Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37318831›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Obstacles to Evidence-Based Procurement, Implementation, and Evaluation of Health and Welfare Technologies in Swedish Municipalities: Mixed Methods Study.

Therese Norgren, Matt X Richardson, Sarah Wamala-Andersson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  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

3 authors.

Therese NorgrenDepartment of Health and Welfare Technology, School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Eskilstuna, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3712-7319
Matt X RichardsonDepartment of Health and Welfare Technology, School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Eskilstuna, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0358-9143
Sarah Wamala-AnderssonDepartment of Health and Welfare Technology, School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Eskilstuna, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6681-2827

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth and welfare technologies (HWTs) are interventions that aim at maintaining or promoting health, well-being, quality of life, and increasing efficiency in the service delivery system of welfare, social, and health care services, while improving the working conditions of the staff. Health and social care must be evidence-based according to national policy, but there are indications that evidence for HWT effectiveness is lacking in related Swedish municipal work processes.

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate whether the evidence is used when Swedish municipalities procure, implement, and evaluate HWT, and if so, the kinds of evidence and the manner of their use. The study also aimed to identify if municipalities currently receive adequate support in using evidence for HWT, and if not, what support is desired.

methodsAn explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used with quantitative surveys and subsequent semistructured interviews with officials in 5 nationally designated "model" municipalities regarding HWT implementation and use.

resultsIn the past 12 months, 4 of 5 municipalities had required some form of evidence during procurement processes, but the frequency of this varied and often consisted of references from other municipalities instead of other objective sources. Formulating requirements or requests for evidence during procurement was viewed as difficult, and gathered evidence was often only assessed by procurement administration personnel. In total, 2 of 5 municipalities used an established process for the implementation of HWT, and 3 of 5 had a plan for structured follow-up, but the use and dissemination of evidence within these were varying and often weakly integrated. Standardized processes for follow-up and evaluation across municipalities did not exist, and those processes used by individual municipalities were described as inadequate and difficult to follow. Most municipalities desired support for using evidence when procuring, establishing evaluation frameworks for, and following up effectiveness of HWT, while all municipalities suggested tools or methods for this kind of support.

conclusionsStructured use of evidence in procurement, implementation, and evaluation of HWT is inconsistent among municipalities, and internal and external dissemination of evidence for effectiveness is rare. This may establish a legacy of ineffective HWT in municipal settings. The results suggest that existing national agency guidance is not sufficient to meet current needs. New, more effective types of support to increase the use of evidence in critical phases of municipal procurement and implementation of HWT are recommended.

Indexed as

designeffectivenessevaluationevidencehealth and welfare technologyimplementationinterviewmixed methodsmunicipalitiesprocurementsocial caresupportsurveySwedentechnologywelfare

Identifiers

PMID37318831
PMCPMC10337388

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.