Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35471472›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

Adoption of a Postoperative Pain Self-Report Tool: Qualitative Study.

Bram Thiel, Inez Iao, Joris Smid, Emmy de Wit, Seppe Koopman, Bart Geerts, Marc Godfried, Cor Kalkman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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 6 institutions in 1 country.

Bram Thiel *Department of Anesthesiology, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5283-2173
Inez Iao *Department of Services and Solutions Delivery, Philips Benelux, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1711-8665
Joris SmidDepartment of Cardiology, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5391-9868
Emmy de WitFaculty of Science, Athena Institute, Vu University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4047-0555
Seppe KoopmanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3704-8492
Bart GeertsDepartment of Intensive Care, Spaarne Gasthuis Hospital, Haarlem, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0210-7202
Marc GodfriedDepartment of Anesthesiology, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7668-8185
Cor KalkmanDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8372-6960
Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLMaasstad Ziekenhuis · NLOLVG · NLPhilips (Netherlands) · NLSpaarne Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith electronic technologies, patients are provided with tools to easily acquire information and to manage and record their own health status. eHealth interventions are already broadly applied to perioperative care. In a similar way, we aimed to utilize a smartphone application to enable postoperative patients to partially self-manage their postoperative pain. The results of a previously performed proof-of-concept study regarding the application were promising, and nurses as well as patients were optimistic regarding this innovative mobile application. Nevertheless, in reality, it appears that the usage and overall implementation of this application have stagnated since its introduction. Problems with innovation adoption are not novel; various studies have been conducted to explore the reasons for low implementation success of eHealth applications and indicated that adoption is influenced by multiple organizational factors. This study investigated the influence of these organizational factors on the adoption process, aiming to provide more insight in the dos and don'ts for implementing eHealth in the working processes of hospital care.

objectiveThis study aimed to provide insight in how to successfully implement a technological eHealth innovation in a general nonacademic hospital.

methodsA qualitative study was conducted to explore organizational factors affecting the innovation adoption process. Data were collected by conducting semistructured one-on-one interviews with 11 stakeholders. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis identifying overarching themes.

resultsAbsorptive capacity, referred to as an organization's dynamic capability pertaining to knowledge creation and utilization that enhances an organization's ability to gain and sustain a competitive advantage, was regarded as the most influential factor on the application's adoption. Accordingly, it appeared that innovation adoption is mainly determined by the capability and willingness to assimilate and transform new information into productive use and the ability to absorb a novel innovation. Absorptive capacity was found to be influenced by the innovation's benefit and the sense of ownership and responsibility. Organizational readiness and management support were also regarded as essential since absorptive capacity seemed to be mediated by these factors. The size of the hospital influenced eHealth adoption by the amount of resources available and by its organizational structure.

conclusionsIn conclusion, absorptive capacity is essential for eHealth adoption, and it is mediated by management support and organizational readiness. It is recommended to increase the degree of willingness and ability to adopt an eHealth innovation by enhancing the relevance, engaging stakeholders, and assigning appropriate leaders to offer guidance.

Indexed as

eHealth adoption model, mobile healthinnovationpainperioperative medicinepostoperative painself-reportsurgery

Identifiers

PMID35471472
PMCPMC9092239
OpenAlexW4224939855

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.