ArticleJournal of telemedicine and telecare2026
Same goal, different perspectives: Stakeholder views on context for connected care technology implementation in an integrated healthcare system.
Article in Journal of telemedicine and telecare, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
IntroductionThe Veterans Health Administration (VHA) prioritizes use of connected care technologies to enhance access and outcomes. The context in which connected care is implemented is crucial, yet difficult to measure, due to its subjective and complex nature. This evaluation examined alignment among stakeholder perceptions of context related to connected care implementation across VHA.MethodsA national, cross-sectional survey assessed perceptions of 11 contextual factors relevant to connected care implementation as identified in published reviews within the implementation science literature. Across 142 VHA facilities and 18 regions, surveys were sent to four stakeholder groups: clinical team members, connected care coordinators, facility leadership, and regional leadership. Mean scores for each factor were compared between stakeholder groups using Welch's ANOVA and Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc comparisons.ResultsA total of 5541 respondents (36.1% response rate) participated. Organizational Culture and Climate was rated the most favorable contextual factor (mean = 3.9, SD = 0.7), while Financial Resources was perceived as least favorable (mean = 3.0, SD = 1.0). Significant differences emerged between the perceptions of frontline workers (clinical team members, connected care coordinators) and leadership (facility, regional). Clinical team members rated nearly all contextual factors less favorably than facility leadership. Coordinators similarly rated most factors less favorably than leadership.DiscussionFindings highlight a misalignment between leadership and frontline workers in their perceptions of organizational context for implementing connected care technologies. Leadership viewed key contextual factors (e.g. Organizational Readiness to Change, Leadership Support) more favorably than frontline workers. This misalignment may impact implementation success, suggesting a need for strategies to better align stakeholder perceptions.
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.