| Literature DB >> 35011873 |
Agnieszka Kruszyńska-Fischbach1, Sylwia Sysko-Romańczuk1, Mateusz Rafalik1, Renata Walczak2, Magdalena Kludacz-Alessandri3.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many countries to implement a variety of restrictive measures to prevent it from spreading more widely, including the introduction of medical teleconsultations and the use of various tools in the field of inpatient telemedicine care. Digital technologies provide a wide range of treatment options for patients, and at the same time pose a number of organizational challenges for medical entities. Therefore, the question arises of whether organizations are ready to use modern telemedicine tools during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this article is to examine two factors that impact the level of organizational e-readiness for digital transformation in Polish primary healthcare providers (PHC). The first factor comprises operational capabilities, which are the sum of valuable, scarce, unique, and irreplaceable resources and the ability to use them. The second factor comprises technological capabilities, which determine the adoption and usage of innovative technologies. Contrary to the commonly analyzed impacts of technology on operational capabilities, we state the reverse hypothesis. The verification confirms the significant influence of operational capabilities on technological capabilities. The research is conducted using a questionnaire covering organizational e-readiness for digital transformation prepared by the authors. Out of the 32 items examined, four are related to the operational capabilities and four to the technological capabilities. The result of our evaluation shows that: (i) a basic set of four variables can effectively measure the dimensions of OC, namely the degree of agility, level of process integration, quality of resources, and quality of cooperation; (ii) a basic set of three variables can effectively measure the dimensions of TC, namely adoption and usage of technologies, customer interaction, and process automation; (iii) the empirical results show that OC is on a higher level than TC in Polish PHCs; (iv) the assessment of the relationship between OC and TC reveals a significant influence of operational capabilities on technological capabilities with a structural coefficient of 0.697. We recommend increasing the level of technological capability in PHC providers in order to improve the contact between patients and general practitioners (GPs) via telemedicine in lockdown conditions.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; digital transformation; operational capabilities; organizational e-readiness; primary healthcare; technological capabilities
Year: 2021 PMID: 35011873 PMCID: PMC8745320 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11010133
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Statements used to assess TC with supporting literature.
| Statements | Supporting Literature | Essence |
|---|---|---|
| We regularly use emerging technologies (e.g., voice interfaces, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, blockchain, etc.) to improve the patient care process. | Fortuin and Omta (2009) [ | Strategic capabilities (coordination and information accessibility) |
| Ali et al. (2018) [ | ||
| We use patient experience tools and methods, such as persona and journey maps, to design and modify digital solutions. | Lu et al. (2007) [ | Indicators of innovation effort process |
| Yeniyurt et al. (2019) [ | ||
| We use digital tools to promote innovation, collaboration, and mobility for doctors, medical staff, and administration. | Jonker et al. (2006) [ | Learning mechanisms |
| Mohamad et al. (2017) [ | ||
| We use modern architectures (APIs, cloud storage, etc.) to promote speed and flexibility in implementing digital solutions. | Ziggers and Henseler (2009) [ | Technology upgrade for motivation and commitment to change |
| Ali et al. (2018) [ | ||
| Li and Chan (2019) [ |
Statements used to assess OC with supporting literature.
| Statement | Supporting Literature | Essence |
|---|---|---|
| We have defined, well-described, and repeatable processes for implementing digital solutions. | Christensen and Overdorf (2000) [ | Processes and routine |
| Wu et al. (2010) [ | ||
| Benitez et al. (2018) [ | ||
| Helfat and Peteraf (2003) [ | ||
| We dedicate appropriate resources to the work of digitization. | Coombs and Bierly (2006) [ | Resources |
| Ahmed, Kristal, Pagell (2014) [ | ||
| Raphael and Schoemaker (1986) [ | ||
| Our organizational model encourages collaboration between doctors, medical staff, and administrative staff and IT specialists. | Guan and Ma (2003) [ | Learning mechanisms |
| Bustinza, Molina, and Arias-Ar (2010) [ | ||
| We have a flexible, iterative, and collaborative approach to developing digital solutions. | De Mori, Batalha, and Alfranca (2016) [ | Job coordination and contribution |
| Kumar and Singh 2019 [ |
Survey questions for OC and TC dimensions.
| Dimension | Variable Name | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Technological | V_q2s31 | We regularly use emerging technologies (e.g., voice interfaces, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, blockchain, etc.) to improve the patient care process. |
| IV_q2s22 | We use patient experience tools and methods, such as persona and journey maps, to design and modify digital solutions. | |
| IV_q2s23 | We use digital tools to promote innovation, collaboration, and mobility for doctors, medical staff, and administrative staff. | |
| V_q2s30 | We use modern architectures (APIs, cloud storage, etc.) to promote speed and flexibility in implementing digital solutions. | |
| Operational | II_q2s6 | We have defined, well-described, and repeatable processes for implementing digital solutions. |
| II_q2s7 | We dedicate appropriate resources to the work of digitization. | |
| II_q2s8 | Our organizational model encourages collaboration between doctors, medical staff, and administrative staff and IT specialists. | |
| V_q2s29 | We have a flexible, iterative, and collaborative approach to developing digital solutions. |
Figure 1The number of patients served monthly by primary healthcare facilities.
Figure 2Percentage of teleconsultations provided monthly by primary healthcare facilities.
Technological capabilities and descriptive statistics from the survey responses.
| Variable | Mean | Median | Mode | Std. | Skewness | Kurtosis | Cronbach’s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IV_q2s22 | 3.26 | 3 | 4 | 1.109 | −0.711 | −0.202 | 0.841 |
| IV_q2s23 | 3.74 | 4 | 4 | 0.976 | −0.835 | 0.652 | |
| V_q2s30 | 3.38 | 4 | 4 | 1.114 | −0.815 | −0.127 | |
| V_q2s31 | 3.28 | 4 | 4 | 1.161 | −0.687 | −0.428 |
Figure 3Technological capability and operational capability responses rates.
Operational capabilities and descriptive statistics from the survey responses.
| Variable | Mean | Median | Mode | Std. | Skewness | Kurtosis | Cronbach’s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| II_q2s6 | 3.85 | 4 | 4 | 0.947 | −1.162 | 1.522 | 0.809 |
| II_q2s7 | 3.87 | 4 | 4 | 0.958 | −1.054 | 1.051 | |
| II_q2s8 | 4.02 | 4 | 4 | 0.852 | −0.984 | 1.331 | |
| V_q2s29 | 3.85 | 4 | 4 | 0.962 | −0.898 | 0.680 |
Correlation matrices for OC and TC variables.
| OC Variables | II_q2s6 | II_q2s7 | II_q2s8 | V_q2s29 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| II_q2s6 | 1 | 0.643 | 0.552 | 0.447 |
| II_q2s7 | 0.643 | 1 | 0.546 | 0.471 |
| II_q2s8 | 0.552 | 0.546 | 1 | 0.442 |
| V_q2s29 | 0.447 | 0.471 | 0.442 | 1 |
| TC variables | IV_q2s22 | IV_q2s23 | V_q2s30 | V_q2s31 |
| IV_q2s22 | 1 | 0.568 | 0.612 | 0.629 |
| IV_q2s23 | 0.568 | 1 | 0.497 | 0.466 |
| V_q2s30 | 0.612 | 0.497 | 1 | 0.64 |
| V_q2s31 | 0.629 | 0.466 | 0.64 | 1 |
Factor analysis results for variables IV_q2s22, IV_q2s23, V_q2s29, V_q2s30, V_q2s31, II_q2s6, II_q2s7, and II_q2s8. Extraction method: principal axis factoring.
| Factor | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | |
| 1 | 4.313 | 53.909 | 53.909 | 3.886 | 48.579 | 48.579 | 3.418 |
| 2 | 1.039 | 12.983 | 66.893 | 0.631 | 7.892 | 56.471 | 3.310 |
| 3 | 0.609 | 7.608 | 74.501 | ||||
| 4 | 0.549 | 6.867 | 81.368 | ||||
| 5 | 0.445 | 5.559 | 86.927 | ||||
| 6 | 0.375 | 4.685 | 91.612 | ||||
| 7 | 0.348 | 4.345 | 95.957 | ||||
| 0.323 | 4.043 | 100.000 | |||||
Factor loadings for TC and OC.
| Variable | Factor | Factor | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operational | Technological | Operational | Technological | |
| II_q2s6 | 0.782 | 0.788 | ||
| II_q2s7 | 0.706 | 0.722 | ||
| II_q2s8 | 0.813 | 0.765 | ||
| V_q2s29 | 0.526 | 0.520 | ||
| V_q2s30 | 0.798 | 0.787 | ||
| V_q2s31 | 0.835 | 0.840 | ||
| IV_q2s22 | 0.745 | 0.712 | ||
| IV_q2s23 | 0.431 | 0.343 | ||
Figure 4Factor plot in rotated factor space for variables IV_q2s22, IV_q2s23, V_q2s29, V_q2s30 V_q2s31, II_q2s6, II_q2s7, and II_q2s8.
Factor analysis results for variables IV-q2s22, V-q2s29, V-q2s30, V-q2s31, II-q2s6, II-q2s7, and II-q2s8. Extraction method: principal axis factoring.
| Factor | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | |
| 1 | 3.798 | 54.259 | 54.259 | 3.384 | 48.346 | 48.346 | 2.950 |
| 2 | 1.039 | 14.838 | 69.098 | 0.631 | 9.014 | 57.359 | 2.867 |
| 3 | 0.607 | 8.671 | 77.769 | ||||
| 4 | 0.476 | 6.796 | 84.564 | ||||
| 5 | 0.393 | 5.617 | 90.182 | ||||
| 6 | 0.362 | 5.172 | 95.354 | ||||
| 7 | 0.325 | 4.646 | 100.000 | ||||
Figure 5Factor plot in rotated factor space for variables IV_q2s22, V_q2s29, V_q2s30 V_q2s31, II_q2s6, II_q2s7, and II_q2s8.
CFA model validity measures.
| Factor | CR | AVE | SQR(AVE) | Correlation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operational capabilities | 0.813 | 0.525 | 0.725 | 0.697 |
| Technological capabilities | 0.835 | 0.627 | 0.792 |
Figure 6CFA model of organizational e-readiness (unstandardized estimates).
Figure 7CFA model of organizational e-readiness (standardized estimates).
Figure 8Regression model for organizational e-readiness (standardized estimates).
Standardized and unstandardized model paths loadings.
| Relationship between Variables | Unstandardized | S.E. | C.R. |
| Standardized | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technological_capabilities | <--- | Operational_capabilities | 0.825 | 0.078 | 10.599 | *** | 0.697 |
| II_q2s6 | <--- | Operational_capabilities | 1.000 | 0.779 | |||
| II_q2s7 | <--- | Operational_capabilities | 1.062 | 0.071 | 14.858 | *** | 0.818 |
| II_q2s8 | <--- | Operational_capabilities | 0.786 | 0.062 | 12.570 | *** | 0.681 |
| V_q2s29 | <--- | Operational_capabilities | 0.781 | 0.071 | 10.998 | *** | 0.600 |
| V_q2s30 | <--- | Technological_capabilities | 1.000 | 0.785 | |||
| V_q2s31 | <--- | Technological_capabilities | 1.057 | 0.072 | 14.739 | *** | 0.796 |
| IV_q2s22 | <--- | Technological_capabilities | 1.007 | 0.068 | 14.722 | *** | 0.795 |
*** means that the value is smaller than 0.0001.
Model fit indices.
| Measure | Estimate | Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| CMIN | 18.806 | |
| DF | 13.000 | |
| CMIN/DF | 1.447 | Between 1 and 3 |
| CFI | 0.995 | >0.95 |
| SRMR | 0.031 | <0.08 |
| RMSEA | 0.035 | <0.06 |
| PClose | 0.750 | >0.05 |