MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2897656271 · doi:10.2196/11885

Factors for Supporting Primary Care Physician Engagement With Patient Apps for Type 2 Diabetes Self-Management That Link to Primary Care: Interview Study

2018· article· en· W2897656271 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julie Ayre, Carissa Bonner, Sian Bramwell, Sharon McClelland, Rajini Jayaballa, Glen Maberly, Kirsten McCaffery

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrimary careType 2 diabetesMedicineFamily medicinemHealthSelf-managementPsychologyDiabetes mellitusNursingComputer sciencePsychological intervention

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The health burden of type 2 diabetes can be mitigated by engaging patients in two key aspects of diabetes care: self-management and regular contact with health professionals. There is a clear benefit to integrating these aspects of care into a single clinical tool, and as mobile phone ownership increases, apps become a more feasible platform. However, the effectiveness of online health interventions is contingent on uptake by health care providers, which is typically low. There has been little research that focuses specifically on barriers and facilitators to health care provider uptake for interventions that link self-management apps to the user's primary care physician (PCP). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore PCP perspectives on proposed features for a self-management app for patients with diabetes that would link to primary care services. METHODS: Researchers conducted 25 semistructured interviews. The interviewer discussed potential features that would link in with the patient's primary care services. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. Framework analysis and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist were employed to ensure rigor. RESULTS: Our analysis indicated that PCP attitudes toward proposed features for an app were underpinned by perceived roles of (1) diabetes self-management, (2) face-to-face care, and (3) the anticipated burden of new technologies on their practice. Theme 1 explored PCP perceptions about how an app could foster patient independence for self-management behaviors but could also increase responsibility and liability for the PCP. Theme 2 identified beliefs underpinning a commonly expressed preference for face-to-face care. PCPs perceived information was more motivating, better understood, and presented with greater empathy when delivered face to face rather than online. Theme 3 described how most PCPs anticipated an initial increase in workload while they learned to use a new clinical tool. Some PCPs accepted this burden on the basis that the change was inevitable as health care became more integrated. Others reported potential benefits were outweighed by effort to implement an app. This study also identified how app features can be positively framed, highlighting potential benefits for PCPs to maximize PCP engagement, buy-in, and uptake. For example, PCPs were more positive when they perceived that an app could facilitate communication and motivation between consultations, focus on building capacity for patient independence, and reinforce rather than replace in-person care. They were also more positive about app features that were automated, integrated with existing software, flexible for different patients, and included secondary benefits such as improved documentation. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided insight into PCP perspectives on a diabetes app integrated with primary care services. This was observed as more than a technological change; PCPs were concerned about changes in workload, their role in self-management, and the nature of consultations. Our research highlighted potential facilitators and barriers to engaging PCPs in the implementation process.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,056

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,030
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,114
Tête enseignante GPT0,444
Écart entre enseignants0,330 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations34
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR mhealth and uhealthMême sujetMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTravaux en français237 207