Abstract: This case study examines the use of an eHealth application for improving preoperative rehabilitation (prehabilitation). We have analysed healthcare professionals' motivators and drivers for adopting eHealth for a surgical procedure at academic medical facilities. The research focused on when and why healthcare professionals are inclined to adopt eHealth applications in their way of working? For this qualitative study, we selected 12 professionals involved in all levels of the organisation and stages of the medical process and conducted semi-structured interviews. Kotter’s transformational change model and the Technology Acceptance Model were used as analytical frameworks for the identification of the motivation of eHealth adoption. The findings suggest that contrary to Kotter’s change model, which argues that adoption of change is based on perceptions and feelings, the healthcare drivers are rational when it comes to deciding whether or not to adopt eHealth apps. This study further elaborates the observation made by the Dutch expertise centre on eHealth, Nictiz, that when the value of an eHealth pplication is clear for a stakeholder, the adoption process accelerates. Analysis of the motivations and drivers of the healthcare professionals show a strong relationship with an evidence-based grounding of usefulness and the responsibility these professionals have towards their patients. We found that healthcare professionals respond to the primary goal of improving healthcare. This is true if the eHealth application will innovate their work, but mainly when the application will improve the patient care they are responsible for. When eHealth applications are implemented, rational facts need to be collected in a study before deployment of eHealth applications on how these applications will improve the patient's health or wellbeing throughout their so-called medical journey for their treatment. Furthermore, the preference to learn about new eHealth applications from someone who speaks from authority through expertise on the subject matter, suggests adoption by healthcare professionals may be accelerated through peers. The result of this study may provide healthcare management with a different approach to their eHealth strategy. Future research is needed to validate the findings in different medical organisational settings such as regional healthcare facilities or for-profit centers which do not necessarily have an innovation focus but are driven by other strategic drivers.
Abstract Background: With the growing shortage of nurses, labor-saving technology has become more important. In health care practice, however, the fit with innovations is not easy. The aim of this study is to analyze the development of a mobile input device for electronic medical records (MEMR), a potentially labor-saving application supported by nurses, that failed to meet the needs of nurses after development. Method: In a case study, we used an axiomatic design framework as an evaluation tool to visualize the mismatches between customer needs and the design parameters of the MEMR, and trace these mismatches back to (preliminary) decisions in the development process. We applied a mixed-method research design that consisted of analyzing of 118 external and internal files and working documents, 29 interviews and shorter inquiries, a user test, and an observation of use. By factoring and grouping the findings, we analyzed the relevant categories of mismatches. Results: The involvement of nurses during the development was extensive, but not all feedback was, or could not be, used effectively to improve the MEMR. The mismatches with the most impact were found to be: (1) suboptimal supportive technology, (2) limited functionality of the app and input device, and (3) disruption of nurses’ workflow. Most mismatches were known by the IT department when the MEMR was offered to the units as a product. Development of the MEMR came to a halt because of limited use. Conclusion: Choices for design parameters, made during the development of labor-saving technology for nurses, may conflict with the customer needs of nurses. Even though the causes of mismatches were mentioned by the IT department, the nurse managers acquired the MEMR based on the idea behind the app. The effects of the chosen design parameters should not only be compared to the customer needs, but also be assessed with nurses and nurse managers for the expected effect on the workflow.
LINK
Background: Traditionally, research integrity studies have focused on research misbehaviors and their explanations. Over time, attention has shifted towards preventing questionable research practices and promoting responsible ones. However, data on the prevalence of responsible research practices, especially open methods, open codes and open data and their underlying associative factors, remains scarce.Methods: We conducted a web-based anonymized questionnaire, targeting all academic researchers working at or affiliated to a university or university medical center in The Netherlands, to investigate the prevalence and potential explanatory factors of 11 responsible research practices.Results: A total of 6,813 academics completed the survey, the results of which show that prevalence of responsible practices differs substantially across disciplines and ranks, with 99 percent avoiding plagiarism in their work but less than 50 percent pre-registering a research protocol. Arts and humanities scholars as well as PhD candidates and junior researchers engaged less often in responsible research practices. Publication pressure negatively affected responsible practices, while mentoring, scientific norms subscription and funding pressure stimulated them.Conclusions: Understanding the prevalence of responsible research practices across disciplines and ranks, as well as their associated explanatory factors, can help to systematically address disciplinary- and academic rank-specific obstacles, and thereby facilitate responsible conduct of research.
![Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20240419024525240089.f5_0352_4033_99e3_b9d3476cb04f_110664_gowri_gopalakrishn-thumbnail-400x300.png)
