Anne Mainz, Julia Nitsche, Vera Weirauch, Sven Meister
{"title":"衡量卫生专业人员的数字化能力:范围审查。","authors":"Anne Mainz, Julia Nitsche, Vera Weirauch, Sven Meister","doi":"10.2196/55737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digital competence is listed as one of the key competences for lifelong learning and is increasing in importance not only in private life but also in professional life. There is consensus within the health care sector that digital competence (or digital literacy) is needed in various professional fields. However, it is still unclear what exactly the digital competence of health professionals should include and how it can be measured.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the common definitions of digital literacy in scientific literature in the field of health care and the existing measurement instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Peer-reviewed scientific papers from the last 10 years (2013-2023) in English or German that deal with the digital competence of health care workers in both outpatient and inpatient care were included. The databases ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed, EBSCOhost, MEDLINE, OpenAIRE, ERIC, OAIster, Cochrane Library, CAMbase, APA PsycNet, and Psyndex were searched for literature. The review follows the JBI methodology for scoping reviews, and the description of the results is based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search identified 1682 papers, of which 46 (2.73%) were included in the synthesis. The review results show that there is a strong focus on technical skills and knowledge with regard to both the definitions of digital competence and the measurement tools. A wide range of competences were identified within the analyzed works and integrated into a validated competence model in the areas of technical, methodological, social, and personal competences. The measurement instruments mainly used self-assessment of skills and knowledge as an indicator of competence and differed greatly in their statistical quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The identified multitude of subcompetences illustrates the complexity of digital competence in health care, and existing measuring instruments are not yet able to reflect this complexity.</p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":"10 ","pages":"e55737"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11015375/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring the Digital Competence of Health Professionals: Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Anne Mainz, Julia Nitsche, Vera Weirauch, Sven Meister\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/55737\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digital competence is listed as one of the key competences for lifelong learning and is increasing in importance not only in private life but also in professional life. There is consensus within the health care sector that digital competence (or digital literacy) is needed in various professional fields. However, it is still unclear what exactly the digital competence of health professionals should include and how it can be measured.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the common definitions of digital literacy in scientific literature in the field of health care and the existing measurement instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Peer-reviewed scientific papers from the last 10 years (2013-2023) in English or German that deal with the digital competence of health care workers in both outpatient and inpatient care were included. The databases ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed, EBSCOhost, MEDLINE, OpenAIRE, ERIC, OAIster, Cochrane Library, CAMbase, APA PsycNet, and Psyndex were searched for literature. The review follows the JBI methodology for scoping reviews, and the description of the results is based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search identified 1682 papers, of which 46 (2.73%) were included in the synthesis. The review results show that there is a strong focus on technical skills and knowledge with regard to both the definitions of digital competence and the measurement tools. A wide range of competences were identified within the analyzed works and integrated into a validated competence model in the areas of technical, methodological, social, and personal competences. The measurement instruments mainly used self-assessment of skills and knowledge as an indicator of competence and differed greatly in their statistical quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The identified multitude of subcompetences illustrates the complexity of digital competence in health care, and existing measuring instruments are not yet able to reflect this complexity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"e55737\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11015375/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/55737\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/55737","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Measuring the Digital Competence of Health Professionals: Scoping Review.
Background: Digital competence is listed as one of the key competences for lifelong learning and is increasing in importance not only in private life but also in professional life. There is consensus within the health care sector that digital competence (or digital literacy) is needed in various professional fields. However, it is still unclear what exactly the digital competence of health professionals should include and how it can be measured.
Objective: This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the common definitions of digital literacy in scientific literature in the field of health care and the existing measurement instruments.
Methods: Peer-reviewed scientific papers from the last 10 years (2013-2023) in English or German that deal with the digital competence of health care workers in both outpatient and inpatient care were included. The databases ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed, EBSCOhost, MEDLINE, OpenAIRE, ERIC, OAIster, Cochrane Library, CAMbase, APA PsycNet, and Psyndex were searched for literature. The review follows the JBI methodology for scoping reviews, and the description of the results is based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.
Results: The initial search identified 1682 papers, of which 46 (2.73%) were included in the synthesis. The review results show that there is a strong focus on technical skills and knowledge with regard to both the definitions of digital competence and the measurement tools. A wide range of competences were identified within the analyzed works and integrated into a validated competence model in the areas of technical, methodological, social, and personal competences. The measurement instruments mainly used self-assessment of skills and knowledge as an indicator of competence and differed greatly in their statistical quality.
Conclusions: The identified multitude of subcompetences illustrates the complexity of digital competence in health care, and existing measuring instruments are not yet able to reflect this complexity.