Supporting Patients’ Use of Digital Services in Primary Health Care in England: Synthesis of Evidence From a Mixed Methods Study of “Digital Facilitation”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: General medical practitioners and other staff at primary care medical practices have an important role in facilitating patient access to online services in the National Health Service in England. These services range from online ordering of repeat prescriptions to conducting online consultations with health care professionals. We have defined "digital facilitation" as that range of processes, procedures, and personnel that seeks to support patients in their uptake and use of online services. Objective: We report how we have synthesized the evidence from a mixed methods study of digital facilitation in primary care in England. The study's objectives were to identify, characterize, and explore the benefits and challenges of different models of digital facilitation in general medical practices in England and to design a framework for evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of digital facilitation interventions. Methods: Our study comprised scoping review of literature, survey of staff in general practices, survey of patients, and ethnography at case study practices plus stakeholder interviews. We compiled a triangulation matrix of the findings from individual work packages through an iterative process whereby each work package's results were first analyzed separately and were then cumulatively combined across work packages in 3 successive workshops. From the resulting matrix, we developed a program theory and an implementation theory and constructed a framework for evaluations of digital facilitation in primary care. The final step of the synthesis process was to discuss the results with national and regional National Health Service stakeholders. Results: Triangulation yielded a combined set of findings summarized within 11 thematic groupings: 3 setting the scene within which digital facilitation takes place, and 8 related to different types of digital facilitation, their implementation, and effectiveness. Some thematic groupings were evident in the findings of all 4 of the research work packages; others were not addressed in all the work packages but were evident from those where they were addressed. Throughout the synthesis, there were no instances where findings from one work package contradicted the findings of another. Findings either reinforced each other or offered complementary or additional insights. The discussion at the stakeholder meeting held at the end of the study resulted in the research team clarifying some findings but not changing any of them. Conclusions: Digital facilitation can take many forms, though much of what is currently done in primary care practices in England is reactive and passive. Clear lines of responsibility, digital tools and platforms that work well for patients and practice staff, and investment in staff time and training are all needed if digital facilitation is to deliver on its promise. We propose a framework for future evaluations of the effectiveness and costs of digital facilitation interventions.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,127 | 0,231 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».