ArticleJMIR formative research2022
The Rapid Development of Virtual Care Tools in Response to COVID-19: Case Studies in Three Australian Health Services.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing Regional and Remote Health Care With Virtual Hospital Implementation: Rapid Review.JMIR human factors · 2025Pooled it
- Understanding the Role of Patients and Carers in a Virtual Hospital Through Journey Mapping: Multi-Method Triangulation Analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Remote patient monitoring for managing acute COVID-19, and mortality and hospital use in Sydney, New South Wales, 2021-22: a retrospective observational cohort study.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Observational
- The 2024 report of the MJA-Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: Australia emerging as a hotspot for litigation.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
- Challenges for remote patient monitoring programs in rural and regional areas: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Continued Implementation and Use of a Digital Informal Care Support Platform Before and After COVID-19: Multimethod Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- A Taxonomy for Health Information Systems.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Review
- ChatGPT: Is This Patient Education Tool for Urological Malignancies Readable for the General Population?Research and reports in urology · 2024Article
- Designs, facilitators, barriers, and lessons learned during the implementation of emergency department led virtual urgent care programs in Ontario, Canada.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNews of the impact of COVID-19 around the world delivered a brief opportunity for Australian health services to plan new ways of delivering care to large numbers of people while maintaining staff safety through greater physical separation. The rapid pivot to telemedicine and virtual care provided immediate and longer term benefits; however, such rapid-cycle development also created risks.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to understand the sociotechnical aspects of the rapid-cycle development of seven different COVID-19 virtual care tools, and to identify enablers, barriers, and risks at three health services in Victoria, Australia.
methodsA qualitative, embedded, multiple case study design was adopted. Researchers from three health services collaborated with university researchers who were independent from those health services to gather and analyze structured interview data from key people involved in either clinical or technical aspects of designing and deploying seven different virtual care tools.
resultsThe overall objectives of each health service reflected the international requirements for managing large numbers of patients safely but remotely and for protecting staff. However, the governance, digital maturity, and specific use cases at each institution shaped the methodology and specific outcomes required. Dependence on key individuals and their domain knowledge within an existing governance framework generally enabled rapid deployment, but sometimes posed barriers. Existing relationships with technical service developers enabled strong solutions, which in some cases were highly scalable. Conventional project methodologies such as steering committees, scope, budget control, tight functional specification, consumer engagement and codesign, universal accessibility, and postimplementation evaluation were ignored almost universally in this environment.
conclusionsThese three health services took a variety of approaches to the rapid-cycle development of virtual care tools to meet their urgent needs for triaging and remote monitoring during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Their experiences provided insights into many social and technical barriers and enablers to the development of virtual care tools. If these are addressed proactively, they will improve clinical governance and technical management of future virtual care. Some changes can be made within individual health services, while others entail health system policy reforms. Enhancing the environment for virtual care tool design and implementation now will yield returns not only during future health emergencies but also in many more routine care settings.
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.