ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2007
Telehomecare technology across sectors: claims of jurisdiction and emerging controversies.
Article in International journal of integrated care, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers to the Integration of Care in Inter-Organisational Settings: A Literature Review.International journal of integrated care · 2018Article
- Personalized Telehealth in the Future: A Global Research Agenda.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Article
- Determinants of use and non-use of a web-based communication system in cerebral palsy care: evaluating the association between professionals' system use and their a priori expectancies and background.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2011Article
- Development of a program for tele-rehabilitation of COPD patients across sectors: co-innovation in a network.International journal of integrated care · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to explore and identify inter-organisational and inter-professional controversies that emerge when telehomecare technology is implemented across healthcare sectors. THEORY: A combined inter-organisational and inter-professional perspective constitutes the conceptual framework for this study.
methodsThe case study approach was applied as the overall methodology of the study. A triangulation of data collection techniques was used in order to provide multiple sources of evidence for exploring and identifying controversies (documents, participant observation, qualitative interviews, focus group interviews).
findingsDuring the design and implementation phases of a telehomecare system, several types of controversies emerged as part of the inter-organisational and inter-professional agenda. These controversies involved competing claims of jurisdiction, controversies over knowledge technologies, or differences in network visions and network architecture. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe identification of such controversies and differences in the design and implementation process of the concept of home hospitalisation for heart patients by means of telehomecare technology can contribute to the uncovering of new knowledge. These issues should be taken into account when initiating a telehomecare project and implementing telehomecare technology. Technology in a network and across inter-professional relations poses a challenge to this new field. There is a particular need to precisely define the claims of jurisdiction, and the accompanying controversies that can arise related to knowledge technologies, network visions and network architecture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.