145 AI-based risk predictions: Evaluation of pilot DRAAI 5 24. Moore, G.F., et al., Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. Bmj, 2015. 350: p. h1258. 25. Park, S.H. and H.S. Lee, Assessing Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Scales- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Iran J Public Health, 2016. 45(2): p. 122-33. 26. Carpenito, L.J., Handbook of nursing diagnosis 15th ed. 2016: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 27. Defloor, T., et al., EPUAP statement on prevalence and incidence monitoring of pressure ulcer occurrence. J Tissue Viability, 2005. 15(3): p. 20-7. 28. Greup, S., et al., Dynamic pressure ulcer risk predictions for hospitalized patients: development and validation of a machine learning model with an expert group of nurses. medRxiv, 2024: p. 2024.12.16.24319086. 29. Mills, S., Electronic Health Records and Use of Clinical Decision Support. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America, 2019. 31(2): p. 125-131. 30. Garg, A.X., et al., Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. Jama, 2005. 293(10): p. 1223-38. 31. Smith, J.D., D.H. Li, and M.R. Rafferty, The Implementation Research Logic Model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implementation Science, 2020. 15(1): p. 84. 32. Greenhalgh, T. and S. Abimbola, The NASSS Framework - A Synthesis of Multiple Theories of Technology Implementation. Stud Health Technol Inform, 2019. 263: p. 193-204. 33. Watson, J., et al., Overcoming barriers to the adoption and implementation of predictive modeling and machine learning in clinical care: what can we learn from US academic medical centers? JAMIA Open, 2020. 3(2): p. 167-172. 34. Meunier, P.Y., et al., Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review. Ann Fam Med, 2023. 21(1): p. 57-69. 35. Araujo, S.M., P. Sousa, and I. Dutra, Clinical Decision Support Systems for Pressure Ulcer Management: Systematic Review. JMIR Med Inform, 2020. 8(10): p. e21621. 36. Waltz, T.J., et al., Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implementation Science, 2015. 10(1): p. 109. 37. Powell, B.J., et al., A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci, 2015. 10: p. 21. 38. Proctor, E., et al., Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health, 2011. 38(2): p. 65-76. 39. Proctor, E.K., B.J. Powell, and J.C. McMillen, Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science, 2013. 8(1): p. 139. 40. Marikyan, D.P., S. , Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A review., in The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) examines the acceptance of technology, determined by the effects of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions., S. Papagiannidis, Editor. 2023. 41. Elo, S. and H. Kyngas, The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs, 2008. 62(1): p. 107-15. 42. World Health Organization, Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. 2021: Geneva, Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. 43. Maleki Varnosfaderani, S. and M. Forouzanfar, The Role of AI in Hospitals and Clinics: Transforming Healthcare in the 21st Century. Bioengineering (Basel), 2024. 11(4). 44. Ronquillo, C.E., et al., Artificial intelligence in nursing: Priorities and opportunities from an international invitational think-tank of the Nursing and Artificial Intelligence Leadership Collaborative. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2021. 77(9): p. 3707-3717.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw