Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41086004›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Measure Digital Maturity of General Practitioner Practices: Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Timo Neunaber, Achim Mortsiefer, Sven Meister

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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.

Timo NeunaberHealth Care Informatics, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9787-9805
Achim MortsieferGeneral Practice II and Patient-Centeredness in Primary Care, Institute of General Practice and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9901-1727
Sven MeisterHealth Care Informatics, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0522-986X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe digital transformation in health care requires valid instruments to assess the level of digitalization. Maturity models are widely used to measure the digital maturity level of institutions. To date, however, there is no standardized and empirically grounded measurement tool for general practices in outpatient care.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify and validate the key dimensions of digital maturity in order to develop a questionnaire to measure the digital maturity of general practices. The development of a questionnaire was intended to advance research into maturity models in outpatient care and provide general practitioners (GPs) and policymakers with a tool for the digital transformation process.

methodsA web-based cross-sectional survey study was conducted among GPs in Germany. Based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the underlying dimensions of digital maturity were first identified. The factor structure was then examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). After evaluating convergent and discriminant validity, the overall model fit was assessed using fit indices. Following model adjustments based on modification indices, the final questionnaire was established. Finally, we calculated the digital maturity level for our sample, both for each individual dimension and as an overall score, by computing the mean value for each dimension and an overall mean across all dimensions.

resultsResponses from 201 GPs were included in the data analysis. We identified and validated 6 dimensions of digital maturity, comprising 16 items. Both convergent and discriminant validity were confirmed. The model fit was excellent (robust comparative fit index [CFI]=0.993; robust Tucker-Lewis index [TLI]=0.990; robust root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=0.022; P value of close fit [PCLOSE]=.98; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]=0.043). The questionnaire included six dimensions: effects of digitalization, participation of practice staff, maturity of the practice management system, staff competencies and sense of responsibility, IT security and data protection, and digitally supported processes. The scale showed good internal consistency (overall Cronbach α=.809). In our sample, the overall digital maturity averaged 3.77 out of 5, with the highest maturity observed in IT security and data protection (mean 4.45, SD 0.61) and the lowest in effects of digitalization (mean 3.1, SD 1.0).

conclusionsThis is the first study in which the dimensions of digital maturity in outpatient care for GP practices have been empirically identified and validated as the basis for developing a questionnaire. The findings provide a foundation for further research on measuring digital maturity in outpatient care and for advancing the development of digital maturity models. The questionnaire allows GPs to assess their practices' digitalization, identify areas for improvement (eg, infrastructure, staff skills), and support internal strategy or benchmarking. For policymakers, it offers a standardized tool to plan support measures and monitor digitalization progress.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersInternetAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesdigital healthdigital maturityeHealthgeneral practitionerGPGP practicematurity assessmentmaturity modelonline surveyprimary carequestionnairevalidation

Identifiers

PMID41086004
PMCPMC12569491

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.