Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32895060›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2020

Using the technology acceptance model to explore health provider and administrator perceptions of the usefulness and ease of using technology in palliative care.

M Nguyen, J Fujioka, K Wentlandt, N Onabajo, I Wong, R S Bhatia, O Bhattacharyya, V Stamenova

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.7field-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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M NguyenWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontaro, M5S 1B2, Canada. megan.nguyen@wchospital.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2413-1406
J FujiokaWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontaro, M5S 1B2, Canada.
K WentlandtWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontaro, M5S 1B2, Canada.
N OnabajoWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontaro, M5S 1B2, Canada.
I WongWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontaro, M5S 1B2, Canada.
R S BhatiaWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontaro, M5S 1B2, Canada.
O BhattacharyyaWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontaro, M5S 1B2, Canada.
V StamenovaWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, 76 Grenville Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontaro, M5S 1B2, Canada.
Women's College Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies have shown that telehealth applications in palliative care are feasible, can improve quality of care, and reduce costs but few studies have focused on user acceptance of current technology applications in palliative care. Furthermore, the perspectives of health administrators have not been explored in palliative care and yet they are often heavily involved, alongside providers, in the coordination and use of health technologies. The study aim was to explore both health care provider and administrator perceptions regarding the usefulness and ease of using technology in palliative care.

methodsThe Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was used as the guiding theoretical framework to provide insight into two key determinants that influence user acceptance of technology (perceived usefulness and ease of use). Semi-structured interviews (n = 18) with health providers and administrators with experience coordinating or using technology in palliative care explored the usefulness of technologies in palliative care and recommendations to support adoption. Interview data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis to identify common, meaningful themes.

resultsFour themes were identified; themes related to perceived usefulness were: enabling remote connection and information-sharing platform. Themes surrounding ease of use included: integration with existing IT systems and user-friendly with ready access to technical support. Telehealth can enable remote connection between patients and providers to help address insufficiencies in the current palliative care environment. Telehealth, as an information sharing platform, could support the coordination and collaboration of interdisciplinary providers caring for patients with palliative needs. However, health technologies need to passively integrate with existing IT systems to enhance providers' workflow and productivity. User-friendliness with ready access to technical support was considered especially important in palliative care as patients often experience diminished function.

conclusionParticipants' perspectives of technology acceptance in palliative care were largely dependent on their potential to help address major challenges in the field without imposing significant burden on providers and patients.

Indexed as

PerceptionAdministrative PersonnelAdultFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedOntarioPalliative CareQualitative ResearchTechnologyEnd-of-lifeHealth technologyPalliative careTelehealth

Identifiers

PMID32895060
PMCPMC7476427
OpenAlexW3083832423

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.