Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38858155›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2024

Implementation barriers and facilitators of remote monitoring, remote consultation and digital care platforms through the eyes of healthcare professionals: a review of reviews.

Susan J Oudbier, Sylvie P Souget-Ruff, Britney S J Chen, Kirsten A Ziesemer, Hans J Meij, Ellen M A Smets

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Susan J OudbierOutpatient Division, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands s.oudbier@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-0376-3161
Sylvie P Souget-RuffDepartment of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Britney S J ChenDepartment of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kirsten A ZiesemerMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hans J MeijOutpatient Division, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8738-901X
Ellen M A SmetsDepartment of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8145-8595

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDigital transformation in healthcare is a necessity considering the steady increase in healthcare costs, the growing ageing population and rising number of people living with chronic diseases. The implementation of digital health technologies in patient care is a potential solution to these issues, however, some challenges remain. In order to navigate such complexities, the perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) must be considered. The objective of this umbrella review is to identify key barriers and facilitators involved in digital health technology implementation, from the perspective of HCPs.

designSystematic umbrella review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. DATA SOURCES: Embase.com, PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection were searched for existing reviews dated up to 17 June 2022. Search terms included digital health technology, combined with terms related to implementation, and variations in terms encompassing HCP, such as physician, doctor and the medical discipline. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Quantitative and qualitative reviews evaluating digital technologies that included patient interaction were considered eligible. Three reviewers independently synthesised and assessed eligible reviews and conducted a critical appraisal. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Regarding the data collection, two reviewers independently synthesised and interpreted data on barriers and facilitators.

resultsThirty-three reviews met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were categorised into four levels: (1) the organisation, (2) the HCP, (3) the patient and (4) technical aspects. The main barriers and facilitators identified were (lack of) training (n=22/33), (un)familiarity with technology (n=17/33), (loss of) communication (n=13/33) and security and confidentiality issues (n=17/33). Barriers of key importance included increased workload (n=16/33), the technology undermining aspects of professional identity (n=11/33), HCP uncertainty about patients' aptitude with the technology (n=9/33), and technical issues (n=12/33).

conclusionsThe implementation strategy should address the key barriers highlighted by HCPs, for instance, by providing adequate training to familiarise HCPs with the technology, adapting the technology to the patient preferences and addressing technical issues. Barriers on both HCP and patient levels can be overcome by investigating the needs of the end-users. As we shift from traditional face-to-face care models towards new modes of care delivery, further research is needed to better understand the role of digital technology in the HCP-patient relationship.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelRemote ConsultationTelemedicineAttitude of Health PersonnelDigital TechnologyHumanshealth informaticsinformation technologytelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID38858155
PMCPMC11168143

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.