Search

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract: There is increasing interest in using electronic mail and other electronic health technologies (e-health technologies) in patient follow-ups. This study sheds light on patients’ reception of provider-initiated e-health in their everyday environments. In a research project carried out in Norway (2005–2007), an electronic address for a hospital dermatology ward was offered to 50 patient families for improved access to expert advice from the patients’ homes. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 12 families, this paper explores how the electronic address was integrated into everyday health practice. The research illuminates how the electronic address did not only represent changes related to treatment procedures and frequency or nature of expert contact; it was also important to other practices in the everyday lives of the families of patients with chronic illness. Once in place on the patients’ computers, the electronic address was ascribed at least four different roles: it was used as the intended riverbed for a flow of information, but also as a safety alarm, as a shield to the medical gaze and as a token of competence in care and parenting. The multiplicity in use and reception of an electronic address in patient settings illustrates the need to include patients’ everyday practices in current professional and political discussions of e-mail and other e-health technologies. Thus this paper argues that there is a need for research on electronic patient–provider communication that moves beyond frequency of use and questions on how technology will affect medical encounters. Social science equally needs to investigate how provider-initiated e-health technologies gets involved in patients’ moral and social performance of health and illness in everyday life. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: An implementation gap exists between policy aspirations for provision and the delivery of self-management support in primary care. An evidence based training and support package using a whole systems approach implemented as part of a randomised controlled trial was delivered to general practice staff. The trial found no effect of the intervention on patient outcomes. This paper explores why self-management support failed to become part of normal practice. We focussed on implementation of tools which capture two key aspects of self-management support - education (guidebooks for patients) and forming collaborative partnerships (a shared decision-making tool). Objectives: To evaluate the implementation and embedding of self-management support in a United Kingdom primary care setting. Design: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with primary care professionals. Settings: 12 General Practices in the Northwest of England located within a deprived inner city area. Participants: Practices were approached 3-6 months after undergoing training in a selfmanagement support approach. A pragmatic sample of 37 members of staff - General Practitioners, nurses, and practice support staff from 12 practices agreed to take part. The analysis is based on interviews with 11 practice nurses and one assistant practitioner; all were female with between 2 and 21 years' experience of working in general practice. Methods: A qualitative design involving face-to-face, semi-structured interviews audio- recorded and transcribed. Normalisation Process Theory framework allowed a systematic evaluation of the factors influencing the work required to implement the tools. Findings: The guidebooks were embedded in daily practice but the shared decision- making tools were not. Guidebooks were considered to enhance patient-centredness and were minimally disruptive. Practice nurses were reluctant to engage with behaviour change discussions. Self-management support was not formulated as a practice priority and there was minimal support for this activity within the practice: it was not auditable; [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]