↓ Skip to main content

A multi-level qualitative analysis of Telehomecare in Ontario: challenges and opportunities

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A multi-level qualitative analysis of Telehomecare in Ontario: challenges and opportunities
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1196-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gemma Hunting, Nida Shahid, Yeva Sahakyan, Iris Fan, Crystal R. Moneypenny, Aleksandra Stanimirovic, Taylor North, Yelena Petrosyan, Murray D. Krahn, Valeria E. Rac

Abstract

Despite research demonstrating the potential effectiveness of Telehomecare for people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Heart Failure, broad-scale comprehensive evaluations are lacking. This article discusses the qualitative component of a mixed-method program evaluation of Telehomecare in Ontario, Canada. The objective of the qualitative component was to explore the multi-level factors and processes which facilitate or impede the implementation and adoption of the program across three regions where it was first implemented. The study employs a multi-level framework as a conceptual guide to explore the facilitators and barriers to Telehomecare implementation and adoption across five levels: technology, patients, providers, organizations, and structures. In-depth semi-structured interviews and ethnographic observations with program stakeholders, as well as a Telehomecare document review were used to elicit key themes. Study participants (n = 89) included patients and/or informal caregivers (n = 39), health care providers (n = 23), technicians (n = 2), administrators (n = 12), and decision makers (n = 13) across three different Local Health Integration Networks in Ontario. Key facilitators to Telehomecare implementation and adoption at each level of the multi-level framework included: user-friendliness of Telehomecare technology, patient motivation to participate in the program, support for Telehomecare providers, the integration of Telehomecare into broader health service provision, and comprehensive program evaluation. Key barriers included: access-related issues to using the technology, patient language (if not English or French), Telehomecare provider time limitations, gaps in health care provision for patients, and structural barriers to patient participation related to geography and social location. Though Telehomecare has the potential to positively impact patient lives and strengthen models of health care provision, a number of key challenges remain. As such, further implementation and expansion of Telehomecare must involve continuous assessments of what is working and not working with all stakeholders. Increased dialogue, evaluation, and knowledge translation within and across regions to understand the contextual factors influencing Telehomecare implementation and adoption is required. This can inform decision-making that better reflects and addresses the needs of all program stakeholders.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Argentina 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 113 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 21%
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 15%
Unspecified 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Other 31 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 32%
Unspecified 23 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 21 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,261,574
of 11,191,240 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#915
of 3,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,038
of 314,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#23
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,191,240 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.