Understanding inherent influencing factors to digital health adoption in general practices through a mixed-methods analysis

Lisa Weik; Leonard Fehring; Achim Mortsiefer; Sven Meister

doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01049-0

journal article Open Access Feb 27, 2024

Understanding inherent influencing factors to digital health adoption in general practices through a mixed-methods analysis

Lisa Weik

Leonard Fehring

Achim Mortsiefer Sven Meister

npj Digital Medicine Vol. 7 No. 1 · Springer Science and Business Media LLC

View at Publisher Save 10.1038/s41746-024-01049-0

Abstract

AbstractExtensive research has shown the potential value of digital health solutions and highlighted the importance of clinicians’ adoption. As general practitioners (GPs) are patients’ first point of contact, understanding influencing factors to their digital health adoption is especially important to derive personalized practical recommendations. Using a mixed-methods approach, this study broadly identifies adoption barriers and potential improvement strategies in general practices, including the impact of GPs’ inherent characteristics – especially their personality – on digital health adoption. Results of our online survey with 216 GPs reveal moderate overall barriers on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with required workflow adjustments (M = 4.13, SD = 0.93), inadequate reimbursement (M = 4.02, SD = 1.02), and high training effort (M = 3.87, SD = 1.01) as substantial barriers. Improvement strategies are considered important overall, with respondents especially wishing for improved interoperability (M = 4.38, SD = 0.81), continued technical support (M = 4.33, SD = 0.91), and improved usability (M = 4.20, SD = 0.88). In our regression model, practice-related characteristics, the expected future digital health usage, GPs’ digital affinity, several personality traits, and digital maturity are significant predictors of the perceived strength of barriers. For the perceived importance of improvement strategies, only demographics and usage-related variables are significant predictors. This study provides strong evidence for the impact of GPs’ inherent characteristics on barriers and improvement strategies. Our findings highlight the need for comprehensive approaches integrating personal and emotional elements to make digitization in practices more engaging, tangible, and applicable.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

76

[1]

Amarasingham, R., Plantinga, L., Diener-West, M., Gaskin, D. J. & Powe, N. R. Clinical information technologies and inpatient outcomes. Arch. Intern. Med. 169, 108 (2009). 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.520

[2]

Martin, G. et al. Evaluating the impact of organisational digital maturity on clinical outcomes in secondary care in England. NPJ Digit. Med. 2, 41 (2019). 10.1038/s41746-019-0118-9

[3]

Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care

Basit Chaudhry, Jerome Wang, Shinyi Wu et al.

Annals of Internal Medicine 2006 10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-00125

[4]

Buntin, M. B., Burke, M. F., Hoaglin, M. C. & Blumenthal, D. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff. 30, 464–471 (2011). 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0178

[5]

Campanella, P. et al. The impact of electronic health records on healthcare quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European J. Public Health 26, 60–64 (2016). 10.1093/eurpub/ckv122

[6]

Lingg, M. & Lütschg, V. Health system stakeholders’ perspective on the role of mobile health and its adoption in the swiss health system: qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 8, e17315 (2020). 10.2196/17315

[7]

Poissant, L., Pereira, J., Tamblyn, R. & Kawasumi, Y. The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 12, 505–516 (2005). 10.1197/jamia.m1700

[8]

Golinelli, D. et al. Adoption of digital technologies in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review of early scientific literature. J. Med. Internet Res. 22, e22280 (2020). 10.2196/22280

[9]

Choi, W. S., Park, J., Choi, J. Y. B. & Yang, J.-S. Stakeholders’ resistance to telemedicine with focus on physicians: utilizing the Delphi technique. J Telemed Telecare 25, 378–385 (2019). 10.1177/1357633x18775853

[10]

Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies

TRISHA GREENHALGH, Joseph Wherton, Chrysanthi Papoutsi et al.

Journal of Medical Internet Research 2017 10.2196/jmir.8775

[11]

Jacob, C., Sanchez-Vazquez, A. & Ivory, C. Social, organizational, and technological factors impacting clinicians’ adoption of mobile health tools: systematic literature review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 8, e15935 (2020). 10.2196/15935

[12]

Gagnon, M. P. et al. Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals. J. Med. Syst. 36, 241–277 (2012). 10.1007/s10916-010-9473-4

[13]

Jetty, A., Moore, M. A., Coffman, M., Petterson, S. & Bazemore, A. Rural family physicians are twice as likely to use telehealth as urban family physicians. Telemed. e-Health 24, 268–276 (2018). 10.1089/tmj.2017.0161

[14]

Wanderås, M. R., Abildsnes, E., Thygesen, E. & Martinez, S. G. Video consultation in general practice: a scoping review on use, experiences, and clinical decisions. BMC Health Serv. Res. 23, 316 (2023). 10.1186/s12913-023-09309-7

[15]

Byambasuren, O., Beller, E. & Glasziou, P. Current knowledge and adoption of mobile health apps among Australian general practitioners: survey study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 7, e13199 (2019). 10.2196/13199

[16]

Gagnon, M. P., Ngangue, P., Payne-Gagnon, J. & Desmartis, M. M-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 23, 212–220 (2016). 10.1093/jamia/ocv052

[17]

O’Donnell, A., Kaner, E., Shaw, C. & Haighton, C. Primary care physicians’ attitudes to the adoption of electronic medical records: a systematic review and evidence synthesis using the clinical adoption framework. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 18, 101 (2018). 10.1186/s12911-018-0703-x

[18]

Rahal, R. M., Mercer, J., Kuziemsky, C. & Yaya, S. Factors affecting the mature use of electronic medical records by primary care physicians: a systematic review. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 21, 67 (2021). 10.1186/s12911-021-01434-9

[19]

Iversen, T. & Ma, C. A. Technology adoption by primary care physicians. Health Econ 31, 443–465 (2022). 10.1002/hec.4447

[20]

Leppert, F. et al. Economic aspects as influencing factors for acceptance of remote monitoring by healthcare professionals in Germany. J. Int. Soc. Telemed. eHealth. 3, e12 (2015).

[21]

Hammerton, M., Benson, T. & Sibley, A. Readiness for five digital technologies in general practice: perceptions of staff in one part of southern England. BMJ Open Qual 11, e001865 (2022). 10.1136/bmjoq-2022-001865

[22]

Dahlhausen, F. et al. Physicians’ attitudes toward prescribable mhealth apps and implications for adoption in Germany: mixed methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 9, e33012 (2021). 10.2196/33012

[23]

Byambasuren, O., Beller, E., Hoffmann, T. & Glasziou, P. Barriers to and facilitators of the prescription of mHealth apps in Australian general practice: qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 8, e17447 (2020). 10.2196/17447

[24]

Scott, A., Bai, T. & Zhang, Y. Association between telehealth use and general practitioner characteristics during COVID-19: findings from a nationally representative survey of Australian doctors. BMJ Open 11, e046857 (2021). 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046857

[25]

EURACT & WONCA Europe. The European Definition of General Practice / Family Medicine - Short Version. https://www.woncaeurope.org/file/61a77842-76c2-45dd-a435-e0a8b875f30a/Definition%20EURACTshort%20version%20revised%202011.pdf (2011).

[26]

Kringos, D. S., Boerma, W., van der Zee, J. & Groenewegen, P. Europe’s strong primary care systems are linked to better population health but also to higher health spending. Health Aff. 32, 686–694 (2013). 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1242

[27]

Zaresani, A. & Scott, A. Does digital health technology improve physicians’ job satisfaction and work-life balance? A cross-sectional national survey and regression analysis using an instrumental variable. BMJ Open 10, e041690 (2020). 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041690

[28]

Krog, M. D. et al. Barriers and facilitators to using a web-based tool for diagnosis and monitoring of patients with depression: a qualitative study among Danish general practitioners. BMC Health Serv Res 18, 503 (2018). 10.1186/s12913-018-3309-1

[29]

Poppe, L. et al. Process evaluation of an eHealth intervention implemented into general practice: general practitioners’ and patients’ views. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 1475 (2018). 10.3390/ijerph15071475

[30]

Breedvelt, J. J. et al. GPs’ attitudes towards digital technologies for depression: an online survey in primary care. Br. J. General Pract. 69, e164–e170 (2019). 10.3399/bjgp18x700721

[31]

Lin, D., Papi, E. & McGregor, A. H. Exploring the clinical context of adopting an instrumented insole: a qualitative study of clinicians’ preferences in England. BMJ Open 9, e023656 (2019). 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023656

[32]

Buhtz, C. et al. Receptiveness of GPs in the South Of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany to obtaining training on technical assistance systems for caregiving: a cross-sectional study. Clin. Interv. Aging 14, 1649–1656 (2019). 10.2147/cia.s218367

[33]

Lim, H. M. et al. mHealth adoption among primary care physicians in Malaysia and its associated factors: a cross-sectional study. Fam Pract. 38, 210–217 (2021). 10.1093/fampra/cmaa103

[34]

Girdhari, R. et al. Electronic communication between family physicians and patients. Can. Family Phys. 67, 39–46 (2021). 10.46747/cfp.670139

[35]

Muehlensiepen, F. et al. Acceptance of telerheumatology by rheumatologists and general practitioners in Germany: nationwide cross-sectional survey study. J. Med. Internet Res. 23, e23742 (2021). 10.2196/23742

[36]

Jakobsen, P. R. et al. Identification of important factors affecting use of digital individualised coaching and treatment of Type 2 diabetes in general practice: a qualitative feasibility study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 3924 (2021). 10.3390/ijerph18083924

[37]

Volpato, L., del Río Carral, M., Senn, N. & Santiago Delefosse, M. General practitioners’ perceptions of the use of wearable electronic health monitoring devices: qualitative analysis of risks and benefits. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 9, e23896 (2021). 10.2196/23896

[38]

Della Vecchia, C. et al. Willingness of French general practitioners to prescribe mHealth apps and devices: quantitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 10, e28372 (2022). 10.2196/28372

[39]

Meurs, M., Keuper, J., Sankatsing, V., Batenburg, R. & van Tuyl, L. “Get used to the fact that some of the care is really going to take place in a different way”: general practitioners’ experiences with E-Health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 5120 (2022). 10.3390/ijerph19095120

[40]

Löbner, M. et al. What comes after the trial? An observational study of the real-world uptake of an E-mental health intervention by general practitioners to reduce depressive symptoms in their patients. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 6203 (2022). 10.3390/ijerph19106203

[41]

Fischer, S. et al. Einschätzung deutscher Hausärztinnen und Hausärzte zur integrierten Versorgung mittels Kommunikationstechnologien. MMW Fortschr Med 164, 16–22 (2022). 10.1007/s15006-022-1133-3

[42]

Poon, Z. & Tan, N. C. A qualitative research study of primary care physicians’ views of telehealth in delivering postnatal care to women. BMC Primary Care 23, 206 (2022). 10.1186/s12875-022-01813-9

[43]

Wangler, J. & Jansky, M. Welche Potenziale und Mehrwerte bieten DiGA für die hausärztliche Versorgung? – Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Hausärzt*innen in Deutschland. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 65, 1334–1343 (2022). 10.1007/s00103-022-03608-w

[44]

Job, J., Nicholson, C., Calleja, Z., Jackson, C. & Donald, M. Implementing a general practitioner-to-general physician eConsult service (eConsultant) in Australia. BMC Health Serv. Res. 22, 1278 (2022). 10.1186/s12913-022-08663-2

[45]

Franke, T., Attig, C. & Wessel, D. A personal resource for technology interaction: development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact 35, 456–467 (2019). 10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150

[46]

Rammstedt, B. & John, O. P. Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): Entwicklung und Validierung eines ökonomischen Inventars zur Erfassung der fünf Faktoren der Persönlichkeit. Diagnostica 51, 195–206 (2005). 10.1026/0012-1924.51.4.195

[47]

Sclafani, J., Tirrell, T. F. & Franko, O. I. Mobile tablet use among academic physicians and trainees. J. Med. Syst. 37, 9903 (2013). 10.1007/s10916-012-9903-6

[48]

Bundesanzeiger Verlag. Gesetz Für Sichere Digitale Kommunikation Und Anwendungen Im Gesundheitswesen. Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2015 Teil I Nr. 54 (https://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/text.xav?SID=&tf=xaver.component.Text_0&tocf=&qmf=&hlf=xaver.component.Hitlist_0&bk=bgbl&start=%2F%2F*%5B%40node_id%3D%27944185%27%5D&skin=pdf&tlevel=-2&nohist=1&sinst=3A147306 2015).

[49]

Poba-Nzaou, P., Uwizeyemungu, S. & Liu, X. Adoption and performance of complementary clinical information technologies: analysis of a survey of general practitioners. J. Med. Internet Res. 22, e16300 (2020). 10.2196/16300

[50]

Djalali, S., Ursprung, N., Rosemann, T., Senn, O. & Tandjung, R. Undirected health IT implementation in ambulatory care favors paper-based workarounds and limits health data exchange. Int. J. Med. Inform. 84, 920–932 (2015). 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.08.001

Showing 50 of 76 references

Cited By

72

Digital Health Applications (DiGAs) on a Fast Track: Insights From a Data-Driven Analysis of Prescribable Digital Therapeutics in Germany From 2020 to Mid-2024

Moritz Goeldner, Sara Gehder · 2024

Journal of Medical Internet Researc...

Metrics

72

Citations

76

References

Details

Published: Feb 27, 2024
Vol/Issue: 7(1)
License: View

Authors

Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany; Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, Clinic for Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Endocrinology and Diabetology, Heusnerstr. 40, 42283 Wuppertal, Germany

Cite This Article

Lisa Weik, Leonard Fehring, Achim Mortsiefer, et al. (2024). Understanding inherent influencing factors to digital health adoption in general practices through a mixed-methods analysis. npj Digital Medicine, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01049-0

Understanding inherent influencing factors to digital health adoption in general practices through a mixed-methods analysis

You May Also Like