ArticleDigital health
Expectancy, usage and acceptance by general practitioners and patients: exploratory results from a study in the German outpatient sector.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Impact of Digitalization on European General Practice From the Perspective of General Practitioners: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of eHealth use on general practice workload in the pre-COVID-19 era: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Social, Organizational, and Technological Factors Impacting Clinicians' Adoption of Mobile Health Tools: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Pooled it
- Factors influencing primary care physicians recommending patients to use digital health technologies for self-management: A cross-sectional study across 20 countries.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- Acceptance of a Web-Based Intervention in Individuals Who Committed Sexual Offenses Against Children: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Willingness to use remote patient monitoring among cardiovascular patients in a resource-limited setting: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Expectations of new technologies in nursing care among hospital patients in Germany - an interview study.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- The Association between mHealth App Use and Healthcare Satisfaction among Clients at Outpatient Clinics: A Cross-Sectional Study in Inner Mongolia, China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Comparing the Acceptance of Mobile Hypertension Apps for Disease Management Among Patients Versus Clinical Use Among Physicians: Cross-sectional Survey.JMIR cardio · 2022Article
- Acceptance, Barriers, and Future Preferences of Mobile Health Among Patients Receiving Trauma and Orthopedic Surgical Care: Paper-Based Survey in a Prospective Multicenter Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Article
- Factors Impacting Clinicians' Adoption of a Clinical Photo Documentation App and its Implications for Clinical Workflows and Quality of Care: Qualitative Case Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Patients' Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators to the Adoption of E-Hospitals: Cross-Sectional Study in Western China.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Accuracy of a Chatbot (Ada) in the Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: Comparative Case Study With Lay and Expert Users.JMIR formative research · 2019Article
- Safe, sound and desirable: development of mHealth apps under the stress of rapid life cycles.mHealth · 2017Article
- Article
- Review
- Adolescents' participation in their healthcare: A sociomaterial investigation of a diabetes app.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study's objective was to assess factors contributing to the use of smart devices by general practitioners (GPs) and patients in the health domain, while specifically addressing the situation in Germany, and to determine whether, and if so, how both groups differ in their perceptions of these technologies.
methodsGPs and patients of resident practices in the Hannover region, Germany, were surveyed between April and June 2014. A total of 412 GPs in this region were invited by email to participate via an electronic survey, with 50 GPs actually doing so (response rate 12.1%). For surveying the patients, eight regional resident practices were visited by study personnel (once each). Every second patient arriving there (inclusion criteria: of age, fluent in German) was asked to take part (paper-based questionnaire). One hundred and seventy patients participated; 15 patients who did not give consent were excluded.
resultsThe majority of the participating patients (68.2%, 116/170) and GPs (76%, 38/50) owned mobile devices. Of the patients, 49.9% (57/116) already made health-related use of mobile devices; 95% (36/38) of the participating GPs used them in a professional context. For patients, age (
conclusionsGPs and patients use smart mobile devices to serve their specific interests. However, the full potentials of mobile technologies for health purposes are not yet being taken advantage of. Doctors as well as other care providers and the patients should work together on exploring and realising the potential benefits of the technology.
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.