» Articles » PMID: 35668491

A Comprehensive EHealth Implementation Guide Constructed on a Qualitative Case Study on Barriers and Facilitators of the Digital Care Platform CMyLife

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2022 Jun 6
PMID 35668491
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Substantial proliferation of eHealth has enabled a move in patient-centred cancer care from the traditional in-person care model to real-time, dynamic, and technology supported on-demand care. However, in general, the uptake of these innovations is low. Studies show that eHealth is helpful in providing patient empowerment through e.g. providing high quality and timely information, enabling self-monitoring and shared decision making, but dropout rates are high and guidance for optimal implementation is lacking.

Aim: To explore barriers to and facilitators for nationwide implementation and consolidation of CMyLife, a multi-component, patient-centred, digital care platform, and to construct a comprehensive implementation guide for launching digital care platforms in daily clinical practice.

Methods: The first qualitative case study of a digital care platform like CMyLife was performed including five focus group- and eighteen in-depth interviews with stakeholders. Data were collected using a semi-structured interview guide, based on the frameworks of Grol and Flottorp. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed and barriers and facilitators were identified and categorized according to the frameworks. An iterative process including participation of main stakeholders and using the CFIR-ERIC framework led to creating a comprehensive implementation guide for digital care platforms.

Results: In total, 45 barriers and 41 facilitators were identified. Main barriers were lack of connectivity between information technology systems, changing role for both health care providers and patients, insufficient time and resources, doubts about privacy and security of data, and insufficient digital skills of users. Main facilitators mentioned were motivating patients and health care providers by clarifying the added value of use of a digital care platform, clear business case with vision, demonstrating (cost) effectiveness, using an implementation guide, and educating patients and health care providers about how to use CMyLife. Based on these barriers and facilitators a clear and comprehensive implementation guide was developed for digital care platforms.

Conclusion: Several barriers to and facilitators for implementation were identified, a clear overview was presented, and a unique comprehensive implementation guide was developed for launching future digital care platforms in daily clinical practice. The next step is to validate the implementation guide in other (oncological) diseases.

Citing Articles

Proximity care pathways and digitalization: opportunities and concerns for medication safety management-Insights from the ProSafe study on community perspectives.

Moretti F, Mazzi M, Montresor S, Colpo S, Tussardi I, Facchinello D Front Public Health. 2025; 13:1486814.

PMID: 40051506 PMC: 11882513. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1486814.


Development of an evidence-informed implementation strategy for a digital supportive care platform for brain tumour patients, their carers and healthcare professionals.

Schadewaldt V, OBrien T, Kalla M, Krishnasamy M, Burns K, Bray S Digit Health. 2025; 11:20552076251316713.

PMID: 39949847 PMC: 11822819. DOI: 10.1177/20552076251316713.


Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions tool in Dutch primary care: a context analysis.

Claessens D, Boudewijns E, Vervloet M, Keijsers L, Gidding-Slok A, van Schayck O BMJ Open. 2025; 15(1):e087197.

PMID: 39833000 PMC: 11751986. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087197.


Development and optimisation of a mobile app (iMPAKT) for improving person-centred practice in healthcare settings: A multi-methods evaluation study.

OConnor S, Wilson V, Brown D, Cleland I, McCance T Digit Health. 2024; 10:20552076241271788.

PMID: 39493639 PMC: 11528772. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241271788.


Use of implementation mapping to develop a multifaceted implementation strategy for an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation.

Lopez C, Neil-Sztramko S, Tanyoas M, Campbell K, Bender J, Strudwick G Implement Sci Commun. 2024; 5(1):108.

PMID: 39354649 PMC: 11446052. DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00650-4.


References
1.
Elo S, Kyngas H . The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008; 62(1):107-15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. View

2.
Irizarry T, DeVito Dabbs A, Curran C . Patient Portals and Patient Engagement: A State of the Science Review. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17(6):e148. PMC: 4526960. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4255. View

3.
Grol R, Wensing M . What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust. 2004; 180(S6):S57-60. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb05948.x. View

4.
Waltz T, Powell B, Fernandez M, Abadie B, Damschroder L . Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions. Implement Sci. 2019; 14(1):42. PMC: 6489173. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0892-4. View

5.
Kreuter M, Wray R . Tailored and targeted health communication: strategies for enhancing information relevance. Am J Health Behav. 2003; 27 Suppl 3:S227-32. DOI: 10.5993/ajhb.27.1.s3.6. View