Dataset Information

Who Should Access Closed-Loop Technology? A Qualitative Study of Clinician Attitudes in England.

ABSTRACT: Background: Clinicians mediate access to closed-loop technology for people with diabetes. Consequently, their attitudes regarding appropriate levels of closed-loop usage will play a key role in future adoption processes. This study aimed to explore clinician attitudes toward future mainstream closed-loop usage in England. Materials and Methods: We conducted 36 semistructured interviews with clinicians from a range of professional backgrounds working in outpatient clinics in England. Interview topics included clinicians' views on future pathways for closed-loop use and attitudes toward the predictability of users' technology experiences, a key factor in eligibility decision making. We analyzed transcripts using thematic and framework approaches. Results: Clinicians exhibited a range of opinions regarding future eligibility for closed-loop technology. We identified three key strands of clinician opinion, envisaging (1) tighter access for closed loop (n?=?10), citing funding challenges and issues arising from user overconfidence or negative technology attitudes; (2) similar access to closed loop as for current diabetes technologies (n?=?15), on the grounds that future funding and access pathways will be similar to current arrangements; and (3) wider access for closed-loop technologies (n?=?9), given the potential for significant and widespread benefits arising from closed-loop usage, including downstream cost savings alongside improved glycemic control. Conclusions: Clinicians expressed a range of opinions encompassing continuity with current diabetes technologies, while others envisaged either tighter or more liberal access for closed-loop systems. To optimize technology adoption and equitable uptake, future implementation pathways should consider clinician attitudes toward technology use and access.

SUBMITTER: Farrington C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7196368 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Who Should Access Closed-Loop Technology? A Qualitative Study of Clinician Attitudes in England.

Farrington Conor C Hovorka Roman R Murphy Helen R HR

Diabetes technology & therapeutics 20200204 5

Background: Clinicians mediate access to closed-loop technology for people with diabetes. Consequently, their attitudes regarding appropriate levels of closed-loop usage will play a key role in future adoption processes. This study aimed to explore clinician attitudes toward future mainstream closed-loop usage in England. Materials and Methods: We conducted 36 semistructured interviews with clinicians from a range of professional backgrounds working in outpatient clin ...[more]

PMID: 31913061

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceUS residents report broad access to firearms, which are the most common means of suicide death in the US. Standardized firearm access questions during routine health care encounters are uncommon despite potential benefits for suicide prevention.ObjectiveTo explore patient and clinician experiences with a standard question about firearm access on a self-administered mental health questionnaire routinely used prior to primary care and mental health specialty encounters.Design, setting, and participantsQualitative semistructured interviews were conducted from November 18, 2019, to October 8, 2020, at Kaiser Permanente Washington, a large integrated care delivery system and insurance provider. Electronic health record data identified adult patients with a documented mental health diagnosis who had received a standard question about firearm access ("Do you have access to guns? yes/no") within the prior 2 weeks. A stratified sampling distribution selected 30% who answered "yes," 30% who answered "no," and 40% who left the question blank. Two groups of clinicians responsible for safety planning with patients at risk of suicide were also sampled: (1) licensed clinical social workers (LICSWs) in primary and urgent care settings and (2) consulting nurses (RNs).Main outcomes and measuresParticipants completed semistructured telephone interviews, which were recorded and transcribed. Directive (deductive) and conventional (inductive) content analyses were used to apply knowledge from prior research and describe new information. Thematic analysis was used to organize key content, and triangulation was used to describe the intersections between patient and clinician perspectives.ResultsThirty-six patients were interviewed (of 76 sampled; mean [SD] age, 47.3 [17.9] years; 19 [53%] were male; 27 [75%] were White; 3 [8%] were Black; and 1 [3%] was Latinx or Hispanic. Sixteen participants had reported firearm access and 15 had reported thoughts of self-harm on the questionnaire used for sampling. Thirty clinicians were interviewed (of 51 sampled) (mean [SD] age, 44.3 [12.1] years; 24 [80%] were female; 18 [60%] were White; 5 [17%] were Asian or Pacific Islander; and 4 [13%] were Latinx or Hispanic) including 25 LICSWs and 5 RNs. Key organizing themes included perceived value of standardized questions about firearm access, challenges of asking and answering, and considerations for practice improvement. Clinician interview themes largely converged and/or complemented patient interviews.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study using semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians, a standardized question about firearm access was found to encourage dialogue about firearm access. Respondents underscored the importance of nonjudgmental acknowledgment of patients' reasons for firearm access as key to patient-centered practice improvement.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the experiences of patients, health professionals and screeners; their interactions with and understandings of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS); and how these influence uptake.DesignPurposive, qualitative design using multiperspectival, semistructured interviews and thematic analysis.SettingThree UK Screening Programme regions with different service-delivery modes, minority ethnic and deprivation levels across rural, urban and inner-city areas, in general practitioner practices and patients' homes.Participants62 including 38 patients (22 regular-screening attenders, 16 non-regular attenders) and 24 professionals (15 primary care professionals and 9 screeners).ResultsAntecedents to attendance included knowledge about diabetic retinopathy and screening; antecedents to non-attendance included psychological, pragmatic and social factors. Confusion between photographs taken at routine eye tests and DRS photographs was identified. The differing regional invitation methods and screening locations were discussed, with convenience and transport safety being over-riding considerations for patients. Some patients mentioned significant pain and visual disturbance from mydriasis drops as a deterrent to attendance.ConclusionsIn this, the first study to consider multiperspectival experiential accounts, we identified that proactive coordination of care involving patients, primary care and screening programmes, prior to, during and after screening is required. Multiple factors, prior to, during and after screening, are involved in the attendance and non-attendance for DRS. Further research is needed to establish whether patient self-management educational interventions and the pharmacological reformulation of shorter acting mydriasis drops, may improve uptake of DRS. This might, in turn, reduce preventable vision loss and its associated costs to individuals and their families, and to health and social care providers, reducing current inequalities.

Dataset Information

Who Should Access Closed-Loop Technology? A Qualitative Study of Clinician Attitudes in England.

Publications

Who Should Access Closed-Loop Technology? A Qualitative Study of Clinician Attitudes in England.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets