Evidence mapPaperPMID 39190440Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Digital Health Services for People With Musculoskeletal Conditions in the Primary Health Care Setting: Systematic Review.

Mark Leendert van Tilburg, Ivar Spin, Martijn F Pisters, J Bart Staal, Raymond Wjg Ostelo, Miriam van der Velde, Cindy Veenhof, Corelien Jj Kloek

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

8 authors.

Mark Leendert van TilburgInnovation of Movement Care Research Group, Research Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Living, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3474-0950
Ivar SpinInnovation of Movement Care Research Group, Research Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Living, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0007-2455-2853
Martijn F PistersDepartment of Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy Science and Sports, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2875-1709
J Bart StaalMusculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0083-6380
Raymond Wjg OsteloDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, VU University, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7679-7210
Miriam van der VeldeInnovation of Movement Care Research Group, Research Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Living, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3464-9794
Cindy VeenhofInnovation of Movement Care Research Group, Research Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Living, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0970-2896
Corelien Jj KloekInnovation of Movement Care Research Group, Research Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Living, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7426-7141

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions have increasingly been studied and show potential. Despite the potential of digital health services, their use in primary care is lagging. A thorough implementation is needed, including the development of implementation strategies that potentially improve the use of digital health services in primary care. The first step in designing implementation strategies that fit the local context is to gain insight into determinants that influence implementation for patients and health care professionals. Until now, no systematic overview has existed of barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting.

objectiveThis systematic literature review aims to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for eligible qualitative and mixed methods studies up to March 2024. Methodological quality of the qualitative component of the included studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A framework synthesis of barriers and facilitators to implementation was conducted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). All identified CFIR constructs were given a reliability rating (high, medium, or low) to assess the consistency of reporting across each construct.

resultsOverall, 35 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Methodological quality was high in 34 studies and medium in 1 study. Barriers (-) of and facilitators (+) to implementation were identified in all 5 CFIR domains: "digital health characteristics" (ie, commercial neutral [+], privacy and safety [-], specificity [+], and good usability [+]), "outer setting" (ie, acceptance by stakeholders [+], lack of health care guidelines [-], and external financial incentives [-]), "inner setting" (ie, change of treatment routines [+ and -], information incongruence (-), and support from colleagues [+]), "characteristics of the healthcare professionals" (ie, health care professionals' acceptance [+ and -] and job satisfaction [+ and -]), and the "implementation process" (involvement [+] and justification and delegation [-]). All identified constructs and subconstructs of the CFIR had a high reliability rating. Some identified determinants that influence implementation may be facilitators in certain cases, whereas in others, they may be barriers.

conclusionsBarriers and facilitators were identified across all 5 CFIR domains, suggesting that the implementation process can be complex and requires implementation strategies across all CFIR domains. Stakeholders, including digital health intervention developers, health care professionals, health care organizations, health policy makers, health care funders, and researchers, can consider the identified barriers and facilitators to design tailored implementation strategies after prioritization has been carried out in their local context.

Indexed as

Digital HealthMusculoskeletal DiseasesPrimary Health CareHumansTelemedicineeHealthimplementation sciencemobile phonemusculoskeletal problemsprimary health caresystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39190440
PMCPMC11387918

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.