Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33315014›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2020

Health Care Professionals' Experience of a Digital Tool for Patient Exchange, Anamnesis, and Triage in Primary Care: Qualitative Study.

Ann Catrine Eldh, Annette Sverker, Preben Bendtsen, Evalill Nilsson

Open access · goldAbstract 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 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Challenges to quality in contemporary, hybrid general practice a multi-site longitudinal case study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Access systems in general practice: a systematic scoping review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ann Catrine EldhDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7737-169X
Annette SverkerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1188-4273
Preben BendtsenDepartment of Medical Specialists in Motala and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5913-2903
Evalill NilssonDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4497-8313
Linköping University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a growing body of knowledge about eHealth innovations, there is still limited understanding of the implementation of such tools in everyday primary care.

objectiveThe objective of our study was to describe health care staff's experience with a digital communication system intended for patient-staff encounters via a digital route in primary care.

methodsIn this qualitative study we conducted 21 individual interviews with staff at 5 primary care centers in Sweden that had used a digital communication system for 6 months. The interviews were guided by narrative queries, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to content analysis.

resultsWhile the digital communication system was easy to grasp, it was nevertheless complex to use, affecting both staffing and routines for communicating with patients, and documenting contacts. Templates strengthened equivalent procedures for patients but dictated a certain level of health and digital literacy for accuracy. Although patients expected a chat to be synchronous, asynchronous communication was extended over time. The system for digital communication benefited assessments and enabled more efficient use of resources, such as staff. On the other hand, telephone contact was faster and better for certain purposes, especially when the patient's voice itself provided data. However, many primary care patients, particularly younger ones, expected digital routes for contact. To match preferences for communicating to a place and time that suited patients was significant; staff were willing to accept some nuisance from a suboptimal service-at least for a while-if it procured patient satisfaction. A team effort, including engaged managers, scaffolded the implementation process, whereas being subjected to a trial without likely success erected barriers.

conclusionsA digital communication system introduced in regular primary care involved complexity beyond merely learning how to manage the tool. Rather, it affected routines and required that both the team and the context were addressed. Further knowledge is needed about what factors facilitate implementation, and how. This study suggested including ethical perspectives on eHealth tools, providing an important but novel aspect of implementation.

Indexed as

communicationcontent analysisdigital technologyeHealthinterviewsprimary health carequalitative researchtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33315014
PMCPMC7769692
OpenAlexW3111031996

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.