ArticleBMC health services research2020
Implementing a digital patient feedback system: an analysis using normalisation process theory.
Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tele-ophthalmology-enabled and artificial intelligence-ready referral pathway for community optometry referrals of retinal disease: HERMES cluster randomised trial with a diagnostic accuracy study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Stimulating Employability and Job Crafting Behaviour of Physicians: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Understanding digital inclusion through the transformation of services and users: a narrative review and novel framework.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Review
- Implementation process and acceptability of the electronic community health information system among community health workers in Kenya.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Translational framework for implementation evaluation and research: implementation strategies derived from normalization process theory.Implementation science : IS · 2025Article
- Article
- Navigating the Digital Landscape: Embracing Innovation, Addressing Challenges, and Prioritizing Patient-Centric Care.Cureus · 2024Review
- Understanding Employee Voice Behavior Through the Use of Digital Voice Channel in Long-Term Care: Protocol for an Embedded Multiple-Case Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Integrating a community-based continuous mass dog vaccination delivery strategy into the veterinary system of Tanzania: A process evaluation using normalization process theory.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023Article
- Article
- Co-designing new tools for collecting, analysing and presenting patient experience data in NHS services: working in partnership with patients and carers.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Internet-Based Medical Service Use and Eudaimonic Well-Being of Urban Older Adults: A Peer Support and Technology Acceptance Model.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Ensuring patient and public involvement in the transition to AI-assisted mental health care: A systematic scoping review and agenda for design justice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Article
- Digital health capacity and pediatric care quality in LMICs: A large-scale analysis of 5311 health facilities.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient feedback in the English NHS is now widespread and digital methods are increasingly used. Adoption of digital methods depends on socio-technical and contextual factors, alongside human agency and lived experience. Moreover, the introduction of these methods may be perceived as disruptive of organisational and clinical routines. The focus of this paper is on the implementation of a particular digital feedback intervention that was co-designed with health professionals and patients (the DEPEND study).
methodsThe digital feedback intervention was conceptualised as a complex intervention and thus the study focused on the contexts within which it operated, and how the different participants made sense of the intervention and engaged with it (or not). Four health care sites were studied: an acute setting, a mental health setting, and two general practices. Qualitative data was collected through interviews and focus groups with professionals, patients and carers. In total 51 staff, 24 patients and 8 carers were included. Forty-two observations of the use of the digital feedback system were carried out in the four settings. Data analysis was based on modified grounded theory and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) formed the conceptual framework.
resultsDigital feedback made sense to health care staff as it was seen as attractive, fast to complete and easier to analyse. Patients had a range of views depending on their familiarity with the digital world. Patients mentioned barriers such as kiosk not being visible, privacy, lack of digital know-how, technical hitches with the touchscreen. Collective action in maintaining participation again differed between sites because of workload pressure, perceptions of roles and responsibilities; and in the mental health site major organisational change was taking place. For mental health service users, their relationship with staff and their own health status determined their digital use.
conclusionThe potential of digital feedback was recognised but implementation should take local contexts, different patient groups and organisational leadership into account. Patient involvement in change and adaptation of the intervention was important in enhancing the embedding of digital methods in routine feedback. NPT allowed for a in-depth understanding of actions and interactions of both staff and patients.
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.