ArticleBMC health services research2024
Unveiling the heterogeneous utilisation of the same digital patient management platform: case studies in primary healthcare in Sweden.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experiences with online group work among master's students in health sciences: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe utilisation of digital technology in primary healthcare, particularly digital patient management platforms, has gained prominence, notably due to the global pandemic. These platforms are positioned as substitutes for face-to-face consultations and telephone triage. They are seen as a potential solution to the escalating costs associated with an aging population, increasing chronic conditions, and a shrinking healthcare workforce. However, a significant knowledge gap exists concerning the practical aspects of their implementation and their effect on the utilisation of digital patient management in primary healthcare.
methodsThis study addresses this gap by conducting a comprehensive analysis of three case studies involving the implementation of a specific digital patient management platform. Over a period of three years, we examine how the practicalities of implementation shape the adoption and utilisation of a digital patient management platform in three different clinics.
resultsOur findings revealed that differences in implementation strategies directly influenced variations in utilisation. The successful utilisation of the platform was achieved through a bottom-up decision-making process that involved the employees of the primary healthcare clinics. Onsite training, close collaboration with the eHealth provider, and a structured patient onboarding process played crucial roles in this utilisation. In contrast, a top-down approach at two of the primary healthcare clinics led to limited utilisation of the platform into daily workflows. Furthermore, making the platform a part of everyday work meant putting accessibility, by working as a team of physicians, at the forefront of continuity of care, with patients being managed by their designated physician. Additionally, it was observed that digital patient management proved most effective for addressing simple patient issues such as skin rashes, rather than complex cases, and did not reduce the demand for phone triage.
conclusionOnly one of the three clinics studied effectively integrated digital patient management into its daily operations, and did so by aligning objectives among management and all categories of healthcare professionals, employing a bottom-up decision-making process, collaborating with the eHealth service provider for regular platform adjustments to clinic needs, and implementing active patient onboarding. This sociotechnical integration resulted in high platform utilisation. In contrast, the other two clinics faced challenges due to incoherent objectives among diverse healthcare professional employees and top management, a top-down decision-making approach during implementation, limited collaboration with the eHealth service provider, and passive patient onboarding. The findings indicate that these factors negatively affected utilisation and led to low platform adoption as well as disrupted the sociotechnical balance.
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.