ArticleDigital health
Understanding frictions in patient-reported outcome-based community healthcare - An institutional logics perspective.
Article in Digital health. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in community-based healthcare play a significant role in the emerging field of digital health. This qualitative study explored healthcare professionals' (HCPs') experiences of integrating 'MyPROfile' as a dialogue tool in consultations in community healthcare. Methods: Adopting a qualitative approach with a social constructivist perspective, the study utilised qualitative interviews, participant observations, and focus group interviews. Data were analysed using reflective thematic analysis, guided by theories on institutional logics. Results: In the analysis, we identified two distinct institutional logics related to HCPs' experiences integrating PRO measures into their existing practice. Frictions emerged as HCPs integrated the PRO-based dialogue tool, highlighting frictions between an existing Care logic rooted in a holistic health promotion paradigm and the introduced PRO logic. According to the HCPs, the PRO-based practice was perceived as divergent from holistic, narrative-based care, emphasising a shift towards a more reductionist and evaluative model of care. Conclusions: The study underscores the importance of understanding institutional logics in integrating technologies like PRO measures in healthcare settings. The identified frictions necessitate reflexive venues and collaborative relationships to align differing logics for successful integration. Additionally, incorporating citizens' perspectives is vital for developing effective rehabilitation and prevention programmes. Moving forward, stakeholder engagement in reflective discussions and workshops is crucial to bridge the gap between the introduced technology and the existing health promotion paradigm, ensuring a seamless and meaningful integration of PRO measures in community healthcare settings.
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.