Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33295295›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2020

Health Care Staff's Experiences of Engagement When Introducing a Digital Decision Support System for Wound Management: Qualitative Study.

Hanna Wickström, Hanna Tuvesson, Rut Öien, Patrik Midlöv, Cecilia Fagerström

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Hanna WickströmDepartment of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2632-1780
Hanna TuvessonDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1020-5141
Rut ÖienBlekinge Centre of Competence, Karlskrona, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5056-0186
Patrik MidlövDepartment of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5871-8731
Cecilia FagerströmDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4257-282X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundeHealth solutions such as digital decision support systems (DDSSs) have the potential to assist collaboration between health care staff to improve matters for specific patient groups. Patients with hard-to-heal ulcers have long healing times because of a lack of guidelines for structured diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Multidisciplinary collaboration in wound management teams is essential. A DDSS could offer a way of aiding improvement within wound management. The introduction of eHealth solutions into health care is complicated, and the engagement of the staff seems crucial. Factors influencing and affecting engagement need to be understood and considered for the introduction of a DDSS to succeed.

objectiveThis study aims to describe health care staff's experiences of engagement and barriers to and influencers of engagement when introducing a DDSS for wound management.

methodsThis study uses a qualitative approach. Interviews were conducted with 11 health care staff within primary (n=4), community (n=6), and specialist (n=1) care during the start-up of the introduction of a DDSS for wound management. The interviews focused on the staff's experiences of engagement. Content analysis by Burnard was used in the data analysis process.

resultsA total of 4 categories emerged describing the participants' experiences of engagement: a personal liaison, a professional commitment, an extended togetherness, and an awareness and understanding of the circumstances.

conclusionsThis study identifies barriers to and influencers of engagement, reinforcing that staff experience engagement through feeling a personal liaison and a professional commitment to make things better for their patients. In addition, engagement is nourished by sharing with coworkers and by active support and understanding from leadership.

Indexed as

decision support systems, clinicaleHealthleg ulcermobile phonestaff engagementtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33295295
PMCPMC7758170

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.