Barriers to and Facilitators of Key Stakeholders Influencing Successful Digital Implementation of Remote Monitoring Solutions: Mixed Methods Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementation of remote monitoring solutions and digital alerting tools in health care has historically been challenging, despite the impetus provided by the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, a health systems-based approach to systematically describe barriers and facilitators across multiple domains has not been undertaken. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to undertake a comprehensive mixed methods analysis of barriers and facilitators for successful implementation of remote monitoring and digital alerting tools in complex health organizations. METHODS: A mixed methods approach using a modified Technology Acceptance Model questionnaire and semistructured interviews mapped to the validated fit among humans, organizations, and technology (HOT-fit) framework was undertaken. Likert frequency responses and deductive thematic analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 11 participants responded to the questionnaire and 18 participants to the interviews. Key barriers and facilitators could be mapped onto 6 dimensions, which incorporated aspects of digitization: system use (human), user satisfaction (human), environment (organization), structure (organization), information and service quality (technology), and system quality (technology). CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations proposed can enhance the potential for future remote sensing solutions to be more successfully integrated in health care practice, resulting in more successful use of "virtual wards." TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05321004; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05321004.
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 | 0.102 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".