Impact of distance monitoring service in managing healthcare demand: a case study through the lens of cocreation.

BACKGROUND: There is a consensus among healthcare providers, academics, and policy-makers that spiraling demand and diminishing resources are threatening the sustainability of the current healthcare system. Different telemedicine services are seen as potential solutions to the current challenges in healthcare. This paper aims to identify how distance monitoring services rendered for patients with chronic conditions can affect the escalating demand for healthcare. First, we identify how distance monitoring service changes the care delivery process using the lens of service cocreation. Next, we analyze how these changes can impact healthcare demand using the literature on demand and capacity management. METHOD: In this qualitative study, we explore a distance monitoring service in a primary healthcare setting in Norway. We collected primary data from nurses and general physicians using the semi-structured interview technique. We used secondary patient data collected from a study conducted to evaluate the distance monitoring project. The deductive content analysis method was used to analyze the data. RESULT: This study shows that the application of distance monitoring services changes the care delivery process by creating new activities, new channels for interaction, and new roles for patients, general physicians, and nurses. We define patients' roles as proactive providers of health information, general physicians' roles as patient selectors, and nurses' roles as technical coordinators, data workers, and empathetic listeners. Thus, the co-creation aspect of the service becomes more prominent demonstrating potential for better management of healthcare demand. However, these changes also render the management of demand and resources more complex. To reduce the complexities, we propose three mechanisms: foreseeing and managing new roles, developing capabilities, and adopting a system-wide perspective. CONCLUSION: The main contribution of the paper is that it demonstrates that, although distance monitoring services have the potential to have a positive impact on healthcare demand management, in the absence of adequate managerial mechanisms, they can also adversely affect healthcare demand management. This study provides a means for practitioners to reflect upon and refine the decisions that they make regarding telemedicine deployment and resource planning for delivering care.

Individuals' Perceptions as a Substitute for Guidelines and Evidence: Interview Study Among Clinicians on How They Choose Between In-Person and Remote Consultation.

BACKGROUND: Video consultation (VC) is increasingly seen as a cost-effective way of providing outpatient care in the face of dwindling resources and growing demand for health care worldwide. Therefore, the sustainable implementation of VC is a phenomenon of interest to medical practitioners, researchers, and citizens alike. Studies are often criticized for not being sufficiently robust because the research settings are mostly small-scale pilot projects and are unable to reflect long-term implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic has compelled clinicians worldwide to conduct remote consultation, creating a favorable context to study large-scale remote consultation implementation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to thoroughly investigate how clinicians reason their choice of different consultation modes in the routine of consultation and what the underlying reasons are for their choices. We posited that a deeper understanding of clinicians' perceptions of remote consultation is essential to deduce whether and how remote consultation will be adopted on a large scale and sustained as a regular service. METHODS: A qualitative approach was taken, in which the unit of analysis was clinicians in one of the largest university hospitals in Norway. In total, 29 interviews were conducted and transcribed, which were used as the primary data source. Using the performative model of routine as the theoretical framework, data were analyzed using deductive content analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians have mixed opinions on the merits and demerits of VC and its position between in-person and telephone consultation. Totally, 6 different planning criteria were identified, and individual clinicians used different combinations of these criteria when choosing a mode of consultation. The ideals that clinicians hold for conducting consultation can be divided into three aspects: clinical, interpersonal, and managerial. VC engenders a new ideal and endangers the existing ideals. VC causes minor changes in the tasks the clinicians perform during a consultation; thus, these changes do not play a significant role in their choice of consultation. Clinicians could not identify any changes in the outcome of consultation as a result of incorporating a remote mode of consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians feel that there is a lack of scientific evidence on the long-term effect of remote consultation on clinical efficacy and interpersonal and managerial aspects, which are crucial for consultation service. The absence of sufficient scientific evidence and a clear understanding of the merits and demerits of VC and standard practices and shared norms among clinicians regarding the use of video for consultation both create a void in the consultation practice. This void leads clinicians to use their personal judgments and preferences to justify their choices regarding the consultation mode. Thus, diverse opinions emerge, including some paradoxical ones, resulting in an uncertain future for sustainable large-scale implementation, which can reduce the quality of consultation service.

Planning a holistic summative eHealth evaluation in an interdisciplinary and multi-national setting: a case study and propositions for guideline development.

BACKGROUND: Summative eHealth evaluations frequently lack quality, which affects the generalizability of the evidence, and its use in practice and further research. To guarantee quality, a number of activities are recommended in the guidelines for evaluation planning. This study aimed to examine a case of an eHealth evaluation planning in a multi-national and interdisciplinary setting and to provide recommendations for eHealth evaluation planning guidelines. METHODS: An empirical eHealth evaluation process was developed through a case study. The empirical process was compared with selected guidelines for eHealth evaluation planning using a pattern-matching technique. RESULTS: Planning in the interdisciplinary and multi-national team demanded extensive negotiation and alignment to support the future use of the evidence created. The evaluation planning guidelines did not provide specific strategies for different set-ups of the evaluation teams. Further, they did not address important aspects of quality evaluation, such as feasibility analysis of the outcome measures and data collection, monitoring of data quality, and consideration of the methods and measures employed in similar evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Activities to prevent quality problems need to be incorporated in the guidelines for evaluation planning. Additionally, evaluators could benefit from guidance in evaluation planning related to the different set-ups of the evaluation teams.

Evidence-Based Evaluation of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Until now, the use of technology in health care was driven mostly by the assumptions about the benefits of electronic health (eHealth) rather than its evidence. It is noticeable that the magnitude of evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth is not proportionate to the number of interventions that are regularly conducted. Reliable evidence generated through comprehensive evaluation of eHealth interventions may accelerate the growth of eHealth for long-term successful implementation and help to experience eHealth benefits in an enhanced way. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand how the evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth can be generated through evaluation. Hence, we aim to discern (1) how evaluation is conducted in distinct eHealth intervention phases, (2) the aspects of effectiveness and efficiency that are typically evaluated during eHealth interventions, and (3) how eHealth interventions are evaluated in practice. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to explore the evaluation methods for eHealth interventions. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. We searched Google Scholar and Scopus for the published papers that addressed the evaluation of eHealth or described an eHealth intervention study. A qualitative analysis of the selected papers was conducted in several steps. RESULTS: We intended to see how the process of evaluation unfolds in distinct phases of an eHealth intervention. We revealed that in practice and in several conceptual papers, evaluation is performed at the end of the intervention. There are some studies that discuss the importance of conducting evaluation throughout the intervention; however, in practice, we found no case study that followed this. For our second research question, we discovered aspects of efficiency and effectiveness that are proposed to be assessed during interventions. The aspects that were recurrent in the conceptual papers include clinical, human and social, organizational, technological, cost, ethical and legal, and transferability. However, the case studies reviewed only evaluate the clinical and human and social aspects. At the end of the paper, we discussed a novel approach to look into the evaluation. Our intention was to stir up a discussion around this approach with the hope that it might be able to gather evidence in a comprehensive and credible way. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of evidence in eHealth has not been discussed as rigorously as have the diverse evaluation approaches and evaluation frameworks. Further research directed toward evidence-based evaluation can not only improve the quality of intervention studies but also facilitate successful long-term implementation of eHealth in general. We conclude that the development of more robust and comprehensive evaluation of eHealth studies or an improved validation of evaluation methods could ease the transferability of results among similar studies. Thus, the resources can be used for supplementary research in eHealth.