Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2015

Open Access 01-06-2015 | Research article

Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives

Authors: Regitze A. S. Pals, Ulla M. Hansen, Clea B. Johansen, Christian S. Hansen, Marit E. Jørgensen, Jesper Fleischer, Ingrid Willaing

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The number of new technologies for risk assessment available in health care is increasing. These technologies are intended to contribute to both improved care practices and improved patient outcomes. To do so however, there is a need to study how new technologies are understood and interpreted by users in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore patient and physician perspectives on the usefulness of a new technology to detect Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) in a specialist diabetes clinic. The technology is a handheld device that measures resting heart rate and conducts three cardiac autonomic reflex tests to evaluate heart rate variability.

Methods

The study relied on three sources of data: observations of medical consultations where results of the CAN test were reported (n = 8); interviews with patients who had received the CAN test (n = 19); and interviews with physicians who reported results of the CAN test (n = 9). Data were collected at the specialist diabetes clinic between November 2013 and January 2014. Data were analysed using the concept of technological frames which is used to assess how physicians and patients understand and interpret the new technology.

Results

Physicians generally found it difficult to communicate test results to patients in terms that patients could understand and to translate results into meaningful implications for the treatment of patients. Results of the study indicate that patients did not recall having done the CAN test nor recall receiving the results. Furthermore, patients were generally unsure about the purpose of the CAN test and the implications of the results.

Discussion

Involving patients and physicians is essential when a new technology is introduced in clinical practice. This particularly includes the interpretation and communication processes related to its use.

Conclusions

The integration of a new risk assessment technology into clinical practice can be accompanied by several challenges. It is suggested that more information about the CAN test be provided to patients and that a dialogue-based approach be used when communicating test results to patients in order to best support the use of the technology in clinical practice.
Footnotes
1
These visions are described in a presentation by the person responsible for implementing the technology at the specialist diabetes clinic and were presented at settings within and external to the clinic.
 
2
Fig. 1 illustrates the anticipated use of the technology at the specialist diabetes clinic.
 
3
Fig. 2 illustrates the recruitment of participants for the study.
 
Literature
1.
Cresswell K, Majeed A, Bates D, Sheikh A. Computerized decision support systems for healthcare professionals: An interpretative review. Inform Prim Care. 2012;20:115–28.PubMed
2.
Wilson A, Duszynski A, Turnbull D, Beilby J. Investigating patients’ and general practitioners’ views of computerized decision support software for the assessment and management of cardiovascular risk. Inform Prim Care. 2007;15:33–44.PubMed
3.
Berg M, Langenberg C, van den Berg I, Kwakkernaat J. Considerations for sociotechnical design: Experiences with an electronic patient record in a clinical context. Int J Med Inform. 1998;52:243–51.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Berg M. Implementing information systems in health care organizations: Myths and challenges. Int J Med Inform. 2001;64:143–56.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Lehoux P. Patients’ perspectives on high-tech home care: A qualitative inquiry into the user-friendliness of four technologies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4.
6.
Carroll C, Marsden P, Soden P, Naylor E, New J, Dornan T. Involving users in the design and usability evaluation of a clinical decision support system. Comp Meth Prog Biomed. 2002;69:123–35.CrossRef
7.
Ahearn M, Kerr S. General practitioners’ perceptions of pharmaceutical decision-support tools in their prescribing software. Med J Australia. 2003;179:34–7.PubMed
8.
Ferneley E, Sobreperez P. Resist, comply or workaround? An examination of different facets of user engagement with information systems. Eur J Inf Syst. 2006;15:345–56.CrossRef
9.
McGinn CA, Grenier S, Duplantie J, Shaw N, Sicotte C, Mathieu L, et al. Comparison of user groups’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: A systematic review. BMC Med. 2011;9:46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Spallone V, Ziegler D, Freeman R, Bernardi L, Frontoni S, Pop-Busui R, et al. Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in diabetes: Clinical impact, assessment, diagnosis, and management. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2011;27:639–53.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
13.
Vinik AI, Ziegler D. Diabetic cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy. Circ. 2007;115:387–97.CrossRef
14.
Gulichsen E, Fleischer J, Ejskjaer N, Eldrup E, Tarnow L. Screening for diabetic Cardiac Autonomic Neuropathy Using a New Handheld Device. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6:965–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Gaede P, Vedel P, Larsen N, Jensen GV, Parving HH, Pedersen O. Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. New Engl J Med. 2003;348:383–93.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Boulton AJ, Vinik AI, Arezzo JC, Bril V, Feldman EL, Freeman R, et al. Diabetic neuropathies: A statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:956–62.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Rydén L, Standl E, Bartnik M, Van den Berghe G, Betteridge J, de Boer MJ, et al. Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases: executive summary. The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eur Heart J. 2007;28:88–136.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Karsten H, Laine A. User interpretations of future information system use: A snapshot with technological frames. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76 Suppl 1:136–40.CrossRef
19.
Sheikh A, Cornford T, Barber N, Avery A, Takian A, Lichtner V, et al. Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: Final qualitative results from prospective national evaluation in ‘early adopter’ hospitals. Br Med J. 2011;343.
20.
O’Brien HL, Toms EG. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2008;59:938–55.CrossRef
21.
Berg M. Patient care information systems and health care at work: a sociotechnical approach. Int J Med Inform. 1999;55:87–101.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Coulter A. Engaging patients in healthcare. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2011.
23.
Wensing M, Elwyn G. Methods for incorporating patients’ views in health care. Br Med J. 2003;326:877–9.CrossRef
24.
Orlikowski WJ, Gash DC. Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations. ACM Trans Inf Syst. 1994;2:174–207.CrossRef
25.
Goffman I. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row; 1974.
26.
Bijker W, Hughes T, Pinch T. The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1987.
27.
Agar MH. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. New York: Academic; 1980.
28.
Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev. 1989;14:532–50.
29.
Short D, Frischer M, Bashford J. Barriers to the adoption of computerised decision support systems in general practice consultations: A qualitative study of GPs’ perspectives. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73:357–62.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Gillespie C. The experience of risk as ‘measured vulnerability’: Health screening and lay uses of numerical risk. In: Armstrong N, Eborall H, editors. The Sociology of Medical Screening. Critical Perspectives, New Directions. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. p. 33–46.CrossRef
31.
Sulik GA. Managing biomedical uncertainty: The technoscientific illness identity. Sociol Health Illn. 2009;31:1059–76.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Woodward K. The Statistical body. In: Coupland J, Gwyn R, editors. Discourse, the Body, and Identit. 1st ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2003. p. 225–45.CrossRef
33.
Bryant GD, Norman GR. Expressions of probability: Words and numbers. N Eng J Med. 1980;302:411.
34.
Birmingham WC, Agarwal N, Kohlmann W, Aspinwall LG, Wang M, Bishoff J, et al. Patient and provider attitudes toward genomic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility: A mixed method study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:279.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Mathiesen TP, Willaing I, Freil M, Jørgensen T, Andreasen AH, Ladelund S, et al. How do patients with colorectal cancer perceive treatment and care compared with the treating health care professionals? Med Care. 2007;45:394–400.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Parkin T, Skinner TC. Discrepancies between patient and professionals recall and perception of an outpatient consultation. Diabetic Med. 2003;20:909–14.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Mazur DJ, Merz JF. Patients interpretations of verbal expressions of probability: Implications for securing informed consent to medical interventions. Behav Sci Law. 1994;12:417–26.CrossRefPubMed
38.
McCann S, Weinman J. Encouraging patient participation in general practice consultations: Effect on consultation length and content, patient satisfaction and health. Psychol Health. 1996;11:857–69.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives
Authors
Regitze A. S. Pals
Ulla M. Hansen
Clea B. Johansen
Christian S. Hansen
Marit E. Jørgensen
Jesper Fleischer
Ingrid Willaing
Publication date
01-06-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1071-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Health Services Research 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Exploring physiotherapists’ personality traits that may influence treatment outcome in patients with chronic diseases: a cohort study

Research article

Estimating the cost of referral and willingness to pay for referral to higher-level health facilities: a case series study from an integrated community case management programme in Uganda

Research article

Family Group Conferences within the integrated care system for young people with ID: a controlled study of effects and costs

Research article

Everybody wants it done but nobody wants to do it: an exploration of the barrier and enablers of critical components towards creating a clinical pathway for anxiety and depression in cancer

Research article

Patient outcomes vs. service workload: an analysis of outcomes in the burn service of England and Wales

Research article

A concise, health service coverage index for monitoring progress towards universal health coverage