Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28209558›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

Readiness for Delivering Digital Health at Scale: Lessons From a Longitudinal Qualitative Evaluation of a National Digital Health Innovation Program in the United Kingdom.

Marilyn R Lennon, Matt-Mouley Bouamrane, Alison M Devlin, Siobhan O'Connor, Catherine O'Donnell, Ula Chetty, Ruth Agbakoba, Annemieke Bikker, Eleanor Grieve, Tracy Finch and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
112citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

112 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

13 authors.

Marilyn R LennonDigital Health and Wellness Group, Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3271-2400
Matt-Mouley BouamraneDigital Health and Wellness Group, Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1416-751X
Alison M DevlinGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9407-6465
Siobhan O'ConnorSchool of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8579-1718
Catherine O'DonnellGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5368-3779
Ula ChettyGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9420-7843
Ruth AgbakobaGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9798-6157
Annemieke BikkerGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5188-055X
Eleanor GrieveHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4115-2882
Tracy FinchInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4AX, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8647-735X
Nicholas WatsonSchool of Social and Political Sciences, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0364-427X
Sally WykeSchool of Social and Political Sciences, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7509-8247
Frances S MairGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9780-1135

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health has the potential to support care delivery for chronic illness. Despite positive evidence from localized implementations, new technologies have proven slow to become accepted, integrated, and routinized at scale.

objectiveThe aim of our study was to examine barriers and facilitators to implementation of digital health at scale through the evaluation of a £37m national digital health program: ‟Delivering Assisted Living Lifestyles at Scale" (dallas) from 2012-2015.

methodsThe study was a longitudinal qualitative, multi-stakeholder, implementation study. The methods included interviews (n=125) with key implementers, focus groups with consumers and patients (n=7), project meetings (n=12), field work or observation in the communities (n=16), health professional survey responses (n=48), and cross program documentary evidence on implementation (n=215). We used a sociological theory called normalization process theory (NPT) and a longitudinal (3 years) qualitative framework analysis approach. This work did not study a single intervention or population. Instead, we evaluated the processes (of designing and delivering digital health), and our outcomes were the identified barriers and facilitators to delivering and mainstreaming services and products within the mixed sector digital health ecosystem.

resultsWe identified three main levels of issues influencing readiness for digital health: macro (market, infrastructure, policy), meso (organizational), and micro (professional or public). Factors hindering implementation included: lack of information technology (IT) infrastructure, uncertainty around information governance, lack of incentives to prioritize interoperability, lack of precedence on accountability within the commercial sector, and a market perceived as difficult to navigate. Factors enabling implementation were: clinical endorsement, champions who promoted digital health, and public and professional willingness.

conclusionsAlthough there is receptiveness to digital health, barriers to mainstreaming remain. Our findings suggest greater investment in national and local infrastructure, implementation of guidelines for the safe and transparent use and assessment of digital health, incentivization of interoperability, and investment in upskilling of professionals and the public would help support the normalization of digital health. These findings will enable researchers, health care practitioners, and policy makers to understand the current landscape and the actions required in order to prepare the market and accelerate uptake, and use of digital health and wellness services in context and at scale.

Indexed as

Evaluation Studies as TopicHumansLongitudinal StudiesNational Health ProgramsUnited Kingdomcommunity health servicesdiffusion of innovationelectronic health recordshealth plan implementationhealth services researchinstrumentationmedical informaticsqualitative researchtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID28209558
PMCPMC5334516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.