What We Got Wrong About Hardness Factor Self Test?


What is the hardness factor self test?

Hardness factor self test is a type of software that gives its users the ability to assess their risk of experiencing oral cancer. The hardness factor self test is a type of software that was developed by the company New Context, and it gives its users the ability to measure their risk for oral cancer. It does this by analyzing their teeth for signs that show an increased likelihood for having cancer. These include: cavity depth, surface roughness, tooth color changes, and gum recession. 

The user then enters in personal information including age, race, gender and smoking history to get a personalized assessment on how they are at risk for developing oral cancer. The users can then compare their risk to the average risk in their area. The hardness factor self test is fast and easy to use, meaning that the user need only focus on the information they have provided and review it after choosing from a list of different options (e.g., lower risk).

What is the purpose of the article?

The purpose of this article is to give an overview of the uses for electronic health record systems. It will provide an overview of electronic health record systems utilized in cancer care, discuss multiple applications associated with EHRs, and outline future areas for growth for EHRs. An overview of electronic health records will be followed by a discussion on their application in cancer care. Multiple applications of these records in cancer care will be discussed. Finally, future directions for growth and development of EHRs will be covered.

When was the article published?

The article, “Electronic Health Record Systems: A Review” was published on 12/01/2011 in the Journal of Cancer Education.

How was this article accessed? 

This article is available through a database that is available at the University at Buffalo Libraries. This database is called the UB CUP, or the University at Buffalo Discovery Center. This article can be found by going to their catalogue and searching for the article titled “Electronic Health Record Systems: A Review”.The author of this article, Adam Schnitzer, was able to access this database and retrieved this article in its entirety.

What are some of the tools that were used?

Articles are written using a variety of tools. The software used in this review was Microsoft Word. The word processing program that can be used for writing an article contains a wide range of features such as font color and size, spell checker and grammar checker. There are also other tools in the application that help with organizing or formatting text. For example, there is a table of contents feature that allows for a comprehensive document to be displayed on screen. There can also be multiple sections within a document such as preparing for publications, using the fund sources and much more.

How was this article reviewed?

This article was reviewed by three members of the Department of Health Education and Promotion at University at Buffalo: Adam Schnitzer, Teena Streker and Fabian Tablante. Each member of this group looked at the article in its entirety and compared their own work regarding cancer care and EHRs with the work in this review.

What are some of the conclusions?

According to this article, there are three main cancer communities that have related funding sources: breast and colorectal cancer specific funding sources and lung cancer. This article also showed that EHRs were a key component of successful community interventions for cancer survivors. EHRs allowed for multiple tasks within these interventions to take place simultaneously. This ability reduced the stress on staff and helped improve patient-provider interaction.

The following table summarizes the inclusion criteria used in a study of 509Electronic health records are a great tool that helps improve patient care and communication. The benefits of EHRs include data-driven decision making. end users in 12 practices throughout the United States (1). All practices had 16 or more providers, 19% had 33 or more providers, and all except one practiced in urban areas. Study subjects were recruited through physician referral and included physicians, office-based medical assistants, registered nurses, and physician’s assistants. All but one practice was in private practice; the latter was part of a chain of family practices. Study participants were interviewed with a semistructured questionnaire that consisted of open-ended questions as well as Likert-type scale questions using visual analog scales.

What are the benefits?

Electronic health records have many benefits, among them are:

Data-driven decision making: 

Electronic health records enable the collection and analysis of large amounts of data. This provides a wealth of information that can be used to make informed decisions about patient care. For example, this information can be used to determine appropriate medication dosages and develop protocols that aim to reduce error and morbidity. Additionally, EHRs facilitate the implementation of quality improvement projects by providing data on how patients with certain characteristics respond to treatment. This allows studies to be conducted on treatments in groups as well as individuals, which leads to better assessments of outcomes and adjustments in treatment protocols if necessary.

Improved communication: 

Communication between provider and patient is often difficult due to the nature of the patient’s condition or diagnosis. However, with EHRs, there is an increase in the level of communication between providers and patients due to the ability to easily print or fax reports in an electronic format. This improves communication by reducing the amount of time that must be dedicated to contacting patients who may be unreachable by phone. Additionally, with EHRs, providers can reach out to their patients in a very efficient manner by printing or faxing reports at their convenience.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here