Advance Informatics Peer Review: Evaluating Healthcare Applications

This is a peer review post on advance informatics, focusing on a discussion of healthcare applications, particularly non-pharmacological electronic health records (EHRs). The author engages with a peer's review, addressing questions about consumer health connectivity tools like period tracker apps and What to Expect, while also raising concerns about their reliability and potential conflicts with healthcare expert advice. The post emphasizes the importance of nursing professionals in promoting health literacy and critically evaluating such applications, suggesting that while these tools can be beneficial, they should not replace professional medical advice. The discussion also covers the integration of taxonomical vocabularies into EHRs and argues that this may not benefit patients with low health literacy. The author concludes by advocating for increased awareness among nursing professionals regarding the potential impact of non-pharmacological applications on public health.

Running head: ADVANCE INFORMATICS PEER REVIEW POST
ADVANCE INFORMATICS PEER REVIEW POST
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1ADVANCE INFORMATICS PEER REVIEW POST
Hi ……….,
It is very encouraging for me to reply to your responses as in each session, you provide
some research and data that enhances my knowledge about the topic. Your previous review
article about two healthcare applications was insightful and while replying to my peer review
comments you again have included several information regarding healthcare intervention and
patient outcome which is very insightful.
You talked about the role of nursing professionals in society and I agree that this is the
profession that people trust the most hence, it is our duty to fulfill those trust and belief of
numerous people we provide interventions to (Bakken & Mead, 1996). Further, we should
utilize our duty to enhance the patient literacy and using our knowledge so that non-
pharmacological EHRs can also become useful in the healthcare system. I strongly agree to your
point regarding the less reliability of non-pharmacological interventions in the form of mobile
applications or websites that provide generalized interventions to people irrespective of their
health conditions (Bakken & Mead, 1996).
However, in your reply, I am unable to find out the answers of the questions I raised
against the two consumer health connectivity tools the period tracker app and What to expect app
you discussed in the previous review section. I discussed that these two applications are useful in
tracking menstrual cycle and help women to understand the appropriate conceiving time and
time to avoid pregnancy (Moglia et al., 2016). However, as the healthcare applications were
developed by some non-pharmacological organizations, the usage were limited to general
prospects and lacked the situations such as untimed period tracking and related pregnancy and
conceiving time. Furthermore, these applications also questioned the interventions provided by

2ADVANCE INFORMATICS PEER REVIEW POST
healthcare experts. Hence, I was expecting a concrete reply on these concerns, whereas
according to my observation you missed on these.
Despite of these, the informations you provided regarding Dr. Bakken and his
observation regarding the healthcare interventions that should be incorporated in the non-
pharmacological EHRs so that those applications can be used in the regular healthcare practices
(Bakken & Mead, 1996). Further, he added that EHRs should be inclusive of the classification
system, taxonomical vocabularies so that the atomic level nursing actions can be achieved
through this practice. However, according to Schulz & Nakamoto (2013), these non-
pharmacological intervention added healthcare applications are used by different individuals,
who might not have adequate knowledge regarding medical taxonomies or terminologies. Hence,
according to Sørensen et al., (2012), adding taxonomical classification will not help those
patients, who lacks medical or healthcare literacy. Therefore, your argument regarding the
transformation of non-pharmacological healthcare applications to atomic level nursing
application will not be able to benefit maximum common populations. Further, according to Koh
et al., (2012), if the non-pharmacological organizations preparing these healthcare applications
provide the advice to refer to nearby healthcare exert in exceptional situations, then it would be
beneficial for the individuals who rely completely on these applications for their respective
needs.
Finally, I would conclude with the point that, as nursing professionals it is our
responsibility to spread the awareness regarding such non-pharmacological applications that can
affect people. For this purpose, we all need to join hands, irrespective of the size of our medical
centers.

3ADVANCE INFORMATICS PEER REVIEW POST

4ADVANCE INFORMATICS PEER REVIEW POST
References
Bakken, S., & Mead, C. N. (1996). Standardized nursing classification systems: Necessary, but
not sufficient, for representing what nurses do. Proceedings: A Conference of the
American Medical Informatics Association. AMIA Fall Symposium, 145-149.
Koh, H. K., Berwick, D. M., Clancy, C. M., Baur, C., Brach, C., Harris, L. M., & Zerhusen, E.
G. (2012). New federal policy initiatives to boost health literacy can help the nation move
beyond the cycle of costly ‘crisis care’. Health Affairs, 31(2), 434-443.
Moglia, M. L., Nguyen, H. V., Chyjek, K., Chen, K. T., & Castaño, P. M. (2016). Evaluation of
smartphone menstrual cycle tracking applications using an adapted APPLICATIONS
scoring system. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 127(6), 1153-1160.
Schulz, P. J., & Nakamoto, K. (2013). Health literacy and patient empowerment in health
communication: the importance of separating conjoined twins. Patient education and
counseling, 90(1), 4-11.
Sørensen, K., Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., & Brand, H.
(2012). Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of
definitions and models. BMC public health, 12(1), 80.