Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35768171›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2022

Readiness for five digital technologies in general practice: perceptions of staff in one part of southern England.

Matthew Hammerton, Tim Benson, Andrew Sibley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  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. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

3 authors.

Matthew HammertonWessex Academic Health Science Network, Southampton, UK.
Tim BensonR-Outcomes Ltd, Newbury, UK tim.benson@r-outcomes.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2101-1353
Andrew SibleyWessex Academic Health Science Network, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2503-5432

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur aim was to understand how digital readiness within general practice varies between different technologies and to identify how demographic, workplace and external factors affect this. The technologies considered include electronic patient records, telehealth (text messaging and video consultations), patient online access, patient clinical apps and wearables, and social media.

methodA digital readiness survey tool was developed and used in one area of southern England during Spring 2020. Semistructured qualitative interviews were also carried out with some practice staff and digital technology company representatives.

resultsGPs, nurses and non-clinical staff submitted 287 responses from 27 general practices (out of 33 invited).Staff digital readiness differs significantly between technologies. The mean perceived digital competency scores on 0-100 scale (high is good) were electronic patient records (75.7), telehealth (64.2), patient online access (65.8), patient clinical apps and wearables (50.8), and social media (51.2).Younger general practice staff, those in post for 5 or less years are more digitally competent and confident than older staff. This applies to both clinical and non-clinical staff. Older patient population, rurality and smaller practice size are associated with lower digital readiness. Readiness to use digital technology may have improved since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic but barriers remain in poor IT and mobile infrastructure, software usability and interoperability, and concerns about information governance.

conclusionsImproving digital readiness in general practice is complex and multifactorial. Issues may be alleviated by using dedicated digital implementation teams and closer collaboration between stakeholders (GPs and their staff, patients, funders, technology companies and government).

Indexed as

COVID-19General PracticeDigital TechnologyEnglandHumansPandemicsdiffusion of innovationelectronic health recordsgeneral practiceinformation technologysocial networking

Identifiers

PMID35768171
PMCPMC9244720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.