ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2024
Expectations and Experiences Among Clinical Staff Regarding Implementation of Digital Pathology: A Qualitative Study at Two Departments of Pathology.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application and exploration of digital pathology technology in standardized residency training.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Perceptions of digital pathology among healthcare workers in pathology.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- An update on applications of digital pathology: primary diagnosis; telepathology, education and research.Diagnostic pathology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess and evaluate the individual expectations and experiences regarding the implementation of digital pathology (DIPA) among clinical staff in two of the pathology departments in the Region of Southern Denmark before and during the implementation in their department. Seventeen semi-structured interviews based upon McKinsey 7-S framework were held both prior to and during implementation with both managers and employees at the two pathology departments. The interviewees were pathologists, medical doctors in internship in pathology (interns), biomedical laboratory scientists (BLS), secretaries, and a project lead. Using deductive and inductive coding resulted in five overall themes and appertaining sub-themes. The findings pointed to an overall positive attitude towards DIPA from the beginning. The clinical staff perceived being rewarded already during implementation with benefits such as improved collaboration both inter- and intra-departmentally promoting better acceptance of DIPA. The clinical staff also experienced some challenges, e.g., increase in turnaround times, which affected and concerned staff on a personal level. Especially BLS expressed experiencing a demanding and stressful transition due to unexpected increase in workload as well as some barriers for a potentially better implementation process. The key findings of this study were a need for better preparation of staff through transparent communication of the upcoming challenges of the transition to DIPA, more system-specific training beforehand, more allocation of time and resources in the implementation process, and more focus on BLS' work tasks in the requirement specifications.
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.