Understanding the discriminant factors that influence the adoption and use of clinical communities of practice: the ECOPIH case

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of the study presented in this article is to analyse the discriminant factors that have an influence on the use of communities of practice by primary and specialist healthcare professionals (physicians and nurses) for information sharing. Obtaining evidence from an ex-ante analysis to determine what factors explain healthcare professionals’ clinical community of practice use allows aspects of its use to be identified.MethodsA theoretical model based on a modified technology acceptance model was used as the analysis tool, and a discriminant analysis was performed. An ad-hoc questionnaire was designed and sent to a study population of 357 professionals from the Badalona-Sant Adrià de Besòs Primary Care Service in Catalonia, Spain, which includes nine primary care centres and three specialist care centres. The study sample was formed by the 166 healthcare professionals who responded.ResultsThe results revealed three main drivers for engagement in a CoP: First, for the whole sample, perceived usefulness for reducing costs associated with clinical practice was the factor with the greatest discriminant power that distinguished between users and non-users, followed by perceived usefulness for improving clinical practice quality, and lastly habitual social media website and application use. Turning to the two sub-samples of healthcare professions (physicians and nurses, respectively), we saw that the usefulness stemming from community of practice use changed. There were differences in the levels of motivation of healthcare professionals with regards to their engagement with CoP. While perceived usefulness for reducing costs associated with clinical practice was the main factor for the physicians, perceived usefulness of the Web 2.0 platform use for communication for improving clinical practice quality and perceived ease of use were the main factors for the nurses.ConclusionsIn the context of communities of practice, the perception of usefulness of Web 2.0 platform use for communication is determined by organisational, technological and social factors. Specifically, the position that professionals have within the healthcare structure and particularly the closer healthcare professionals’ activity is to patients and their professional experience of using social networks and ICTs are crucial to explaining the use of such platforms. Public policies promoting Web 2.0 platform use for communication should therefore go beyond the purely technological dimension and consider other professional and social determinants.

Keys to success of a community of clinical practice in primary care: a qualitative evaluation of the ECOPIH project

“…A descriptive-interpretative qualitative study was conducted through interviews of a group of key informants in order to learn about their perceptions of and opinions on the use and usefulness of the ECOPIH platform [ 36 ]. A qualitative methodology was appropriate for the purposes of achieving that objective because it enabled deeper knowledge to be gained of the context within which ECOPIH was used and, at the same time, it allowed the professionals’ experiences and perceptions of and reasons for applying that tool to their daily practice to be evaluated [ 14 , 37 – 39 ].…”

Do People Trust in Robot-Assisted Surgery? Evidence from Europe

“…Among the various proposed models, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is the theoretical proposal that is most widely applied to research into the acceptance of technology in the healthcare sphere [ 37 ]. Many works have shown that this model has the power to robustly explain variance in the intention to use, and use behaviour of, technology in general, and of e-health in particular [ 38 , 39 , 40 ]. However, the novelty of robot use in the healthcare sphere means that very few works have been done to explain the trust that citizens in general and patients in particular have in robots, taking into consideration the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use thereof.…”

Needs assessment for the creation of a community of practice in a community health navigator cohort

“…1 ). Two studies originated from Australia [ 19 , 20 ], eight from Canada [ 21 – 28 ], four from Europe (Spain, United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands) [ 29 – 32 ], and three from the United States of America (USA) [ 33 – 35 ] (Table 1 ). Practice areas of focus included audiology, geriatric care, occupational therapy, oncology, oral medicine, physiotherapy, primary care, social work for palliative care, and stroke care (Table 1 ).…”