Evidence mapPaperPMID 39630414Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2024

Supporting Patients' Use of Digital Services in Primary Health Care in England: Synthesis of Evidence From a Mixed Methods Study of "Digital Facilitation".

Jon Sussex, Helen Atherton, Gary Abel, Christopher Clark, Emma Cockcroft, Brandi Leach, Christine Marriott, Jennifer Newbould, Emma Pitchforth, Rachel Winder and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Jon SussexRAND Europe, Eastbrook House, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8BF, United Kingdom, 44 1223353329.ORCID 0000-0001-8970-4546
Helen AthertonUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7072-1925
Gary AbelUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2231-5161
Christopher ClarkUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7526-3038
Emma CockcroftUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3798-9492
Brandi LeachRAND Europe, Eastbrook House, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8BF, United Kingdom, 44 1223353329.ORCID 0000-0003-3262-1541
Christine MarriottNational Institute of Health and Care Research Collaboration South West Peninsula Patient Engagement Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8450-6222
Jennifer NewbouldRAND Europe, Eastbrook House, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8BF, United Kingdom, 44 1223353329.ORCID 0000-0002-2602-6984
Emma PitchforthUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9055-9331
Rachel WinderUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9926-1280
John CampbellUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6752-3493

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: General medical practitioners and other staff at primary care medical practices have an important role in facilitating patient access to online services in the National Health Service in England. These services range from online ordering of repeat prescriptions to conducting online consultations with health care professionals. We have defined "digital facilitation" as that range of processes, procedures, and personnel that seeks to support patients in their uptake and use of online services. Objective: We report how we have synthesized the evidence from a mixed methods study of digital facilitation in primary care in England. The study's objectives were to identify, characterize, and explore the benefits and challenges of different models of digital facilitation in general medical practices in England and to design a framework for evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of digital facilitation interventions. Methods: Our study comprised scoping review of literature, survey of staff in general practices, survey of patients, and ethnography at case study practices plus stakeholder interviews. We compiled a triangulation matrix of the findings from individual work packages through an iterative process whereby each work package's results were first analyzed separately and were then cumulatively combined across work packages in 3 successive workshops. From the resulting matrix, we developed a program theory and an implementation theory and constructed a framework for evaluations of digital facilitation in primary care. The final step of the synthesis process was to discuss the results with national and regional National Health Service stakeholders. Results: Triangulation yielded a combined set of findings summarized within 11 thematic groupings: 3 setting the scene within which digital facilitation takes place, and 8 related to different types of digital facilitation, their implementation, and effectiveness. Some thematic groupings were evident in the findings of all 4 of the research work packages; others were not addressed in all the work packages but were evident from those where they were addressed. Throughout the synthesis, there were no instances where findings from one work package contradicted the findings of another. Findings either reinforced each other or offered complementary or additional insights. The discussion at the stakeholder meeting held at the end of the study resulted in the research team clarifying some findings but not changing any of them. Conclusions: Digital facilitation can take many forms, though much of what is currently done in primary care practices in England is reactive and passive. Clear lines of responsibility, digital tools and platforms that work well for patients and practice staff, and investment in staff time and training are all needed if digital facilitation is to deliver on its promise. We propose a framework for future evaluations of the effectiveness and costs of digital facilitation interventions.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAdultEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedState MedicineSurveys and Questionnairesdigital facilitationdigital interventiondigital servicesethnographyevidence synthesismedical practitionersmixed methods studyprimary carescoping reviewweb-based health services

Identifiers

PMID39630414
PMCPMC11633515

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.