ArticleScientific reports2025
Considerations for establishment of a private virtual hospital identified using an implementation science approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Policy Considerations for National Virtual Hospitals: Global Evidence and the Seha Virtual Hospital Model.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Co-designed principles for establishment of a virtual hospital.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Implementation of a Virtual Hospital in the Home Service for Patients With COVID-19 in Queensland, Australia: Mixed Methods Evaluation Using the RE-AIM Framework.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Virtual hospitals are rapidly being implemented internationally. Research has predominantly focused on clinical outcomes not implementation. We aimed to identify pre-implementation determinants to enable health services to tailor virtual hospital models, increasing likelihood of suitability, acceptability, uptake, clinical effectiveness, and sustainability. We aimed to inform the design and implementation of a private Australian virtual hospital by identifying contextual barriers, enablers, and considerations. We conducted a qualitative pre-implementation determinant study using snowball sampling and semi-structured interviews (n = 37) between February and July 2023 with consumers/carers/both (n = 11), clinicians (doctors/allied health/nursing/personal carers), hospital, health service and aged care leadership (n = 22), and public health stakeholders (n=4). Deductive framework analysis based on the PERCS implementation science framework was used. The following key determinants were identified: Enablers - strong executive leadership support; enthusiasm for expanding rural and remote services; need for a clear vision; strong tension for change; commitment to high-quality healthcare. Major barrier: restrictive funding models that stifle opportunities for innovation. Other barriers: technological limitations; communication challenges; workforce issues; clinicians' opinions varied on safety and suitability of virtual healthcare. This implementation science approach enabled identification of a broad set of determinants not previously reported, relevant locally and for an international audience. Evaluation of implementation outcomes is necessary.
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.