Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35998021›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Family-Centered Technology in Complex Care: Feasibility Study.

Jody L Lin, Bernd Huber, Ofra Amir, Sebastian Gehrmann, Kimberly S Ramirez, Kimberly M Ochoa, Steven M Asch, Krzysztof Z Gajos, Barbara J Grosz, Lee M Sanders

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03620071 (Intelligent Information Sharing), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03620071 nacompletednot on this map

Intelligent Information Sharing: Advancing Teamwork in Complex Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorStanford UniversityRan2019 to 2021Enrolled67ConditionsChildhood Cancer, Cerebral Palsy, Chronic Lung Disease, Congenital Heart DiseaseArmsGoalKeeper, Standard Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Jody L LinDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9964-7984
Bernd HuberJohn A Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Allston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9176-2208
Ofra AmirFaculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-2303-3684
Sebastian GehrmannJohn A Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Allston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8257-9516
Kimberly S RamirezDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4837-0783
Kimberly M OchoaDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3571-9993
Steven M AschCenter for Innovation to Implementation, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5838-5335
Krzysztof Z GajosJohn A Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Allston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1897-9048
Barbara J GroszJohn A Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Allston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3031-5591
Lee M SandersDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3231-6918

Funding

SCH:INT Collaborative Research: Intelligent Information Sharing: Advancing Teamwork in Complex CareR01CA204585 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SANDERS, LEE MICHAEL · 2016 to 2019
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA204585
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare coordination is challenging but crucial for children with medical complexity (CMC). Technology-based solutions are increasingly prevalent but little is known about how to successfully deploy them in the care of CMC.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of GoalKeeper (GK), an internet-based system for eliciting and monitoring family-centered goals for CMC, and to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation.

methodsWe used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to explore the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of GK as part of a clinical trial of GK in ambulatory clinics at a children's hospital (NCT03620071). The study was conducted in 3 phases: preimplementation, implementation (trial), and postimplementation. For the trial, we recruited providers at participating clinics and English-speaking parents of CMC<12 years of age with home internet access. All participants used GK during an initial clinic visit and for 3 months after. We conducted preimplementation focus groups and postimplementation semistructured exit interviews using the CFIR interview guide. Participant exit surveys assessed GK feasibility and acceptability on a 5-point Likert scale. For each interview, 3 independent coders used content analysis and serial coding reviews based on the CFIR qualitative analytic plan and assigned quantitative ratings to each CFIR construct (-2 strong barrier to +2 strong facilitator).

resultsPreimplementation focus groups included 2 parents (1 male participant and 1 female participant) and 3 providers (1 in complex care, 1 in clinical informatics, and 1 in neurology). From focus groups, we developed 3 implementation strategies: education (parents: 5-minute demo; providers: 30-minute tutorial and 5-minute video on use in a clinic visit; both: instructional manual), tech support (in-person, virtual), and automated email reminders for parents. For implementation (April 1, 2019, to December 21, 2020), we enrolled 11 providers (7 female participants, 5 in complex care) and 35 parents (mean age 38.3, SD 7.8 years; n=28, 80% female; n=17, 49% Caucasian; n=16, 46% Hispanic; and n=30, 86% at least some college). One parent-provider pair did not use GK in the clinic visit, and few used GK after the visit. In 18 parent and 9 provider exit interviews, the key facilitators were shared goal setting, GK's internet accessibility and email reminders (parents), and GK's ability to set long-term goals and use at the end of visits (providers). A key barrier was GK's lack of integration into the electronic health record or patient portal. Most parents (13/19) and providers (6/9) would recommend GK to their peers.

conclusionsFamily-centered technologies like GK are feasible and acceptable for the care of CMC, but sustained use depends on integration into electronic health records.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03620071; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03620071.

Indexed as

Patient PortalsAdultChildFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleParentsSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnologyacceptabilitybarriercare coordinationcare providerschildrenchronic diseasechronic illnesscomplex carecoordinationfamiliesfamily medicinefeasibilityimplementationimplementation scienceimprovementmonitoringparentspediatrictechnology

Identifiers

PMID35998021
PMCPMC9449827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.