Donal Flynn1, Peggy Gregory, Hani Makki, Mark Gabbay. 1. Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK. donal.flynn@manchester.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess expectations and experiences of a new eHealth service by patients and staff in three primary care settings; (2) to ascertain attitudes to a range of future, primary care-oriented eHealth services. DESIGN: Qualitative case study. SETTING: Three UK general practices introducing an eHealth service for booking patient appointments. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety patients purposively selected from users and non-users of the new service and 28 staff (clinicians, management and administrative staff). RESULTS: Actual patient use of the service was lower than stated intention. Patients and staff felt that more active promotion of the service would have resulted in more use. Low usage did not result in a negative assessment of the service by most staff. Different patient groupings were identified with characteristics that may be used as predictors of eHealth service use and indicators of training needs. GPs and patients expressed opposing viewpoints on a range of future eHealth services. CONCLUSIONS: Take-up of eHealth services may be lower than expected. To overcome patient barriers, factors that may narrow the intention-behaviour gap such as level of service promotion, GP endorsement, and usage by different patient groups, should be investigated. For clinician barriers, the eHealth evidence base needs strengthening, while for primary care practices, a learning process including staff training needs to be instituted. The differing views of patients and GPs about components of eHealth means that policymakers need to plan for a lengthy political process to obtain agreement on contentious issues if they are to achieve successful eHealth services.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess expectations and experiences of a new eHealth service by patients and staff in three primary care settings; (2) to ascertain attitudes to a range of future, primary care-oriented eHealth services. DESIGN: Qualitative case study. SETTING: Three UK general practices introducing an eHealth service for booking patient appointments. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety patients purposively selected from users and non-users of the new service and 28 staff (clinicians, management and administrative staff). RESULTS: Actual patient use of the service was lower than stated intention. Patients and staff felt that more active promotion of the service would have resulted in more use. Low usage did not result in a negative assessment of the service by most staff. Different patient groupings were identified with characteristics that may be used as predictors of eHealth service use and indicators of training needs. GPs and patients expressed opposing viewpoints on a range of future eHealth services. CONCLUSIONS: Take-up of eHealth services may be lower than expected. To overcome patient barriers, factors that may narrow the intention-behaviour gap such as level of service promotion, GP endorsement, and usage by different patient groups, should be investigated. For clinician barriers, the eHealth evidence base needs strengthening, while for primary care practices, a learning process including staff training needs to be instituted. The differing views of patients and GPs about components of eHealth means that policymakers need to plan for a lengthy political process to obtain agreement on contentious issues if they are to achieve successful eHealth services.
Authors: Yvonne Roelofsen; Steven H Hendriks; Floor Sieverink; Gijs W D Landman; Klaas H Groenier; Henk J G Bilo; Nanne Kleefstra Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2014-02-21
Authors: Freda Mold; Simon de Lusignan; Aziz Sheikh; Azeem Majeed; Jeremy C Wyatt; Tom Quinn; Mary Cavill; Christina Franco; Umesh Chauhan; Hannah Blakey; Neha Kataria; Theodoros N Arvanitis; Beverley Ellis Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Julia E W C van Gemert-Pijnen; Nicol Nijland; Maarten van Limburg; Hans C Ossebaard; Saskia M Kelders; Gunther Eysenbach; Erwin R Seydel Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Nicol Nijland; Julia E W C van Gemert-Pijnen; Saskia M Kelders; Bart J Brandenburg; Erwin R Seydel Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-09-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Andrew Bonney; Patricia Knight-Billington; Judy Mullan; Michelle Moscova; Stephen Barnett; Don Iverson; Daniel Saffioti; Elisabeth Eastland; Michelle Guppy; Kathryn Weston; Ian Wilson; Judith Nicky Hudson; Dimity Pond; Gerard Gill; Charlotte Hespe Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2015-01-07
Authors: Judy Jw Ammerlaan; Lieske W Scholtus; Constance Hc Drossaert; Harmieke van Os-Medendorp; Berent Prakken; Aike A Kruize; Johannes Jw Bijlsma Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2015-08-14
Authors: Jose Manuel Trujillo Gómez; Laura Díaz-Gete; Carlos Martín-Cantera; Mireia Fábregas Escurriola; Maribel Lozano Moreno; Raquel Burón Leandro; Ana María Gomez Quintero; Jose Luis Ballve; María Lourdes Clemente Jiménez; Elisa Puigdomènech Puig; Ramón Casas More; Beatriz Garcia Rueda; Marc Casajuana; Marga Méndez-Aguirre; David Garcia Bonias; Soraya Fernández Maestre; Jessica Sánchez Fondevila Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Simon de Lusignan; Freda Mold; Aziz Sheikh; Azeem Majeed; Jeremy C Wyatt; Tom Quinn; Mary Cavill; Toto Anne Gronlund; Christina Franco; Umesh Chauhan; Hannah Blakey; Neha Kataria; Fiona Barker; Beverley Ellis; Phil Koczan; Theodoros N Arvanitis; Mary McCarthy; Simon Jones; Imran Rafi Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 2.692