ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Applying the major system change framework to evaluate implementation of rapid healthcare system change: a case study of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. 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.
- Implementation, Experiences, Impact, and Costs of Artificial Intelligence in Chest Diagnostics: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA framework to evaluate implementation of Major System Change (MSC) in healthcare has been developed and applied to implementation of longer-term system changes. This was the first study to apply the five domains of the MSC framework to rapid healthcare system change. We aimed to: i) evaluate implementation of rapid MSC, using England COVID-19 remote home monitoring services as a case study and ii) consider whether and how the MSC framework can be applied to rapid MSC.
methodsA mixed-methods rapid evaluation in England, across 28 primary and secondary healthcare sites (October 2020-November 2021; data collection: 4 months). We conducted 126 interviews (5 national leads, 59 staff, 62 patients/carers) and surveyed staff (n = 292) and patients/carers (n = 1069). Service providers completed cost surveys. Aggregated and patient-level national datasets were used to explore enrolment, service use and clinical outcomes. The MSC framework was applied retrospectively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically to explore key themes within each MSC framework domain. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were used to analyse experience, costs, service use and clinical outcomes.
resultsDecision to change/Decision on model: Service development happened concurrently: i) early local development motivated by urgent clinical need, ii) national rollout using standard operating procedures, and iii) local implementation and adaptation. Implementation approach: Services were tailored to local needs to consider patient, staff, organisational and resource factors. Implementation outcomes: Patient enrolment was low (59% services <10%). Service models and implementation approaches varied substantially. Intervention outcomes: No associations found between services and clinical outcomes. Patient and staff experiences were generally positive. However, barriers to delivery and engagement were found; with some groups finding it harder to engage.
conclusionsLow enrolment rates and substantial variation due to tailoring services to local contexts meant it was not possible to conclusively determine service effectiveness. Process outcomes indicated areas of improvement. The MSC framework can be used to analyse rapid MSC. Implementation and factors influencing implementation may differ to non-rapid contexts (e.g. less uniformity, more tailoring). Our mixed-methods approach could inform future evaluations of large-scale rapid and non-rapid MSC in a range of conditions and services internationally.
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.