ArticleDigital health
Implementation and ethical issues of an eHealth-facilitated integrated care model in stem cell transplantation: A qualitative process evaluation study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: eHealth-facilitated integrated care models (eICMs) offer promising enhancements to healthcare delivery in stem cell transplantation, but entail implementation and ethical challenges. While qualitative process evaluation methodologies can effectively address such issues through interdisciplinary collaboration, no previous studies have integrated approaches from implementation science and applied ethics into eICM evaluations. Objective: Exploring an integrated approach to the qualitative process evaluation of a stem cell transplantation eICM (SMILe-ICM), our objectives were threefold: (1) assess the current SMILe-ICM's implementation through stakeholder perceptions; (2) examine relevant ethical issues; and (3) develop strategies to mitigate identified implementation and ethical challenges. Methods: Semistructured individual interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 3 relatives. Additionally, 8 clinicians in total participated in two focus groups. Data analysis followed an inductive-deductive thematic approach built on interpretative frameworks from implementation science and medical ethics and supported by ethical consultations. Results: We isolated three main themes, centered on the patient's treatment journey and recovery, to explain patients', their relatives' and clinicians' perceptions regarding the SMILe-ICM. While the SMILe-ICM was generally viewed as valuable, perspectives varied regarding standardized procedures, including eHealth, and care coordination practices. These themes encompass implementation and ethical issues related to individual, intervention, inner setting, and outer setting factors, leading to the development of 17 implementation strategies. Conclusion: This study provides nuanced insights into patient- and provider-level eICM implementation and ethical challenges. By identifying these issues early, the integrated research design and resulting strategies facilitated well-informed, timely solutions.
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.