ArticleBMC nursing2026
Blended community nursing care: towards a new normal? Process evaluation of a large-scale implementation.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlended care, combining in-person and digital support through various care technology devices, represents a promising yet underutilized approach in community nursing. Its successful adoption requires major workflow adaptations. Previous studies have highlighted the need to evaluate the usability, feasibility, and effectiveness of implementation strategies for blended care to ensure their successful integration. The aim of this study was to examine the implementation of a comprehensive blended care package, offering around 40 devices across care domains via a single supplier, within a large Dutch community care organization, and explored what healthcare professionals (HCPs) and clients need to optimize its use.
methodsData were collected through observations of implementation activities (four training sessions, five counselling sessions, and four care needs assessments) and semi-structured interviews with eleven HCPs and five clients. Training covered information on blended care and demonstrations of ten devices. Counselling focused on identifying suitable clients and clarifying device use. Data were thematically analysed, guided by the Medical Research Council- and Capability-Opportunity-Motivation model.
resultsHCPs were introduced to various devices, with no opportunity to test devices. In three care needs assessments, nurses and clients showed uncertainty about device functionality. HCPs valued the introductory training and counselling sessions and acknowledged the benefits of blended care, including increased client autonomy. HCPs expressed a preference for testing care technologies before introducing them to clients. Some reported concerns about job loss or unwanted changes in their roles. In general, clients were initially hesitant but ultimately appreciated its effectiveness.
conclusionBlended care was implemented per the organization's strategy, ensuring HCPs were informed, able to ask questions, and encouraged to engage in discussions. However, insufficient product knowledge and concerns about integrating blended care might have influenced adoption, highlighting the need for improved knowledge transfer and implementation support. Guidelines may support healthcare organizations and HCPs in facilitating successful implementation.
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.