Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35797097›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Development of a Quality Management Model and Self-assessment Questionnaire for Hybrid Health Care: Concept Mapping Study.

Rosian Tossaint-Schoenmakers, Marise J Kasteleyn, Anneloek Rauwerdink, Niels Chavannes, Sofie Willems, Esther P W A Talboom-Kamp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rosian Tossaint-SchoenmakersSaltro Diagnostic Centre, Unilabs Netherlands, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7937-1098
Marise J KasteleynNational eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7751-7516
Anneloek RauwerdinkDepartment of Surgery, Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7126-3156
Niels ChavannesNational eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8607-9199
Sofie WillemsNational eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9403-0491
Esther P W A Talboom-KampNational eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9917-9052

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorking with eHealth requires health care organizations to make structural changes in the way they work. Organizational structure and process must be adjusted to provide high-quality care. This study is a follow-up study of a systematic literature review on optimally organizing hybrid health care (eHealth and face to face) using the Donabedian Structure-Process-Outcome (SPO) framework to translate the findings into a modus operandi for health care organizations.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop an SPO-based quality assessment model for organizing hybrid health care using an accompanying self-assessment questionnaire. Health care organizations can use this model and a questionnaire to manage and improve their hybrid health care.

methodsConcept mapping was used to enrich and validate evidence-based knowledge from a literature review using practice-based knowledge from experts. First, brainstorming was conducted. The participants listed all the factors that contributed to the effective organization of hybrid health care and the associated outcomes. Data from the brainstorming phase were combined with data from the literature study, and duplicates were removed. Next, the participants rated the factors on importance and measurability and grouped them into clusters. Finally, using multivariate statistical analysis (multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis) and group interpretation, an SPO-based quality management model and an accompanying questionnaire were constructed.

resultsAll participants (n=39) were familiar with eHealth and were health care professionals, managers, researchers, patients, or eHealth suppliers. The brainstorming and literature review resulted in a list of 314 factors. After removing the duplicates, 78 factors remained. Using multivariate statistical analyses and group interpretations, a quality management model and questionnaire incorporating 8 clusters and 33 factors were developed. The 8 clusters included the following: Vision, strategy, and organization; Quality information technology infrastructure and systems; Quality eHealth application; Providing support to health care professionals; Skills, knowledge, and attitude of health care professionals; Attentiveness to the patient; Patient outcomes; and Learning system. The SPO categories were positioned as overarching themes to emphasize the interrelations between the clusters. Finally, a proposal was made to use the self-assessment questionnaire in practice, allowing measurement of the quality of each factor.

conclusionsThe quality of hybrid care is determined by organizational, technological, process, and personal factors. The 33 most important factors were clustered in a quality management model and self-assessment questionnaire called the Hybrid Health Care Quality Assessment. The model visualizes the interrelations between the factors. Using a questionnaire, each factor can be assessed to determine how effectively it is organized and developed over time. Health care organizations can use the Hybrid Health Care Quality Assessment to identify improvement opportunities for solid and sustainable hybrid health care.

Indexed as

blended health careconcept mappingdigital healtheHealthhybrid health careoutcomeprocessquality assessmentstructure

Identifiers

PMID35797097
PMCPMC9305399

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.