ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2017
How Stakeholder Assessment of E-Prescribing Can Help Determine Incentives to Facilitate Management of Care: A Delphi Study.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle research has been conducted on the quality, benefits, costs, and financial considerations associated with health information technology (HIT), particularly informatics technologies such as e-prescribing, from the perspective of all of its stakeholders.
objectivesTo (a) identify the stakeholders involved in e-prescribing and (b) identify and rank order the positives and negatives of e-prescribing from the perspective of stakeholders in order to create a framework for payers, integrated delivery systems, policymakers and legislators, and those who influence public policy to assist them in the development of incentives and payment mechanisms that result in the better management of care.
methodsThe Delphi method was used to enlist a panel of experts in e-prescribing, informatics, and/or HIT who have published in the field. This panel was presented with the results of initial research and an online survey of questions that sought to prioritize the quality, benefit, cost, and financial effects of e-prescribing from the perspective of each stakeholder. Eleven experts completed the first survey, which contained a list of stakeholders and positives and negatives associated with e-prescribing. Nine of the 11 experts completed the second survey, and 7 experts completed the final survey. From the results of these 3 surveys, a framework was presented to 5 framework experts, who were representatives from payers, integrated delivery systems, policymakers and legislators, and those who influence public policy. These framework experts were interviewed regarding the usefulness of the framework from their perspectives.
resultsThe experts added stakeholders and many positives and negatives to the initial list and rank ordered the positives and negatives of e-prescribing from the perspective of each stakeholder. The aggregate results were summarized by stakeholder category. The positives and negatives were categorized as health, finance, effort, time, management, or data concerns. The framework experts evaluated the framework and found it useful.
conclusionsPositives and negatives associated with e-prescribing in the areas of quality, benefits, costs, and financial considerations can be rank ordered from the perspective of each stakeholder. The experts agreed on some points but disagreed on others. For example, they agreed that the main negative of e-prescribing from the perspective of pharmacists and pharmacies was its implementation costs but differed on the importance of providing faster information transfer. A framework was created that could be successfully used by payers, integrated delivery systems, policymakers and legislators, and those who influence public policy for the development of incentives and payment mechanisms. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported by the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number T15LM007088. The authors declare no conflicts of interest in the research. Study concept and design were contributed by DeMuro, Ash, Middleton, and Fletcher. DeMuro took the lead in data collection, along with Ash, and data interpretation was performed by DeMuro, Ash, Madison, Middleton, and Fletcher. The manuscript was written primarily by DeMuro, along with Ash and Middleton, and revised by DeMuro, Madison, and Ash, along with Middleton and Fletcher.
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.