A Self-help Tool to Facilitate Implementation of eHealth Initiatives in Health Care (E-Ready): Formative Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: eHealth interventions have the potential to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of health care. However, research has shown that implementing eHealth in routine health care practice is difficult. Organizational readiness to change has been shown to be central to successful implementation. This paper describes the development and formative evaluation of a generic self-help tool, E-Ready, designed to be used by managers, project leaders, or others responsible for implementation in a broad range of health care settings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate a tool that could facilitate eHealth implementation in, for example, health care. METHODS: A first version of the tool was generated based on implementation theory (E-Ready 1.0). A formative evaluation was undertaken through expert panels (n=15), cognitive interviews (n=17), and assessment of measurement properties on E-Ready items from 3 different workplaces (n=165) using Rasch analyses. E-Ready 1.0 was also field tested among the target population (n=29). Iterative revisions were conducted during the formative evaluation process, and E-Ready 2.0 was generated. RESULTS: The E-Ready Tool consists of a readiness assessment survey and a hands-on manual. The survey measures perceived readiness for change (willingness and capability) at individual and collective levels: perceived conditions for change at the workplace, perceived individual conditions for change, perceived support and engagement among management, perceived readiness among colleagues, perceived consequences on status quo, and perceived workplace attitudes. The manual contains a brief introduction, instructions on how to use the tool, information on the themes of E-Ready, instructions on how to create an implementation plan, brief advice for success, and tips for further reading on implementation theory. Rasch analyses showed overall acceptable measurement properties in terms of fit validity. The subscale Individual conditions for change (3 items) had the lowest person reliability (0.56), whereas Perceived consequences on status quo (5 items) had the highest person reliability (0.87). CONCLUSIONS: E-Ready 2.0 is a new self-help tool to guide implementation targeting health care provider readiness and engagement readiness ahead of eHealth initiatives in, for example, health care settings. E-Ready can be improved further to capture additional aspects of implementation; improvements can also be made by evaluating the tool in a larger sample.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.115 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".