Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26645639›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

A multi-level qualitative analysis of Telehomecare in Ontario: challenges and opportunities.

Gemma Hunting, Nida Shahid, Yeva Sahakyan, Iris Fan, Crystal R Moneypenny, Aleksandra Stanimirovic, Taylor North, Yelena Petrosyan, Murray D Krahn, Valeria E Rac

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

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. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06274710 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Open Access Digital CommunitY Promoting Self-Care, Peer Support, and HEalth LitEracy (ODYSSEE) for Kidney Health (KH) Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Health Network, TorontoRan2023 to 2026Enrolled344ConditionsChronic Kidney DiseasesArmsODYSSEE-KH
NCT06679309 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Paving a Road Map for Integrated Care Evaluation in Canada: A Mixed Methods Evaluation for Patients With Complex Care Needs in Ontario and Alberta

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of CalgaryRan2025 to 2028Enrolled2,000ConditionsHealth Care Quality, Access, and EvaluationArmsIntegrated care plan
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Gemma HuntingToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Pharmacy Building, 144 College Street, Toronto, M5S 3M2, ON, Canada. gemma.hunting@theta.utoronto.ca.
Nida ShahidToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Pharmacy Building, 144 College Street, Toronto, M5S 3M2, ON, Canada. nida.shahid@theta.utoronto.ca.
Yeva SahakyanToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Pharmacy Building, 144 College Street, Toronto, M5S 3M2, ON, Canada. yeva.sahakyan@theta.utoronto.ca.
Iris FanUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. iris.s.w.fan@gmail.com.
Crystal R MoneypennyLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, 144 College Street, Toronto, M5S 3M2, ON, Canada. crystal.moneypenny@mail.utoronto.ca.
Aleksandra StanimirovicToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Pharmacy Building, 144 College Street, Toronto, M5S 3M2, ON, Canada. aleksandra.stanimirovic@theta.utoronto.ca.
Taylor NorthBloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, M5T 1P8, ON, Canada. taylor.north@mail.utoronto.ca.
Yelena PetrosyanToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Pharmacy Building, 144 College Street, Toronto, M5S 3M2, ON, Canada. yelena.petrosyan@theta.utoronto.ca.
Murray D KrahnToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Pharmacy Building, 144 College Street, Toronto, M5S 3M2, ON, Canada. murray.krahn@theta.utoronto.ca.
Valeria E RacToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Pharmacy Building, 144 College Street, Toronto, M5S 3M2, ON, Canada. valeria.rac@theta.utoronto.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite research demonstrating the potential effectiveness of Telehomecare for people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Heart Failure, broad-scale comprehensive evaluations are lacking. This article discusses the qualitative component of a mixed-method program evaluation of Telehomecare in Ontario, Canada. The objective of the qualitative component was to explore the multi-level factors and processes which facilitate or impede the implementation and adoption of the program across three regions where it was first implemented.

methodsThe study employs a multi-level framework as a conceptual guide to explore the facilitators and barriers to Telehomecare implementation and adoption across five levels: technology, patients, providers, organizations, and structures. In-depth semi-structured interviews and ethnographic observations with program stakeholders, as well as a Telehomecare document review were used to elicit key themes. Study participants (n = 89) included patients and/or informal caregivers (n = 39), health care providers (n = 23), technicians (n = 2), administrators (n = 12), and decision makers (n = 13) across three different Local Health Integration Networks in Ontario.

resultsKey facilitators to Telehomecare implementation and adoption at each level of the multi-level framework included: user-friendliness of Telehomecare technology, patient motivation to participate in the program, support for Telehomecare providers, the integration of Telehomecare into broader health service provision, and comprehensive program evaluation. Key barriers included: access-related issues to using the technology, patient language (if not English or French), Telehomecare provider time limitations, gaps in health care provision for patients, and structural barriers to patient participation related to geography and social location.

conclusionsThough Telehomecare has the potential to positively impact patient lives and strengthen models of health care provision, a number of key challenges remain. As such, further implementation and expansion of Telehomecare must involve continuous assessments of what is working and not working with all stakeholders. Increased dialogue, evaluation, and knowledge translation within and across regions to understand the contextual factors influencing Telehomecare implementation and adoption is required. This can inform decision-making that better reflects and addresses the needs of all program stakeholders.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationHome Care ServicesAgedAged, 80 and overCanadaCaregiversFemaleHealth Facility AdministratorsHealth PersonnelHeart FailureHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedOntarioProgram EvaluationPulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

Identifiers

PMID26645639
PMCPMC4673764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.