Dataset Information

Effect of Digital Care Platforms on Quality of Care for Oncological Patients and Barriers and Facilitators for Their Implementation: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Oncological health care services are challenged by the increasing number of cancer survivors, long-term follow-up care, and fragmentation of care. Digital care platforms are potential tools to deliver affordable, patient-centered oncological care. Previous reviews evaluated only one feature of a digital care platform or did not evaluate the effect on enhancement of information, self-efficacy, continuity of care, or patient- and health care provider-reported experiences. Additionally, they have not focused on the barriers and facilitators for implementation of a digital care platform in oncological care.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review was to collect the best available evidence of the effect of a digital care platform on quality of care parameters such as enhancement of available information, self-efficacy, continuity of care, and patient- and health care provider-reported experiences. Additionally, barriers and facilitators for implementation of digital care platforms were analyzed.

Methods

The PubMed (Medline), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the period from January 2000 to May 2020 for studies assessing the effect of a digital care platform on the predefined outcome parameters in oncological patients and studies describing barriers and facilitators for implementation. Synthesis of the results was performed qualitatively. Barriers and facilitators were categorized according to the framework of Grol and Wensing. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal of the studies.

Results

Seventeen studies were included for final analysis, comprising 8 clinical studies on the effectiveness of the digital care platform and 13 studies describing barriers and facilitators. Usage of a digital care platform appeared to enhance the availability of information and self-efficacy. There were no data available on the effect of a digital care platform on the continuity of care. However, based on focus group interviews, digital care platforms could potentially improve continuity of care by optimizing the exchange of patient information across institutes. Patient-reported experiences such as satisfaction with the platform were considerably positive. Most barriers for implementation were identified at the professional level, such as the concern for increased workload and unattended release of medical information to patients. Most facilitators were found at the patient and innovation levels, such as improved patient-doctor communication and patient empowerment. There were few barriers and facilitators mentioned at the economic and political levels.

Conclusions

The use of digital care platforms is associated with better quality of care through enhancement of availability of information and increased self-efficacy for oncological patients. The numerous facilitators identified at the patient level illustrate that patients are positive toward a digital care platform. However, despite these favorable results, robust evidence concerning the effectiveness of digital care platforms, especially from high-quality studies, is still lacking. Future studies should therefore aim to further investigate the effectiveness of digital care platforms, and the barriers and facilitators to their implementation at the economic and political levels.

SUBMITTER: Hopstaken JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8501408 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveA prerequisite for patient-centredness in healthcare organisations is offering patients access to adequate health information, which fits their needs. A personalised digital care pathway (PDCP) is a tool that facilitates the provision of tailored and timely information. Despite its potential, barriers influence the implementation of digital tools in healthcare organisations. Therefore, we investigated the perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation of the PDCP among stakeholders.DesignA qualitative study was conducted to acquire insight into perceptions of the stakeholders involved in the implementation of a digital care pathway in three diverse patient groups.SettingThis study is part of the PDCP research project in a large academic hospital in the Netherlands.ParticipantsPurposive sampling was used to recruit internal stakeholders (eg, healthcare professionals, employees of the supporting departments) and external stakeholders (eg, employees of the external PDCP supplier). In addition, existing semistructured interviews with patients involved in pilot implementation (n=24) were used to verify the findings.ResultsWe conducted 25 semistructured interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Content analyses yielded four themes: (1) stakeholders' perceptions of the PDCP (eg, perceived usefulness); (2) characteristics of the individuals involved and the implementation process (eg, individuals express resistance to change); (3) organisational readiness (eg, lack of resources); and (4) collaboration within the organisation (eg, mutual communication, multidisciplinary codesign). The main barriers mentioned by patients were duration of first activation and necessity for up-to-date content. In addition, the most facilitating factor for patients was user-friendliness.ConclusionOur findings emphasise the importance of gaining insights into the various perspectives of stakeholder groups, including patients, regarding the implementation of the PDCP. The perceived barriers and facilitators can be used to improve the PDCP implementation plan and tailor the development and improvement of other digital patient communication tools.

Project description:BackgroundTo successfully reduce the negative impacts of stroke, high-quality health and care practices are needed across the entire stroke care pathway. These practices are not always shared across organisations. Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) offer a unique opportunity for key stakeholders from different organisations to share, learn and 'take home' best practice examples, to support local improvement efforts. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of QICs in improving stroke care and explored the facilitators and barriers to implementing this approach.MethodsFive electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) were searched up to June 2020, and reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were screened. Studies conducted in an adult stroke care setting, which involved multi-professional stroke teams participating in a QIC, were included. Data was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. For overall effectiveness, a vote-counting method was used. Data regarding facilitators and barriers was extracted and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).ResultsTwenty papers describing twelve QICs used in stroke care were included. QICs varied in their setting, part of the stroke care pathway, and their improvement focus. QIC participation was associated with improvements in clinical processes, but improvements in patient and other outcomes were limited. Key facilitators were inter- and intra-organisational networking, feedback mechanisms, leadership engagement, and access to best practice examples. Key barriers were structural changes during the QIC's active period, lack of organisational support or prioritisation of QIC activities, and insufficient time and resources to participate in QIC activities. Patient and carer involvement, and health inequalities, were rarely considered.ConclusionsQICs are associated with improving clinical processes in stroke care; however, their short-term nature means uncertainty remains as to whether they benefit patient outcomes. Evidence around using a QIC to achieve system-level change in stroke is equivocal. QIC implementation can be influenced by individual and organisational level factors, and future efforts to improve stroke care using a QIC should be informed by the facilitators and barriers identified. Future research is needed to explore the sustainability of improvements when QIC support is withdrawn.Trial registrationProtocol registered on PROSPERO ( CRD42020193966 ).

Project description:BackgroundCare pathways (CPWs) are complex interventions that have the potential to reduce treatment errors and optimize patient outcomes by translating evidence into local practice. To design an optimal implementation strategy, potential barriers to and facilitators of implementation must be considered. The objective of this systematic review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of CPWs in primary care (PC).MethodsA systematic search via Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and MEDLINE via PubMed supplemented by hand searches and citation tracing was carried out. We considered articles reporting on CPWs targeting patients at least 65?years of age in outpatient settings that were written in the English or German language and were published between 2007 and 2019. We considered (non-)randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies (main project reports) as well as associated process evaluation reports of either methodology. Two independent researchers performed the study selection; the data extraction and critical appraisal were duplicated until the point of perfect agreement between the two reviewers. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a narrative synthesis was performed.ResultsFourteen studies (seven main project reports and seven process evaluation reports) of the identified 8154 records in the search update were included in the synthesis. The structure and content of the interventions as well as the quality of evidence of the studies varied. The identified barriers and facilitators were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework. The identified barriers were inadequate staffing, insufficient education, lack of financial compensation, low motivation and lack of time. Adequate skills and knowledge through training activities for health professionals, good multi-disciplinary communication and individual tailored interventions were identified as facilitators.ConclusionsIn the implementation of CPWs in PC, a multitude of barriers and facilitators must be considered, and most of them can be modified through the careful design of intervention and implementation strategies. Furthermore, process evaluations must become a standard component of implementing CPWs to enable other projects to build upon previous experience.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2018 CRD42018087689.

Project description:BackgroundWhilst treatment for mental health issues has traditionally been conducted in-person, advances in technology has seen a recent growth in the use of online video therapy services to help overcome access-to-care barriers faced by those living in rural locations and those unable to travel. These barriers are particularly apparent in the case of veteran populations, which is the focus of this review. Whilst the research investigating the efficacy of online video therapy to treat mental health issues among veterans is promising, widespread adoption and utilisation of this modality remains low with efforts often failing to progress past the pilot phase to implementation. This review focuses on the implementation of online video therapy in veteran mental health care settings and aims to identify the potential barriers and facilitators relevant to implementing the modality in military organisations.MethodsA systematic search of three databases (PsycInfo, PubMed, and Web of Science) was conducted. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to investigate the challenges, lessons learnt, or factors operating as barriers and/or facilitators to the implementation of online video therapy in veteran health care systems.ResultsThe initial search revealed a total of 202 articles. This was reduced to 133 when duplicates were removed. After screening the titles and abstracts a further 70 articles were excluded leaving 63 to be retrieved for full review. A total of 10 studies were included in this review. The most commonly reported barriers were related to clinician concerns, logistical problems, and technology. Other barriers included access to resources as well as challenges posed by collaborations, policy and recruitment. Facilitators included experience using the modality and having dedicated staff responsible for promoting and managing the new service (e.g., on-site champions and telehealth technicians).ConclusionsThis review suggests that numerous barriers must be identified and addressed before attempting to implement an online video therapy service in veteran organisations. Further research is needed to establish best practice for implementation, particularly across geographically dispersed sites. It is hoped that the findings of this review will be used to help inform future implementation efforts and research initiatives in this space.

Project description:Digital health technology (DHT) has the potential to revolutionize healthcare delivery but its uptake has been low in clinical and research settings. The factors that contribute to the limited adoption of DHT, particularly in cardiovascular settings, are unclear. The objective of this review was to determine the barriers and facilitators of DHT uptake from the perspective of patients, clinicians, and researchers. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for studies published from inception to May 2020 that reported barriers and/or facilitators of DHT adoption in cardiovascular care. We extracted data on study design, setting, cardiovascular condition, and type of DHT. We conducted a thematic analysis to identify barriers and facilitators of DHT uptake. The search identified 3075 unique studies, of which 29 studies met eligibility criteria. Studies employed: qualitative methods (n = 13), which included interviews and focus groups; quantitative methods (n = 5), which included surveys; or a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (n = 11). Twenty-five studies reported patient-level barriers, most common of which were difficult-to-use technology (n=7) and a poor internet connection (n=7). Six studies reported clinician-level barriers, which included increased workload (n=4) and a lack of integration with electronic medical records (n=3).Twenty-four studies reported patient-level facilitators, which included improved communication with clinicians (n=10) and personalized technology (n=6). Four studies reported clinician-level facilitators, which included approval and organizational support from cardiology departments and/or hospitals (n=3) and technologies that improved efficiency (n=3). No studies reported researcher-level barriers or facilitators. In summary, internet access, user-friendliness, organizational support, workflow efficiency, and data integration were reported as important factors in the uptake of DHT by patients and clinicians. These factors can be considered when selecting and implementing DHTs in cardiovascular clinical settings.

Project description:BACKGROUNDOver the last decade, paediatric palliative care teams (PPCTs) have been introduced to support children with life-limiting diseases and their families and to ensure continuity, coordination and quality of paediatric palliative care (PPC). However, implementing a PPCT into an organisation is a challenge. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in primary, secondary or tertiary care for implementing a newly initiated multidisciplinary PPCT to bridge the gap between hospital and home.METHODSThe Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations (MIDI) was used to assess responses of 71 HCPs providing PPC to one or more of the 129 children included in a pilot study of a PPCT based at a university children's hospital. The MIDI (29 items) assessed barriers and facilitators to implementing the PPCT by using a 5-point scale (completely disagree to completely agree) and additional open-ended questions. Items to which ?20% of participants responded with 'totally disagree/disagree' and ?80% responded with 'agree/totally agree' were considered as barriers and facilitators, respectively. A general inductive approach was used for open-ended questions.RESULTSReported barriers to implementing a PPCT were related to the HCP's own organisation (e.g., no working arrangements related to use of the intervention [PPCT] registered, other organisational changes such as merger going on). Reported facilitators were mainly related to the intervention (correctness, simplicity, observability and relevancy) and the user scale (positive outcome expectations, patient satisfaction) and only once to the organisation scale (information accessibility). Additionally, HCPs expressed the need for clarity about tasks of the PPCT and reported having made a transition from feeling threatened by the PPCT to satisfaction about the PPCT.CONCLUSIONPositive experiences with the PPCT are a major facilitator for implementing a PPCT. Tailored organisational strategies such as working arrangements by management, concrete information about the PPCT itself and the type of support provided by the PPCT should be clearly communicated to involved HCPs to increase awareness about benefits of the PPCT and ensure a successful implementation. New PPCTs need protection and resources in their initial year to develop into experienced and qualified PPCTs.

Project description:BackgroundSubstantial proliferation of eHealth has enabled a move in patient-centred cancer care from the traditional in-person care model to real-time, dynamic, and technology supported on-demand care. However, in general, the uptake of these innovations is low. Studies show that eHealth is helpful in providing patient empowerment through e.g. providing high quality and timely information, enabling self-monitoring and shared decision making, but dropout rates are high and guidance for optimal implementation is lacking.AimTo explore barriers to and facilitators for nationwide implementation and consolidation of CMyLife, a multi-component, patient-centred, digital care platform, and to construct a comprehensive implementation guide for launching digital care platforms in daily clinical practice.MethodsThe first qualitative case study of a digital care platform like CMyLife was performed including five focus group- and eighteen in-depth interviews with stakeholders. Data were collected using a semi-structured interview guide, based on the frameworks of Grol and Flottorp. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed and barriers and facilitators were identified and categorized according to the frameworks. An iterative process including participation of main stakeholders and using the CFIR-ERIC framework led to creating a comprehensive implementation guide for digital care platforms.ResultsIn total, 45 barriers and 41 facilitators were identified. Main barriers were lack of connectivity between information technology systems, changing role for both health care providers and patients, insufficient time and resources, doubts about privacy and security of data, and insufficient digital skills of users. Main facilitators mentioned were motivating patients and health care providers by clarifying the added value of use of a digital care platform, clear business case with vision, demonstrating (cost) effectiveness, using an implementation guide, and educating patients and health care providers about how to use CMyLife. Based on these barriers and facilitators a clear and comprehensive implementation guide was developed for digital care platforms.ConclusionSeveral barriers to and facilitators for implementation were identified, a clear overview was presented, and a unique comprehensive implementation guide was developed for launching future digital care platforms in daily clinical practice. The next step is to validate the implementation guide in other (oncological) diseases.

Project description:BackgroundThe field of eHealth has a history of more than 20 years. During that time, many different eHealth services were developed. However, factors influencing the adoption of such services were seldom the main focus of analyses. For this reason, organizations adopting and implementing eHealth services seem not to be fully aware of the barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of eHealth services into routine care.ObjectiveThe objective of this work is to provide (1) a comprehensive list of relevant barriers to be considered and (2) a list of facilitators or success factors to help in planning and implementing successful eHealth services.MethodsFor this study, a twofold approach was applied. First, we gathered experts' current opinions on facilitators and barriers in implementing eHealth services via expert discussions at two health informatics conferences held in Europe. Second, we conducted a systematic literature analysis concerning the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of eHealth services. Finally, we merged the results of the expert discussions with those of the systematic literature analysis.ResultsBoth expert discussions (23 and 10 experts, respectively) identified 15 barriers and 31 facilitators, whereas 76 barriers and 268 facilitators were found in 38 of the initial 56 articles published from 12 different countries. For the analyzed publications, the count of distinct barriers reported ranged from 0 to 40 (mean 10.24, SD 8.87, median 8). Likewise, between 0 and 48 facilitators were mentioned in the literature (mean 9.18, SD 9.33, median 6). The combination of both sources resulted in 77 barriers and 292 facilitators for the adoption and implementation of eHealth services.ConclusionsThis work contributes a comprehensive list of barriers and facilitators for the implementation and adoption of eHealth services. Addressing barriers early, and leveraging facilitators during the implementation, can help create eHealth services that better meet the needs of users and provide higher benefits for patients and caregivers.