Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33427670›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

Telemedicine for Remote Surgical Guidance in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Mixed Methods Study of Practitioner Attitudes.

Hedvig Aminoff, Sebastiaan Meijer, Urban Arnelo, Susanne Frennert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hedvig AminoffBiomedical Engineering and Health Systems, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8747-9277
Sebastiaan MeijerBiomedical Engineering and Health Systems, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1126-3781
Urban ArneloDepartment of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Surgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1843-5673
Susanne FrennertDepartment of Computer Science and Media Technology, Internet of Things and People Research Center, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9522-5469
KTH Royal Institute of Technology · SEKarolinska Institutet · SEMalmö University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTelemedicine innovations are rarely adopted into routine health care, the reasons for which are not well understood. Teleguidance, a promising service for remote surgical guidance during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was due to be scaled up, but there were concerns that user attitudes might influence adoption.

objectiveOur objective was to gain a deeper understanding of ERCP practitioners' attitudes toward teleguidance. These findings could inform the implementation process and future evaluations.

methodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with ERCP staff about challenges during work and beliefs about teleguidance. Theoretical constructs from the technology acceptance model (TAM) guided the thematic analysis. Our findings became input to a 16-item questionnaire, investigating surgeons' beliefs about teleguidance's contribution to performance and factors that might interact with implementation.

resultsResults from 20 interviews with ERCP staff from 5 hospitals were used to adapt a TAM questionnaire, exchanging the standard "Ease of Use" items for "Compatibility and Implementation Climate." In total, 23 ERCP specialists from 15 ERCP clinics responded to the questionnaire: 9 novices (<500 ERCP procedures) and 14 experts (>500 ERCP procedures). The average agreement ratings for usefulness items were 64% (~9/14) among experts and 75% (~7/9) among novices. The average agreement ratings for compatibility items were somewhat lower (experts 64% [~9/14], novices 69% [~6/9]). The averages have been calculated from the sum of several items and therefore, they only approximate the actual values. While 11 of the 14 experts (79%) and 8 of the 9 novices (89%) agreed that teleguidance could improve overall quality and patient safety during ERCP procedures, only 8 of the 14 experts (57%) and 6 of the 9 novices (67%) agreed that teleguidance would not create new patient safety risks. Only 5 of the 14 experts (36%) and 3 of the 9 novices (33%) were convinced that video and image transmission would function well. Similarly, only 6 of the 14 experts (43%) and 6 of the 9 novices (67%) agreed that administration would work smoothly. There were no statistically significant differences between the experts and novices on any of the 16 items (P<.05).

conclusionsBoth novices and experts in ERCP procedures had concerns that teleguidance might disrupt existing work practices. However, novices were generally more positive toward teleguidance than experts, especially with regard to the possibility of developing technical skills and work practices. While newly trained specialists were the main target for teleguidance, the experts were also intended users. As experts are more likely to be key decision makers, their attitudes may have a greater relative impact on adoption. We present suggestions to address these concerns. We conclude that using the TAM as a conceptual framework can support user-centered inquiry into telemedicine design and implementation by connecting qualitative findings to well-known analytical themes.

Indexed as

attitudeclinical staffframeworkinterviewprofessional usersspecialties, surgical/educationsurgeonsurgerysurveytechnology acceptance modelteleconsultingtelemedicinetelementoringuser-centered

Identifiers

PMID33427670
PMCPMC7834938
OpenAlexW3097320649

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.