/healthcare14193306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and Objectives</b>: We compared professional role with digital-use/efficiency phenotype as explanations of perceived digital benefit in anaesthesia and intensive care. <b>Materials and Methods</b>: Cross-sectional survey data from 161 professionals were analysed. Latent class analysis used 12 indicators of technology/educational-resource use and perceived operational efficiency; four benefit items remained external outcomes. Although BIC favoured two classes, a three-class exploratory solution was retained using aBIC, entropy, bootstrap testing, class size and interpretability. Nested logistic models with seniority retained in every model, likelihood-ratio tests and Shapley partitioning of McFadden's pseudo-R<sup>2</sup> compared role and phenotype; pre-planned sensitivity analyses re-estimated the comparison under two- and four-class solutions, with classification-error (BCH) correction and with use-only indicators, and discrimination was internally validated by bootstrap. Descriptive decomposition and Rasch/DIF analyses were exploratory. <b>Results</b>: The three phenotypes (<i>n</i> = 83, 44 and 34; entropy of 0.815) crossed professional boundaries (Cramér's V = 0.439). Phenotype did not improve seniority-and-role models for broad benefit (likelihood ratio 2.4, <i>p</i> = 0.301) or high uncertainty (2.8, <i>p</i> = 0.248), whereas adding role to seniority-and-phenotype models improved fit (23.6 and 26.2; both <i>p</i> < 0.001); this pattern was unchanged across all sensitivity specifications. Role received 68.3% and 62.3% of the Shapley-partitioned pseudo-R<sup>2</sup>, versus 11.9% and 11.4% for phenotype. Exploratory decompositions provided little evidence of an indirect association through adoption breadth or phenotype. Rasch analysis suggested patient safety was easiest and managerial benefit hardest to endorse; person separation reliability was 0.07, and DIF contrasts were descriptive. <b>Conclusions</b>: In this sample, professional role carried more explanatory information about perceived benefit than the exploratory phenotype, and this ranking was robust to class enumeration and classification-error correction. The phenotype findings remain exploratory, and cross-sectional associations do not establish causation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12977,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare","volume":"14 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13665016/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14193306","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Objectives: We compared professional role with digital-use/efficiency phenotype as explanations of perceived digital benefit in anaesthesia and intensive care. Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional survey data from 161 professionals were analysed. Latent class analysis used 12 indicators of technology/educational-resource use and perceived operational efficiency; four benefit items remained external outcomes. Although BIC favoured two classes, a three-class exploratory solution was retained using aBIC, entropy, bootstrap testing, class size and interpretability. Nested logistic models with seniority retained in every model, likelihood-ratio tests and Shapley partitioning of McFadden's pseudo-R2 compared role and phenotype; pre-planned sensitivity analyses re-estimated the comparison under two- and four-class solutions, with classification-error (BCH) correction and with use-only indicators, and discrimination was internally validated by bootstrap. Descriptive decomposition and Rasch/DIF analyses were exploratory. Results: The three phenotypes (n = 83, 44 and 34; entropy of 0.815) crossed professional boundaries (Cramér's V = 0.439). Phenotype did not improve seniority-and-role models for broad benefit (likelihood ratio 2.4, p = 0.301) or high uncertainty (2.8, p = 0.248), whereas adding role to seniority-and-phenotype models improved fit (23.6 and 26.2; both p < 0.001); this pattern was unchanged across all sensitivity specifications. Role received 68.3% and 62.3% of the Shapley-partitioned pseudo-R2, versus 11.9% and 11.4% for phenotype. Exploratory decompositions provided little evidence of an indirect association through adoption breadth or phenotype. Rasch analysis suggested patient safety was easiest and managerial benefit hardest to endorse; person separation reliability was 0.07, and DIF contrasts were descriptive. Conclusions: In this sample, professional role carried more explanatory information about perceived benefit than the exploratory phenotype, and this ranking was robust to class enumeration and classification-error correction. The phenotype findings remain exploratory, and cross-sectional associations do not establish causation.

数字使用/效率表型与专业角色在解释麻醉和重症监护中感知到的数字效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Healthcare
Healthcare Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: Healthcare (ISSN 2227-9032) is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal (free for readers), which publishes original theoretical and empirical work in the interdisciplinary area of all aspects of medicine and health care research. Healthcare publishes Original Research Articles, Reviews, Case Reports, Research Notes and Short Communications. We encourage researchers to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. For theoretical papers, full details of proofs must be provided so that the results can be checked; for experimental papers, full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Additionally, electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculations, experimental procedure, etc., can be deposited along with the publication as “Supplementary Material”.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书