Skip to main content

Table 3 Medical smartphone app usage as reflected by the closed questions

From: Evidence-based medicine self-assessment, knowledge, and integration into daily practice: a survey among Romanian physicians and comparison between trainees and specialists

Item

Trainees

(n = 170)

Specialists

(n = 80)

p-value

(B02) The use of medical apps, yes a

146 (85.88)

63 (78.75)

0.23

(B03) Reason for using … b

 Curiosity

33 (18.24)

3 (3.75)

0.002

 Allowing quick access to medical information

134 (78.82)

61 (76.25)

0.65

 Most colleagues do it

4 (2.35)

0 (0.00)

0.17

 To save time in identifying solutions to clinical problems

80 (47.06)

29 (36.25)

0.11

(B04) Top five type of medical applications b

 Treatment

93 (54.7)

38 (47.5)

0.29

 “Medical news”

79 (46.5)

30 (37.5)

0.18

 Medical calculators

79 (46.5)

28 (35.0)

0.11

 Diagnosis

61 (35.9)

21 (26.3)

0.13

 “Scoring system”

55 (32.4)

22 (27.5)

0.43

(B05) When do you use the apps? b

 for each patient, regardless of case

23 (13.5)

7 (8.8)

0.29

 for atypical patients

64 (37.6)

31 (38.8)

0.86

 to stay in touch with medical news

42 (24.7)

24 (30.0)

0.38

 at home, for individual study

18 (10.6)

2 (2.5)

0.03

(B06) How can apps improve medical care? b

 Fast search of scientific literature

135 (78.8)

56 (70.0)

0.13

 Shortest time from consultation to diagnosis and treatment

61 (35.9)

19 (23.8)

0.06

 Encouraging continuous medical documentation …

53 (31.2)

28 (35.0)

0.55

 Availability to be used in any circumstance, even at the bedside …

33 (19.4)

13 (16.3)

0.56

(B08) Can mobile medical apps reduce healthcare costs? a

 Yes, because they decrease unnecessary health service requests

50 (29.4)

23 (28.8)

0.92

 Yes, because they avoid further expensive investigation

26 (15.3)

8 (10.0)

0.25

 No

12 (7.1)

4 (5.0)

0.53

 They could cut the future costs of healthcare …

113 (66.5)

51 (63.8)

0.68

(B09) Drawbacks in using medical apps b

 incomplete definitions and treatment regimen

71 (41.8)

25 (31.3)

0.11

 the absence of scientific references to support the evidence

87 (51.2)

26 (32.5)

0.01

 an Internet connection is needed to access scientific articles

56 (32.9)

23 (28.8)

0.52

 non-functional applications

47 (27.6)

12 (15.0)

0.03

 they are limited to English speakers

26 (15.3)

9 (11.3)

0.40

 the readability level is too low

34 (20.0)

9 (11.3)

0.09

(B11) EBM medical apps b

 Explicit references, LE and DR

65 (38.2)

30 (37.5)

0.92

 Only specified the LE

21 (12.4)

7 (8.8)

0.40

 Only specified the DR

26 (15.3)

12 (15.0)

0.95

 Only specified the references

21 (12.4)

10 (12.5)

0.98

 I do not know mobile medical apps that implement EBM

19 (11.2)

3 (3.8)

0.06

 I have not paid attention to this issue

8 (4.7)

0 (0.0)

0.05

  1. The values in the body of the table are absolute frequencies and percentages corresponding to the sample size of each group; For this reason, the sum of percentages may exceed 100; apps Applications, LE Level of evidence, DR Degree of recommendation; a Chi-square test; b Z-test for proportions