Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40127432›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2025

Health Care Professionals' Perspectives on Using eHealth Tools in Advanced Home Care: Qualitative Interview Study.

Eric Vincent Rivas, Ulf Lesley, Nadia Davoody

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Eric Vincent RivasHealth Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0009-0007-7048-8581
Ulf LesleyHealth Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0009-0009-1791-9842
Nadia DavoodyHealth Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1813-8529

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rising demand for advanced home care services, driven by an aging population and the preference for aging in place, presents both challenges and opportunities. While advanced home care can improve cost-effectiveness and patient outcomes, gaps remain in understanding how eHealth technologies can optimize these services. eHealth tools have the potential to offer personalized, coordinated care that increases patient engagement. However, research exploring health care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives on the use of eHealth tools in advanced home care and their impact on the HCP-patient relationship is limited.

objectiveThis study aims to explore HCPs' perspectives on using eHealth tools in advanced home care and these tools' impact on HCP-patient relationships.

methodsIn total, 20 HCPs from 9 clinics specializing in advanced home care were interviewed using semistructured interviews. The discussions focused on their experiences with 2 eHealth tools: a mobile documentation tool and a mobile preconsultation form. The data were analyzed using content analysis to identify recurring themes.

resultsThe data analysis identified one main theme: optimizing health care with eHealth; that is, enhancing care delivery and overcoming challenges for future health care. Two subthemes emerged: (1) enhancing care delivery, collaboration, and overcoming adoption barriers and (2) streamlining implementation and advancing eHealth tools for future health care delivery. Five categories were also identified: (1) positive experiences and benefits, (2) interactions between HCPs and patients, (3) challenges and difficulties with eHealth tools, (4) integration into the daily workflow, and (5) future directions. Most HCPs expressed positive experiences with the mobile documentation tool, highlighting improved efficiency, documentation quality, and patient safety. While all found the mobile preconsultation form beneficial, patient-related factors limited its utility. Regarding HCP-patient relationships, interactions with patients remained unchanged with the implementation of both tools. HCPs successfully maintained their interpersonal skills and patient-centered approach while integrating eHealth tools into their practice. The tools allowed more focused, in-depth discussions, enhancing patient engagement without affecting relationships. Difficulties with the tools originated from tool-related issues, organizational challenges, or patient-related complexities, occasionally affecting the time available for direct patient interaction.

conclusionsThe study underscores the importance of eHealth tools in enhancing advanced home care while maintaining the HCP-patient relationship. While eHealth tools modify care delivery techniques, they do not impact the core dynamics of the relationships between HCPs and patients. While most of the HCPs in the study had a positive attitude toward using the eHealth tools, understanding the challenges they encounter is crucial for improving user acceptance and success in implementation. Future development should focus on features that not only improve efficiency but also actively enhance HCP-patient relationships, such as facilitating more meaningful interactions and supporting personalized care in the advanced home care setting.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth PersonnelHome Care ServicesTelemedicineAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Researchadvanced home careaging populationcontent analysiseHealthmHealthmobile healthnursepatient engagementpatient experiencepersonalized carestaff-patient relationship

Identifiers

PMID40127432
PMCPMC11976168

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.