MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396554472 · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2024.1346085

Sustaining e-health innovations in a complex hospital environment: learning through evidence

2024· article· en· W4396554472 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mirou Jaana, E. MacPhee, Heather Sherrard, Mark Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Digital Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsSustainabilityHealth careValue propositionBusinessProcess managementScale (ratio)Knowledge managementAdaptation (eye)Resource (disambiguation)Process (computing)Key (lock)MarketingComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implementing and sustaining technological innovations in healthcare is a complex process. Commonly, innovations are abandoned due to unsuccessful attempts to sustain and scale-up post implementation. Limited information is available on what characterizes successful e-health innovations and the enabling factors that can lead to their sustainability in complex hospital environments. We present a successful implementation, sustainability and scale-up of a virtual care program consisting of three e-health applications (telemedicine, telehome monitoring, and interactive voice response) in a major cardiac care hospital in Canada. We describe their evolution and adaptation over time, present the innovative approach for their "business case" and funding that supported their implementation, and identify key factors that enabled their sustainability and success, which may inform future research and serve as a benchmark for other health care organizations. Despite resource constraints, e-health innovations can be deployed and successfully sustained in complex healthcare settings contingent key considerations: simplifying technology to make it intuitive for patients; providing significant value proposition that is research supported to influence policy changes; involving early supporters of adoption from administrative and clinical staff; engaging patients throughout the innovation cycle; and partnering with industry/technology providers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Digital HealthSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207