ArticleBMC health services research2015
Understanding the discriminant factors that influence the adoption and use of clinical communities of practice: the ECOPIH case.
Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The aims and effectiveness of communities of practice in healthcare: A systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- How can a community of practice support healthcare professionals navigating new roles? a case study of genetic counsellors employed to work in medical specialities.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Do People Trust in Robot-Assisted Surgery? Evidence from Europe.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Needs assessment for the creation of a community of practice in a community health navigator cohort.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Determinants of Catalan public primary care professionals' intention to use digital clinical consultations (eConsulta) in the post-COVID-19 context: optical illusion or permanent transformation?Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Telemedicine for Remote Surgical Guidance in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Mixed Methods Study of Practitioner Attitudes.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Efficiency as a determinant of loyalty among users of a Community of Clinical Practice: a comparative study between the implementation and consolidation phases.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Behavioral Health's Integration Within a Care Network and Health Care Utilization.Health services research · 2018Article
- Keys to success of a community of clinical practice in primary care: a qualitative evaluation of the ECOPIH project.BMC family practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study presented in this article is to analyse the discriminant factors that have an influence on the use of communities of practice by primary and specialist healthcare professionals (physicians and nurses) for information sharing. Obtaining evidence from an ex-ante analysis to determine what factors explain healthcare professionals' clinical community of practice use allows aspects of its use to be identified.
methodsA theoretical model based on a modified technology acceptance model was used as the analysis tool, and a discriminant analysis was performed. An ad-hoc questionnaire was designed and sent to a study population of 357 professionals from the Badalona-Sant Adrià de Besòs Primary Care Service in Catalonia, Spain, which includes nine primary care centres and three specialist care centres. The study sample was formed by the 166 healthcare professionals who responded.
resultsThe results revealed three main drivers for engagement in a CoP: First, for the whole sample, perceived usefulness for reducing costs associated with clinical practice was the factor with the greatest discriminant power that distinguished between users and non-users, followed by perceived usefulness for improving clinical practice quality, and lastly habitual social media website and application use. Turning to the two sub-samples of healthcare professions (physicians and nurses, respectively), we saw that the usefulness stemming from community of practice use changed. There were differences in the levels of motivation of healthcare professionals with regards to their engagement with CoP. While perceived usefulness for reducing costs associated with clinical practice was the main factor for the physicians, perceived usefulness of the Web 2.0 platform use for communication for improving clinical practice quality and perceived ease of use were the main factors for the nurses.
conclusionsIn the context of communities of practice, the perception of usefulness of Web 2.0 platform use for communication is determined by organisational, technological and social factors. Specifically, the position that professionals have within the healthcare structure and particularly the closer healthcare professionals' activity is to patients and their professional experience of using social networks and ICTs are crucial to explaining the use of such platforms. Public policies promoting Web 2.0 platform use for communication should therefore go beyond the purely technological dimension and consider other professional and social determinants.
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.