Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29334953›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Care relationships at stake? Home healthcare professionals' experiences with digital medicine dispensers - a qualitative study.

Sigrid Nakrem, Marit Solbjør, Ida Nilstad Pettersen, Hanne Hestvik Kleiven

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sigrid NakremDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. Sigrid.Nakrem@ntnu.no.ORCID 0000-0002-3365-3660
Marit SolbjørDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Ida Nilstad PettersenDepartment of Design, Faculty of Architecture and Design, NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Hanne Hestvik KleivenQueen Maud University College, Trondheim, Norway.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NOQueen Maud University College · NO

Funding

Norges Forskningsråd 226524
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough digital technologies can mitigate the burdens of home healthcare services caused by an ageing population that lives at home longer with complex health problems, research on the impacts and consequences of digitalised remote communication between patients and caregivers is lacking. The present study explores how home healthcare professionals had experienced the introduction of digital medicine dispensers and their influence on patient-caregiver relationships.

methodsThe multi-case study comprised semi-structured interviews with 21 healthcare professionals whose home healthcare service involved using the digital medicine dispensers. The constant comparative method was used for data analyses.

resultsAltogether, interviewed healthcare professionals reported three main technology-related impacts upon their patient-caregiver relationships. First, national and local pressure to increase efficiency had troubled their relationships with patients who suspected that municipalities have sought to lower costs by reducing and digitalising services. Participants reported having to consider such worries when introducing technologies into their services. Second, participants reported a shift towards empowering patients. Digital technology can empower patients who value their independence, whereas safety is more important for other patients. Healthcare professionals needed to ensure that replacing care tasks with technology implies safe and improved care. Third, the safety and quality of digital healthcare services continues to depend upon surveillance and control mechanisms that compensate for less face-to-face monitoring. Participants did not consider the possibility that surveillance exposes information about patients' everyday lives to be problematic, but to constitute opportunities for adjusting services to meet patients' needs.

conclusionsTechnologies such as digital medicine dispensers can improve the efficiency of healthcare services and enhance patients' independence when introduced in a way that empowers patients as well as safeguards trust and service quality. Conversely, the patient-caregiver relationship can suffer if the technology does not meet patients' needs and fails to offer safe and trustworthy services. Upon introducing technology, home healthcare professionals therefore need to carefully consider the benefits and possible disadvantages of the technology. Ethical implications for both individuals and societies need to be further discussed.

Indexed as

Home Health AidesProfessional-Patient RelationsTelemedicineAttitude to ComputersCommunicationFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHome Care ServicesHumansMaleNorwayPatient Education as TopicPatient SatisfactionQualitative ResearcheHealthEmpowermentHealthcare professionalsHealth technologyHome healthcareImplementationIndependent livingInnovationQualitative methodRemote surveillance

Identifiers

PMID29334953
PMCPMC5769443
OpenAlexW2783974868

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.