Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31830968›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Experiences from Decentralised Radiological Services in Norway - a rural case study.

Aud Mette Myklebust, Hilde Eide, Brian Ellis, Rona Beattie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Aud Mette MyklebustDepartment of Optometry, Radiography and Lighting Design, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences University of South-Eastern Norway, Postboks 235, 3603, Kongsberg, Norway. aud.mette.myklebust@usn.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5315-7250
Hilde EideScience Centre Health and Technology, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway.
Brian EllisSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, Scotland, UK.
Rona BeattieGlasgow School for Business and Society, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road,Glasgow G4 0BA, Scotland, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation of the Norwegian government's Coordination Reform (2012) aims to decentralise health care services from centralised hospitals to local communities. Radiological services in Norway are mainly organised in hospitals, because of the significant financial and human resource demands engendered by the need for advanced technological equipment, and specialised staff. Some selected conventional x-ray services have been decentralised into rural communities. The purpose of this single case study was to highlight experiences from different stakeholders' of organising decentralised radiological services in a rural area in Norway.

methodsA qualitative single case study design was adopted, collected data using focus groups with healthcare professionals and managers to obtain stakeholder's experiences of the radiological services in this rural area. The key emergent themes from the literature, decentralisation, quality, professional roles, organisation and economic consequences were discussed with each focus group. Thematic analysis was used for analyzing the primary data collected.

resultsFour main themes emerged from the focus groups: 1) organisation, 2) quality and safety, 3) funding of radiological services and 4) cooperation between health care professions and health care levels. It was found that the organisation of decentralised radiological services to rural areas is challenging because of the way health services are structured in Norway. The quality of service was found to be inadequate in some areas because of the superficial level of training given to non-radiographic staff. The experience is that the Norwegian funding system hinders an efficient decentralised health care service. Effective cooperation and responsibility between health care professions and levels was challenging. There needs to be improved co-working by clearly defining roles and responsibilities.

conclusionsA key recommendation for the organisation of rural radiological service was the development of a satellite link with an acute hospital. Quality of the service could be improved and should be given priority. Structural change to the financial system whereby money follows patients, might also facilitate more patientcentred services across healthcare levels. Improved mutual understanding between rural radiological services and hospital specialists and managers is important for a high quality and consistent radiological service to be delivered across Norway.

Indexed as

PoliticsHealth Services ResearchHumansNorwayOrganizational Case StudiesRadiologyRural Health ServicesCase studyCooperationDecentralised radiological serviceFundingOrganisationQuality

Identifiers

PMID31830968
PMCPMC6909618

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.