ArticleDigital health
Implementing a teleophthalmology referral platform in routine practice: Understanding a digital health intervention implementation using normalisation process theory.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tele-ophthalmology-enabled and artificial intelligence-ready referral pathway for community optometry referrals of retinal disease: HERMES cluster randomised trial with a diagnostic accuracy study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Digital health interventions have the potential to improve clinical processes and patient outcomes; however, many face challenges during the adoption and implementation stages, hindering their overall impact. Our study uses normalisation process theory (NPT) as a theoretical approach to explore the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a teleophthalmology referral platform in the United Kingdom, as an illustrative case of the implementation of a digital health intervention in routine practice. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 24 health professionals (18 optometrists and 6 ophthalmologists) involved in the implementation of a teleophthalmology referral platform. NPT guided data collection and analysis. Results: Most participants were ready to engage with the teleophthalmology referral platform, recognising its potential value and benefits. However, during implementation, participants' perceptions varied; a major factor was whether their expectations from the technology were met, particularly regarding the feedback from the secondary eye care component of the referral platform. Several additional factors were identified that would influence the adoption of the platform. These included individual aspects (e.g. participants' IT skills), technology-related factors (e.g. the time required to complete referrals) and organisational factors (e.g. investment in community optometry services). Conclusions: To successfully implement the teleophthalmology platform into routine practice, particularly on a large scale, multiple factors at different levels must be considered. This study highlights the complexity associated with implementing digital health interventions in routine practice and the contribution of NPT in untangling some of these complexities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.