↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and facilitators to using a web-based tool for diagnosis and monitoring of patients with depression: a qualitative study among Danish general practitioners

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Barriers and facilitators to using a web-based tool for diagnosis and monitoring of patients with depression: a qualitative study among Danish general practitioners
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3309-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mette Daugbjerg Krog, Marie Germund Nielsen, Jette Videbæk Le, Flemming Bro, Kaj Sparle Christensen, Anna Mygind

Abstract

Depression constitutes a significant part of the global burden of diseases. General practice plays a central role in diagnosing and monitoring depression. A telemedicine solution comprising a web-based psychometric tool may reduce number of visits to general practice and increase patient empowerment. However, the current use of telemedicine solutions in the field of general practice is limited. This study aims to explore barriers and facilitators to using a web-based version of the Major Depression Inventory (eMDI) for psychometric testing of potentially depressive patients in general practice. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with nine general practitioners (GPs) from eight general practices in the Central Denmark Region. All interviewees had previous experience in using the eMDI in general practice. Determinants for using the eMDI were identified in relation to the GPs' capability, opportunity and motivation to change clinical behaviour (the COM-B system). Our results indicate that the main barriers for using the eMDI are related to limitations in the GPs' opportunity in regards to having the time it takes to introduce change. Further, the use of the eMDI seems to be hampered by the time-consuming login process. Facilitating factors included behavioural aspects of capability, opportunity and motivation. The implementation of the eMDI was facilitated by the interviewees' previous familiarity with the paper-based version of the tool. Continued use of the eMDI was facilitated by a time-saving documentation process and motivational factors associated with clinical core values. These factors included perceptions of improved consultation quality and services for patients, improved possibilities for GPs to prioritise their patients and improved possibilities for disease monitoring. Furthermore, the flexible nature of the eMDI allowed the GPs to use the paper-based MDI for patients whom the eMDI was not considered appropriate. Implementation of a telemedicine intervention in general practice can be facilitated by resemblance between the intervention and already existing tools as well as the perception among GPs that the intervention is time-saving and improves quality of care for the patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 22%
Researcher 4 17%
Unspecified 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 11 48%
Computer Science 4 17%
Psychology 2 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 3 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 September 2018.
All research outputs
#8,111,815
of 13,459,952 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,046
of 4,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,531
of 268,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,459,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 268,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them