Dataset Information

Availability of researcher-led eHealth tools for pain assessment and management: barriers, facilitators, costs, and design.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Numerous eHealth tools for pain assessment and management have been developed and evaluated with promising results regarding psychometric properties, efficacy, and effectiveness. Although considerable resources are spent on developing and evaluating these tools with the aim of increasing access to care, current evidence suggests they are not made available to end users, reducing their impact and creating potential research waste. METHODS:This study consisted of 2 components: (1) a systematic review of eHealth tools for pediatric pain assessment and/or management published in the past 10 years, and (2) an online survey, completed by the authors of identified tools, of tool availability, perceived barriers or facilitators to availability, grant funding used, and a validated measure of user-centeredness of the design process (UCD-11). RESULTS:Ninety articles (0.86% of citations screened) describing 53 tools met inclusion criteria. Twenty-six survey responses were completed (49.06%), 13 of which (50.00%) described available tools. Commonly endorsed facilitators of tool availability included researchers' beliefs in tool benefits to the target population and research community; barriers included lack of infrastructure and time. The average cost of each unavailable tool was $314,425.31 USD ($3,144,253.06 USD total, n = 10). Authors of available tools were more likely to have followed user-centered design principles and reported higher total funding. CONCLUSION:Systemic changes to academic and funding structures could better support eHealth tool availability and may reduce potential for research waste. User-centered design and implementation science methods could improve the availability of eHealth tools and should be further explored in future studies.

SUBMITTER: Higgins KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6172815 | biostudies-other | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Availability of researcher-led eHealth tools for pain assessment and management: barriers, facilitators, costs, and design.

Higgins Kristen S KS Tutelman Perri R PR Chambers Christine T CT Witteman Holly O HO Barwick Melanie M Corkum Penny P Grant Doris D Stinson Jennifer N JN Lalloo Chitra C Robins Sue S Orji Rita R Jordan Isabel I

Pain reports 20180911 Suppl 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Numerous eHealth tools for pain assessment and management have been developed and evaluated with promising results regarding psychometric properties, efficacy, and effectiveness. Although considerable resources are spent on developing and evaluating these tools with the aim of increasing access to care, current evidence suggests they are not made available to end users, reducing their impact and creating potential research waste.<h4>Methods</h4>This study consisted of 2 comp ...[more]

PMID: 30324177

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe poor translation of research findings into routine clinical practice is common in all areas of healthcare. Having a better understanding of how researchers and clinicians experience engagement in and with research, their working relationships and expectations of each other, may be one way to help to facilitate collaborative partnerships and therefore increase successful translation of research into clinical practice.AimsTo explore the views of clinical and research staff about their experiences of working together during research projects and identify the facilitators and barriers.MethodsWe conducted four focus groups with 18 participants - clinicians, researchers and those with a dual clinical-research role, recruited from one mental health Trust and one university. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsEight themes were identified under the headings of two research questions 1) Barriers and facilitators of either engaging in or with research from the perspective of clinical staff, with themes of understanding the benefits of the research; perceived knowledge and personal qualities of researchers; lack of time and organisational support to be involved in and implement research; and lack of feedback about progress and outcome of research. 2) Barriers and facilitators for engaging with clinicians when conducting research, from the perspective of researchers, with themes of understanding what clinicians need to know and how they need to feel to engage with research; demonstrating an understanding of the clinician's world; navigating through the clinical world; and demands of the researcher role.ConclusionThere was agreement between clinicians and researchers about the barriers and facilitators for engaging clinicians in research. Both groups identified that it was the researcher's responsibility to form and maintain good working relationships. Better support for researchers in their role calls for training in communication skills and bespoke training to understand the local context in which research is taking place.

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.

Project description:BackgroundIn November 2016, the ICH published a requirement for sponsors to develop a systematic, prioritised, risk-based approach to monitoring clinical trials. This approach is more commonly known as risk-based monitoring (RBM). However, recent evidence suggests that a 'gold standard', validated approach to RBM does not exist and it is unclear how sponsors will introduce RBM into their organisations. A first step needed to inform the implementation of RBM is to explore academic trialists' readiness and ability to perform RBM. The aim of this paper is to identify the attitudes and perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials in Ireland.MethodsThis is a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design, with quantitative survey followed by semistructured interviews. Academic clinical researchers (N = 132) working in Ireland were surveyed to examine their use and perceptions of RBM. A purposive sample of survey participants (n = 22) were then interviewed to gain greater insight into the quantitative findings. The survey and interview data were merged to generate a list of perceived barriers and facilitators to RBM implementation, with suggestions for, and solutions to, these issues.ResultsSurvey response rate was 49% (132/273). Thirteen percent (n = 18) of responders were not familiar with the term risk-based monitoring and less than a quarter of respondents (21%, n = 28) had performed RBM in a clinical trial. Barriers to RBM implementation included lack of RBM knowledge/training, increased costs caused by greater IT demands, increased workload for trial staff and lack of evidence to support RBM as an effective monitoring approach. Facilitators included participants' legal obligation to perform RBM under the new ICH-GCP guidelines, availability of RBM guidance and perception of cost savings by performing RBM in future trials.ConclusionThe results of this study demonstrate a need for training and regulatory-endorsed guidelines to support the implementation of RBM in academic-led clinical trials. The study provides valuable insights to inform interventions and strategies by policy-makers and clinical trial regulators to improve RBM uptake.

Project description:BackgroundMany leaders in the field of chronic pain treatment consider interdisciplinary pain management programs to be the most effective treatments available for chronic pain. As programs are instituted and expanded to address demands for nonpharmacological chronic pain interventions, we need to better understand how patients experience program impacts, as well as the challenges and supports patients encounter in trying to maintain and build on intervention gains.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation of an interdisciplinary chronic pain coaching program at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs. A purposive sample of Veterans were engaged in interviews (n=41) and focus groups (n=20) to elicit patient outcomes and barriers and facilitators to sustainment of improvements. Transcripts were analyzed using matrix and thematic analyses.ResultsVeterans reported various outcomes. Most frequently they described adopting new self-care or lifestyle practices for pain management and health. They also often described accepting pain, being better able to adjust and set boundaries, feeling more in control, participating in life, and changing their medication use. A small portion of the sample reported no improvement in their conditions. When outcomes were examined as a whole, individuals described impacts that could be placed along a spectrum from whole life change to no change. Facilitators to maintenance of improvements included having building blocks (eg, carrying forward practices learned), support (eg, access to resources), and energy (eg, motivation), and improving incrementally. Challenges were not having building blocks (eg, life disruptions), support (eg, unknown follow-up options), and energy (eg, competing demands) and having an unbalanced rate of improvement.ConclusionMost Veterans identified experiencing multiple areas of improvement, especially learning about and taking up new pain and general health management skills. Ensuring participants can build on and find support for these outcomes when applying what they have learned in their dynamic social and physical worlds remains a challenge for this program and other relatively short-term interdisciplinary chronic pain interventions.

Project description:BackgroundeHealth interventions have been shown to offer people living with chronic kidney disease the opportunity of embracing dialysis therapies with greater confidence, the potential to obtain better clinical outcomes and increased quality of life, and diverse and flexible designs and delivery options. eHealth interventions or solutions can offer one-way information without the possibility for dialogue, as with most mobile apps. eHealth interventions intending to enable two-way communication between patients undergoing hemodialysis and health professionals are the focus of this review. eHealth communication interventions that enable two-way communication between patients undergoing hemodialysis and health professionals is an emerging field, but issues relating to participation in eHealth communication for patients undergoing hemodialysis are scarcely described. The current conceptualization of this issue is too scattered to inform the development of future interventions. In this scoping review, we want to assemble and examine this scattered knowledge on participation in two-way eHealth communication for patients undergoing hemodialysis.ObjectiveWe want to understand the participative role of people living with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis in available communicative eHealth interventions and to understand which barriers and facilitators exist for patient involvement in eHealth communication with health professionals.MethodsA scoping review methodology is guiding this study. Peer-reviewed primary studies, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods study designs will be included. A systematic search for published studies, dissertations, and theses at the doctoral level in the English language will be conducted in five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses). The included literature will focus on adult (18 years or older) patients undergoing hemodialysis who are involved in eHealth communication with health professionals. Data on the type of eHealth communication interventions, the participative role, and barriers and facilitators for the involvement in eHealth communication for people undergoing hemodialysis will be extracted independently by two reviewers. The extracted data will be collected in a draft charting table prepared for the study. Any discrepancies between the reviewers will be solved through discussion or with a third reviewer.ResultsResults are anticipated by the spring of 2023 and will be presented in tabular format along with a narrative summary. The anticipated results will be presented in alignment with the objectives of the study, presenting findings on the participative role of patients undergoing hemodialysis in eHealth communication interventions.ConclusionsWe anticipate that this study will inform on eHealth communication interventions and the level of patient participation in eHealth communication for patients undergoing hemodialysis. The systematized overview will possibly identify research gaps and motivate further development of eHealth communication to ensure patient participation. The findings will be of interest to key stakeholders in clinical care, research, development, policy, and patient advocacy.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/38615.

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:IntroductionParental presence in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) has been demonstrated to enhance infant growth and development, reduce parental anxiety and stress and strengthen parent-infant bonding. Since eHealth technology emerged, research on its utilisation in NICUs has risen substantially. There is some evidence that incorporating such technologies in the NICU can reduce parental stress and enhance parent confidence in caring for their infant.Several countries, including China, restrict parental attendance in NICUs, citing infection control challenges, issues of privacy and confidentiality and perceived additional workload for healthcare professionals. Due to COVID-19 pandemic-related shortages of personal protective equipment and uncertain mode of transmission, many NICUs around the world closed to parental visiting and engagement in neonatal care.There is anecdotal evidence that, given pandemic-related restrictions, eHealth technologies, have increasingly been used in NICUs as a potential substitute for in-person parental presence.However, the constraints and enablers of technologies in these situations have not been exhaustively examined. This scoping review aims to update the literature on eHealth technology utilisation in the NICU and to explore the literature on the challenges and facilitators of eHealth technology implementation to inform future research.Methods and analysisThe five-stage Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology will serve as the foundation for this scoping review. Eight databases will be searched for the relevant literature published between January 2000 and August 2022 in either English or Chinese. Grey literature will be manually searched. Data extraction and eligibility screening will be carried out by two impartial reviewers. There will be periods of both quantitative and qualitative analysis.Ethics and disseminationSince all data and information will be taken from publicly accessible literature, ethical approval would not be necessary. A peer-reviewed publication will be published with the results of this scoping review.Trial registration numberThis scoping review protocol was registered in Open Science Framework and can be found here: https://osf.io/AQV5P/.

Dataset Information

Availability of researcher-led eHealth tools for pain assessment and management: barriers, facilitators, costs, and design.

Publications

Availability of researcher-led eHealth tools for pain assessment and management: barriers, facilitators, costs, and design.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets