MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400407011 · doi:10.32920/ihtp.v4i1.1938

Health care providers’ perceptions of barriers, facilitators, and acceptability of an eHealth resource: Descriptive study

2024· article· en· W4400407011 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jennifer Abbass‐Dick, Adam Dubrowski, Julia Micallef, Laura Harvie, Amber Newport, Kelly Pigeau, Hannah Jeronymo, Manon Lemonde

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Health Trends and Perspectives · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsLakeridge HealthRegional Municipality of DurhamOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthDescriptive researchResource (disambiguation)Health careNursingPerceptionDescriptive statisticsMedicinePsychologySociologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Women often experience breastfeeding difficulties leading to premature supplementation and cessation. Implementing evidence-informed eHealth resources in clinical interactions with health care providers (HCPs), both in the health department and hospitals throughout a health region may help address this longstanding clinical issue. However, the provision of an eHealth resource alone is not sufficient to increase breastfeeding rates and health literacy, as the effective implementation of the eHealth resource in clinical practice is required. As such, our study objective was to conduct a needs assessment with HCPs to determine the barriers, facilitators, and perceived acceptability of the eHealth resource. Methods: A non-experimental descriptive study was used to examine HCPs’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an eHealth resource in clinical settings. HCPs completed an online questionnaire to determine barriers and facilitators informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: HCPs (n=44) completed the survey and agreed the resource was credible (86%), up to date (84%), covered relevant topics (91%), would ease their ability to provide breastfeeding education (82%), and would increase consistent messaging (86%). They agreed it would increase parents’ breastfeeding health literacy (91%) and help parents meet their breastfeeding goals (86%). Concerns were expressed regarding how this would be used in clinical interactions due to challenges with navigation, searchability, and the large amount of content. Implications and Conclusion: HCPs rated the eHealth resource highly; however, adaptations to the local context are required. For effective implementation of interventions in clinical settings, HCPs’ perceptions should be explored to determine their specific needs and determine how to best adapt the intervention to their setting to increase acceptability and facilitate use in clinical interactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Health Trends and PerspectivesSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207